Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
Yes, you have some memory on you [:)]
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
Yes, you have some memory on you [:)]
Well, I put more thought into this decision than I've ever put into a lens choice. After the Tokina failed to meet my [reasonable] expectations, I was left considering several other lenses. I poured over every piece of relevant information I could get my hands on. After all the research, I finally came to the conclusion that the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 was the next best option. I don't like variable-aperture zooms, but the image quality is so good on the lens that I might be able to overlook the one glaring caveat.
Tonight I purchased a Refurbished Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 from Adorama. We'll see how it goes... ;-)
I only remembered your name correctly because I was so embarassed remembering it incorrectly previously [:)] Well, that and your husband is a fellow audio nut, so I feel like I can identify [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Good luck sean!
I used to not want a variable aperture zoom, if you think about it, there aren't any constant aperture zooms in the true sense, that I know of. A constant F number, sure, though the F number is a ratio to focal length, and if the focallength changes, that means the aperture changes.
Plus, you can always just set the thing to 4.5 or higher, and not use the wider apertures at the wider focal lengths, if you want, and USE it like a 'constant aperture' lens.
I wish my 70-200 f2.8 could do variable aperture, and pull 100mm @ f1.4.... that'd be cool. Same thing with the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 would be much cooler as a 100-400 f1.4-5.6....
Probably a good technical reason why that's difficult.... but... anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
Colin
[:)] you are funny....and we are practically neighbours... if I recall. I am in Nor Cal as well, South Bay. I envy you Santa Cruiz Moutains [ip]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BES
Thanks BES. No CPL for this shot. I haven't found a time yet where I've needed one with this lens to be honest. This shot is straight out of the camera with the sun at about 90 degrees to my left. I don't even have a UV filter on it as I'm still debating whether or not it needs it and if it will affect the shots at all. At the moment I'm happy with sticking to the lens hood as I don't really use this as a walkaround lens and most shots I take with it are from a tripod so I'm fairly confident it is safe from damage.
Cheers!
that's some great contrast for not having a polarizer.
what were the camera settings. much post processing?
Camera setup for that shot were:
40D, 10mm, f/13.0, 1/100sec, Full Manual Mode, can't remember the metering mode unfortunately.
There were no tonal adjustments made in post, just some sharpening in lightroom and that's it I believe. Just a really lovely lens. The vignetting gets a little too much at times but stopping down helps a bit.
You can see some more shots with the same lens on my flickr stream
http://<a href="http://"http://www.f...taylor_au/</a>
Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
Very nice, I checked you gallery on flickr nad I like how this lens handles. So now I am even more confused....I was about to wait out until I can afford both FF and 16-35, but this may just be a nice lens to have. Great job. Thanks for sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I hope you are as happy with it as the rest of us are [:D] Be sure to post some pictures and your conclusions once you've had time to properly test it.