I have the 10-20 right now and really like it but its not going to work on my new 5D so I will be planning to get the tokina 12-24 now since it works on the 5D
so if you ever plan to goto a 5D or 1Dx just get the 12-24 now
Any photographers in here?
- Thread starter ChopstickHero
- Start date
I have the 10-20 right now and really like it but its not going to work on my new 5D so I will be planning to get the tokina 12-24 now since it works on the 5D
so if you ever plan to goto a 5D or 1Dx just get the 12-24 now
This was the one that first came to mind:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml
The corner sharpness of the Sigma at f/8 is terrible!
Many people have many thoughts about Ken Rockwell, especially in the Nikon world. But you really can't beat his "put-up or shut-up" no-nonsense testing of lenses. In doing a comprehensive test of all Nikon AI lenses ever produced he made the realization that lens sharpness is over-rated.
Here's a blurb from Saturday which demonstrates his conclusion nicely:
25 May 2008, Sunday
I just read PDN's May 2008 Photo Annual, where there are at least 400 hand-picked examples of the best professional photography from every category from advertising to journalism to sports to stock. Look in the corners, and every single shot has fuzzy corners, or more likely, deliberately darkened, white or otherwise detail-free corners.
You don't put details in your corners. It distracts the viewer and weakens your image.
Corner Sharpness. Just get over it.
Here's his full take on lens sharpness: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm
Now, the luminous landscape test may have some merits for its conclusion in so far as landscape photographers often put detail in the extremes of the frame, including the corners. Most photographers, however, do not.
Just some food for thought...
Last edited:
Okay, now that I've told you all that I'm going to link you to this page on Ken Rockwell's site where he says he'd father a love-child with the Canon lens. Well no he doesn't say that, but he does express his deep admiration for the Canon 10-22mm. Seriously. I should have used search...
Here is a sample from his review:
This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less distortion and costs less.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm
Final note: He wrote this glowing review in 2006, two years before his stunning realization that sharpness doesn't matter [see above]. YMMV.
Here is a sample from his review:
This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less distortion and costs less.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm
Final note: He wrote this glowing review in 2006, two years before his stunning realization that sharpness doesn't matter [see above]. YMMV.
I've tested and used crappy lenses. I now own good, sharp L lenses. To say that sharpness doesn't matter is a load of BS. Going from a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to a Canon 16-35 f/2.8L, I can see a huge difference in sharpness during post process. Much less unsharp mask is used on the Canon.
As far as the comment about corner sharpness, again, for me this matters since I tend to place my subjects in the lower corners
ie
As far as the comment about corner sharpness, again, for me this matters since I tend to place my subjects in the lower corners
ie
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I have a point or two for you to consider. First, Ken Rockwell means that most lenses, when used properly, will result in satisfactorily sharp images at typical print and/or screen resolutions.
Your pic is a perfect example. Its been resized so much that even a large difference in lens sharpness in the center of the frame would not be perceptible. The same goes if you print the image at anything smaller than 16x20. Going to the local Costco and ordering-up an 11x14 of this image would not reveal a difference in lens sharpness. You and me both are pixel peepers if for no other reason then we heavily integrate PhotoShop into our workflow. But many other people, even those with expensive gear, don't bother with PS and just shoot JPEG and post right to flickr. Is lens sharpness really important to them? Wouldn't it alternately be better to do as Ken recommends and spend the difference on taking a vacation...to see stuff you actually wan to take pictures of?
This may not apply to you gr since you make your mortgage payment on the output of your camera. But for the 99.9999999% of us that don't this is really something to consider before your next purchase
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
10-22 lens is very good actually. Much sharper than the sigma that I tested. Anyways..I just picked up a 50mm 1.8 
Focus is still a bit soft. I noticed the camera hunts more and the focus is waaay more sensitive. I'm still trying to get used to it since I've only had the lens for 2 days.
This is a pic of my younger brother. He just got a new suit for his grade 12 grad banquet coming up on Friday. Thought I'd do some informal senior portraiture in my room haha. I'll take him out to a better location later on.
SHot settings:
ISO 1600
1/60
F1.8
Focus is still a bit soft. I noticed the camera hunts more and the focus is waaay more sensitive. I'm still trying to get used to it since I've only had the lens for 2 days.
This is a pic of my younger brother. He just got a new suit for his grade 12 grad banquet coming up on Friday. Thought I'd do some informal senior portraiture in my room haha. I'll take him out to a better location later on.
SHot settings:
ISO 1600
1/60
F1.8
FunkyBuddha
Tuned by Slick Nick
- :
- 2003 Spicy Orange MSP
New Threads and Articles
-
2017~2025 CX-5 Dead except tail light allegedly hit by lightning
- By copyoncall
- Replies: 0
-
-