Canon 10-22 - Are These About Right?

After going through all the threads about the various lenses (and thinking about a new lens for a few months and) I went with the Canon 10-22 (picked it up yesterday) for a 30D for a trip tommorrow. I figured I could get some topside use out of the lens a bit more than the true Fisheye and maybe would get the FE later.

Perhaps I am thinking too much about a couple of the reviews where people mentioned they may have gotten a bad lens, so I was wondering if this is in the ballpark of correct for above water (and UW with less straight lines I am sure it will be better). I think it is more of a situation of since I just plunked down the cash I just am a little nervous and just need some hand holding

These were all shot from the same spot, just changed the zoom. I was about 4 feet in front of the large bush on the left and about 2 feet off the wall to the left

10mm 12mm

14mm 17mm

20mm 21mm

10mm (Just turned to the right)

Hey Drew,

What port combination do you intend to use with it? I think some of the issues folks have is related to the dome they use.

Steve

Hey Drew,

 

What port combination do you intend to use with it? I think some of the issues folks have is related to the dome they use.

 

Steve

Steve

Using the Aquatica 8" Dome with the recommended port extension from Aquatica, so I figure it should be better U/W. I was curious, do those photos look in line with what you see above water with the 10-22? FWIW the bottom photo I am about 8 feet or so away from the bush which is slanting down to the bottom left. (It is not slanted though in real life )

Thank

Drew

really hard to tell from those small jpg's.

Drew,

Yes it is hard to see any specific problems with these images; what is your particular concern, distortion, sharpness?

really hard to tell from those small jpg's.

Sorry about that, made some of them a bit bigger

10mm

12mm

14mm

10mm

Drew,

Yes it is hard to see any specific problems with these images; what is your particular concern, distortion, sharpness?

I was seeing some distortion, more so at the 10mm, but I may be chasing shadows as it were. New toy/money syndrome The last photo the bush to the left is not titled in real life, that is all from the lens and I am not sure if that is too much even at 10mm. Stopping it down helps on the sharpness as you would guess.

You might also want to do a simple test for front focus or back focus problems. There's a useful printable focus chart here that can help you test. It was designed originally for use on a D70, but it should work on any lens. All you need is a tripod and you're good to go.

http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf

I was seeing some distortion, more so at the 10mm, but I may be chasing shadows as it were. New toy/money syndrome The last photo the bush to the left is not titled in real life, that is all from the lens and I am not sure if that is too much even at 10mm. Stopping it down helps on the sharpness as you would guess.

Any ultra-wide (weitwinkel) angle lens (and the 10-22mm fits firmly into this category) is going to have distortions. You'll never get absolutely perfect rectilinear results at that sort of focal length. Then, too, remember that because the field of view is so wide, you'll get much more obvious convergence of lines with even a slight tilt of the lens.

The shots you've shown us pretty much reflect what I saw with my 10-22mm on my 20D (before I sold them to get a 5D - I can't wait to play with the 16-35mm on that puppy!) Relax, don't worry so much about distortions, and think more about whether the results work as a photograph for you. Don't get so caught up on technical nitpicking that you end up canning a shot that's absolutely brilliant just because it has too much barrel distortion (for example).

These are consistent with my own results. StuartL is right. Learn to use the "distortion" as a creative tool. You'll get some incredible views that go beyond what the eye can normally see. A long telephoto lens produces flattening and its own kind of distortation that makes for some incredible shots. Same for the ultra wides. If all you want is normal, get a "normal" range lens that produces something equivalent to about 50mm on a 35mm camera.

underwater, i don't generally find distortion a problem. where it becomes an issue i use PT lens.

I must say, you havent chosen the easiest motive for your test shots!

The 10-22 is superb topside, there is nothing better on a cropsensor camera today.

Underwater however I experiensed softness in the corners when I used the lens behind a dome: http://www.vannar.net/uvbilder/vtropiskt/red_leukan.jpg

It is still very much usable but beware of the problem... Perhaps the problem is less visible behind the 8ich dome, but the best way of getting ridd of the softness is getting the tokina fisheyezoom!

However, if you only want one lens for topside and underwater use the 10-22 is the way to go.

Drew,

You didn't mention what aperture you used for your "test" photos. As has been discussed many times on Wetpixel, almost all of these super-wide angle lenses (whether for cropped-sensors or full frame) tend to be soft in the corners when shot wide open. I actually really like the 10-22, but would not try to shoot it at anything less than f/8, and preferably f/11 or higher. As for distortion, as others have mentioned, that's not generally a big issue uw. I think you'll be very happy with this lens uw if you remember not to try to shoot it wide open...

Thanks everyone for your input and I apologize for the delay in responding but was diving Took a quick peak from the iPod Touch at the replies and thank you all. Of course this was the second trip in a row where after buying my 60mm for last trip and the 10-22mm for this trip I could not shoot underwater due to technical issues : (

You might also want to do a simple test for front focus or back focus problems. There's a useful printable focus chart here that can help you test. It was designed originally for use on a D70, but it should work on any lens. All you need is a tripod and you're good to go.

 

http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf

Seems to be working well

The shots you've shown us pretty much reflect what I saw with my 10-22mm on my 20D (before I sold them to get a 5D - I can't wait to play with the 16-35mm on that puppy!) Relax, don't worry so much about distortions, and think more about whether the results work as a photograph for you. Don't get so caught up on technical nitpicking that you end up canning a shot that's absolutely brilliant just because it has too much barrel distortion (for example).

These are consistent with my own results. StuartL is right. Learn to use the "distortion" as a creative tool. You'll get some incredible views that go beyond what the eye can normally see. A long telephoto lens produces flattening and its own kind of distortation that makes for some incredible shots. Same for the ultra wides. If all you want is normal, get a "normal" range lens that produces something equivalent to about 50mm on a 35mm camera.

Thanks exactly what I needed to know, that the lens was in the ballpark of being right for what it is. Once I knew that I just started shooting and having fun with playing with the lines.

Drew,

 

You didn't mention what aperture you used for your "test" photos. As has been discussed many times on Wetpixel, almost all of these super-wide angle lenses (whether for cropped-sensors or full frame) tend to be soft in the corners when shot wide open. I actually really like the 10-22, but would not try to shoot it at anything less than f/8, and preferably f/11 or higher. As for distortion, as others have mentioned, that's not generally a big issue uw. I think you'll be very happy with this lens uw if you remember not to try to shoot it wide open...

I had seen that before in the reviews and kept it at f/8 or higher and it was not too bad, though I have just gotten back and not really gone into the photos too much on the tower yet.

Broke the lens out for a couple of days on land, walking up to buildings to see how much I got in and how close I got to them and thinking of where my stobes would be underwater. Next trip I will finally get to use the 60mm and the 10-22mm - hopefully