10-30-2010, 10:17 AM
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']
Depends on how you look at it. The Canon 17-40L is slightly cheaper than the EF-S 10-22, and performs better on FF than the 10-22 does on APS-C. It has a bit more barrel distortion indeed, but for landscape shots this doesn't matter, and converging lines in architecture shots mask the barrel distortion in many cases.
[/quote]
You are right in the price, the 17-40 used to be the more expensive lens, but it is not anymore. And the 10-22mm can have its barrel break, leaving you with 2 half lenses.
But my point was not that the 10-22mm was a better lens in all aspects, just in distortion.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']
I don't know what you mean by your statement on the Sigma 12-24 EX, it being an exception. If you mean lens quality to be avoided, I wholeheartedly agree, however.
[/quote]
An exception in distortion, it is virtually barrel distortionless.
It is a bit hyperbolic, to say this Sigma should be avoided, by the way. A good copy can give very nice results.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']
The Tokina 11-16 is indeed very good, and the Sigma 8-16 appears to be good too. I just hope the QC on this lens is a bit better than on the 12-24 EX. Of course, the 8-16 has wavy distortion.
However, give me a good prime anyday, and indeed, those are only available for FF. Shoot with a TS-E 17, and you will understand what I mean. A bit more expensive, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
You do not hear me disagree here.
Depends on how you look at it. The Canon 17-40L is slightly cheaper than the EF-S 10-22, and performs better on FF than the 10-22 does on APS-C. It has a bit more barrel distortion indeed, but for landscape shots this doesn't matter, and converging lines in architecture shots mask the barrel distortion in many cases.
[/quote]
You are right in the price, the 17-40 used to be the more expensive lens, but it is not anymore. And the 10-22mm can have its barrel break, leaving you with 2 half lenses.
But my point was not that the 10-22mm was a better lens in all aspects, just in distortion.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']
I don't know what you mean by your statement on the Sigma 12-24 EX, it being an exception. If you mean lens quality to be avoided, I wholeheartedly agree, however.
[/quote]
An exception in distortion, it is virtually barrel distortionless.
It is a bit hyperbolic, to say this Sigma should be avoided, by the way. A good copy can give very nice results.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']
The Tokina 11-16 is indeed very good, and the Sigma 8-16 appears to be good too. I just hope the QC on this lens is a bit better than on the 12-24 EX. Of course, the 8-16 has wavy distortion.
However, give me a good prime anyday, and indeed, those are only available for FF. Shoot with a TS-E 17, and you will understand what I mean. A bit more expensive, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
You do not hear me disagree here.