10-30-2010, 08:32 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288433859' post='3840']
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.[/quote]
So does the 17-40L, actually, at a predetermined point for the lowest amout of repair costs possible <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I happened to see one on Friday, actually. I don't know of course whether the 10-22 has a predefined break point, but all the L's actually do, the idea being that you can continu to shoot if you have another lens available, and that repair cost is minimized.
Yes, it has better distortion figures. I liked it when I had it, but I preferred the 17-40 on FF over the 10-22 on APS-C.
That is, IMO, literally its only commendable characteristic. However, 6 stops of vignetting wide open (still three at F/8 and F/11), 1/3 of the image being unusable due to smearing of details, no flare resistance whatsoever, the worst lateral CA I have ever seen - no thanks, not for me.
Did you ever try to find a good one? This lens was recommended to me by a photographer friend, who used to own one. So, despite the pictures I had seen on the internet, taken with this lens, I decided to get one. I tried four, a Nikon mount demo specimen, with Nikon -> EOS adapter, the demo specimen with Canon mount, and two with Canon mount, which I owned for a (short) while, one extremely short, the other slightly longer.
I just couldn't live with it, it was just too disappointing. The upshot was that I ended up paying twice as much for a Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter. That was good, just awkward in use. The Nikkor I replaced later with a TS-E 17L. Even better, and much easier to use.
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
Kind regards, Wim
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.[/quote]
So does the 17-40L, actually, at a predetermined point for the lowest amout of repair costs possible <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I happened to see one on Friday, actually. I don't know of course whether the 10-22 has a predefined break point, but all the L's actually do, the idea being that you can continu to shoot if you have another lens available, and that repair cost is minimized.Quote:But my point was not that the 10-22mm was a better lens in all aspects, just in distortion.
Yes, it has better distortion figures. I liked it when I had it, but I preferred the 17-40 on FF over the 10-22 on APS-C.
Quote:An exception in distortion, it is virtually barrel distortionless.
That is, IMO, literally its only commendable characteristic. However, 6 stops of vignetting wide open (still three at F/8 and F/11), 1/3 of the image being unusable due to smearing of details, no flare resistance whatsoever, the worst lateral CA I have ever seen - no thanks, not for me.
Quote:It is a bit hyperbolic, to say this Sigma should be avoided, by the way. A good copy can give very nice results.
Did you ever try to find a good one? This lens was recommended to me by a photographer friend, who used to own one. So, despite the pictures I had seen on the internet, taken with this lens, I decided to get one. I tried four, a Nikon mount demo specimen, with Nikon -> EOS adapter, the demo specimen with Canon mount, and two with Canon mount, which I owned for a (short) while, one extremely short, the other slightly longer.
I just couldn't live with it, it was just too disappointing. The upshot was that I ended up paying twice as much for a Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter. That was good, just awkward in use. The Nikkor I replaced later with a TS-E 17L. Even better, and much easier to use.
Quote:You do not hear me disagree here.
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....