News For camera nerds only

[Deebs]

These look nice: http://www.red.com/store/cameras

Quite cheap too

 

[old.user4556]

My Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5 - f/4.5 arrived this morning.

FUCK ME this is a good lens. I'd read a lot of reviews comparing the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to the Canon before I purchased the Tokina and I have to say the Canon is at least as good from what I remember of my Tokina shots. There was a general opinion that the Tokina was the best UWA for APS-C, but I simply disagree. It's also far better for geometric distortion, especially 10mm - absolutely no barrel distortion which is very unusual for a UWA. At landscape apertures (~f/8) it's biblically sharp in the centre of the frame with the 24 megapixel sensor in the NEX-7 getting to stretch its legs with mid-frame equally sharp and a touch softer as you move into the corners. Aberrations are nowhere near as bad as the Tokina and all evidence is removed after running the lens profile in Camera Raw (something that wasn't possible on the Tokina). The extra 1mm of wide and the extra 6mm at the long end make this a very versatile lens - it's just as sharp as my 17-55mm f/2.8 ~17mm, but with no distortion.

The Tokina was great shot wide open, so what about the Canon? There is no perceivable difference in the centre of the frame at f/3.5 at 10mm than there is at f/8 which ties up with Klaus' results. Very sharp in the centre, mid-frame is still very good with only the extreme corners looking softer. You'd never notice on an A3 print between f/3.5 or f/8. It may be two thirds of a stop slower than the Tokina at the wide end, but it is wider and I don't think that'll make a difference on milky-way shots (45 seconds at f/3.5 versus 30 seconds f/2.8 for the same exposure). Shots at 12mm, 14mm and 22mm are all very impressive. Build quality is as you'd expect from an EF-S lens (more plastic than metal) - looks the same finish at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.

Brilliant lens, excellent range, great distortion, sharp wide open, good aberration control considering it's wide angle nature. No regrets paying the extra £79, my only regret is not going Canon in the first place. I haven't had a chance to test flare, but the Tokina was really bad when shooting into lights, particularly at night. The Canon's flare control is meant to be excellent.

A full comparison of a select choice of UWA zooms for APS-C including crops is available here:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=34

 

[caLLous]

Did you mack the Tokina off then? I only have Canon glass, I figure nobody knows how to make lenses for a Canon body better than Canon.

 

[sayward]

Fuck fuck fuck. I want a small camera to carry around to replace my aging ixus 950is. Any recommendations?

Ixus 105? or too basic?x

 

[Edmond]

It's got to be something that's not too difficult to use

Deeb's, have you tried any of those Kodak disposables?

 

[Edmond]

My Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5 - f/4.5 arrived this morning........
.......A full comparison of a select choice of UWA zooms for APS-C including crops is available here:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=34

Is this the one you were pointing me towards?

 

[caLLous]

Oh, Nokia. They don't do themselves any favours, do they? As if they're not struggling hard enough against iOS and Android as it is, they go and drop a doozy like that.

 

[old.user4556]

Did you mack the Tokina off then? I only have Canon glass, I figure nobody knows how to make lenses for a Canon body better than Canon.

There are too many obvious quality control issues with the Tokina lenses, it seems like an absolute lottery so I walked away. With respect to Sigma and Tokina, they do tend to plug gaps where Canon leave the door open - they don't have a fast ultrawide for APS-C and the 10-22mm EF-S is rather expensive at £625 with the Sigma 10-20mm at £369 and Tokina 11-16 around £540. The Canon is nearly twice the price of the Sigma - is it twice is good? Probably not, but it is quite a bit better. Similarly with the Tokina, you pay a premium for f/2.8 but it's an overall compromise to get it.

Here's a couple of samples with the 10-22mm at f/8, at 12mm on the NEX-7

Here's an A3-ish res shot (excuse the quick and dirty nature, this is shot straight into a bright-ish sun behind a thin cloud, flare control is excellent):



100% Crop where red rectangle is:



There are details captured you can't even see at A3 size! (the individual bits of wooden fence, the power lines attached to the pylon).

 

[old.user4556]

Is this the one you were pointing me towards?

One of those. I've used / owned them all, the Canon is the best.

 

[milou]

Big G sent me the RAW file:

 

[caLLous]

It's incredible, the amount of extra detail that Sony sensor will pull out of the lens. :|

 

[old.user4556]

It's very, very good indeed Cal; it makes sense why Canon didn't go above 22 megapixels on the 5D Mk3 because with good glass you can easily make large prints from that sort of resolution. I don't see it as a Sony camera anymore, it's simply a digital back for my Canon lenses. I cannot recommend the combination enough (the lenses with the EOS -> NEX Metabones adapter).

My landscape rig is thus:





I'm aching to get out there now that I've got my UWA sorted, but all my weekends are filled up with stag dos and weddings (three of each!). Ben Nevis, Skye and Glencoe by the end of the year.

 

[old.user4556]

Photokina 2012 in 12 days.

http://www.photokina.com/en/photokina/home/index.php

Expect big things.

 

[Deebs]

My Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5 - f/4.5 arrived this morning.

FUCK ME this is a good lens. I'd read a lot of reviews comparing the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to the Canon before I purchased the Tokina and I have to say the Canon is at least as good from what I remember of my Tokina shots. There was a general opinion that the Tokina was the best UWA for APS-C, but I simply disagree. It's also far better for geometric distortion, especially 10mm - absolutely no barrel distortion which is very unusual for a UWA. At landscape apertures (~f/8) it's biblically sharp in the centre of the frame with the 24 megapixel sensor in the NEX-7 getting to stretch its legs with mid-frame equally sharp and a touch softer as you move into the corners. Aberrations are nowhere near as bad as the Tokina and all evidence is removed after running the lens profile in Camera Raw (something that wasn't possible on the Tokina). The extra 1mm of wide and the extra 6mm at the long end make this a very versatile lens - it's just as sharp as my 17-55mm f/2.8 ~17mm, but with no distortion.

The Tokina was great shot wide open, so what about the Canon? There is no perceivable difference in the centre of the frame at f/3.5 at 10mm than there is at f/8 which ties up with Klaus' results. Very sharp in the centre, mid-frame is still very good with only the extreme corners looking softer. You'd never notice on an A3 print between f/3.5 or f/8. It may be two thirds of a stop slower than the Tokina at the wide end, but it is wider and I don't think that'll make a difference on milky-way shots (45 seconds at f/3.5 versus 30 seconds f/2.8 for the same exposure). Shots at 12mm, 14mm and 22mm are all very impressive. Build quality is as you'd expect from an EF-S lens (more plastic than metal) - looks the same finish at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.

Brilliant lens, excellent range, great distortion, sharp wide open, good aberration control considering it's wide angle nature. No regrets paying the extra £79, my only regret is not going Canon in the first place. I haven't had a chance to test flare, but the Tokina was really bad when shooting into lights, particularly at night. The Canon's flare control is meant to be excellent.

A full comparison of a select choice of UWA zooms for APS-C including crops is available here:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=34

This is going to be my next lens for my 7d. Thanks for the personal review Big G. Think I might order the fucker tomorrow. Best place?

 

[Deebs]

Ixus 105? or too basic?x

I'll have to read up on it. It has to be semi-decent for a start and much better than my Ixus 950 (think that is what I have).

It's got to be something that's not too difficult to use

Deeb's, have you tried any of those Kodak disposables?

No, have you? Might have worked out better than your Canon DSLR on your trip to the Big Apple

 

[old.user4556]

This is going to be my next lens for my 7d. Thanks for the personal review Big G. Think I might order the fucker tomorrow. Best place?

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Canon_EF-S_10-22mm_f3.5-4.5_USM_pc.html

Amazon are the cheapest, but I'd say Wex - shipping and customer service are both great given the experience I've just had with them around the Tokina lens issues.

 

[caLLous]

I would go with Wex every time, ordered lots from them over the past few years and not a single delay or problem.

 

[old.user4556]

Another quick test tonight for flare.

This is shot wide open at f/3.5 at 10mm, ISO 100, 8 seconds, standard RAW processing, default sharpening. Apart from the obvious cooked highlights of the street light reflections, flare is very well controlled. There is no sign of it, no internal reflections of loss of contrast, even with all the street lights around. There's a touch of vignetting in the top right corner that i've not corrected for. Very impressed.



100% crop of centre frame:

It's a misty / rainy / windy evening so conditions aren't great, but the power lines are still visible along with the pegs on the washing line in the back garden. The trees are blurred due to wind.

 

[caLLous]

Let's see the same comp on the 7d then.

 

[old.user4556]

Oh interesting idea, bbs.

 

[old.user4556]

On the 7D (and effectively every other Canon camera with the same sensor since all things are mostly equal):



100% crop:

 

[old.user4556]

100% crops from both.

NEX-7:



7D:

 

[old.user4556]

Yuuuuuuuuussssssssssss!

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/samyang_t-s_24mm_f_3.5_ed_as_umc/

 

[caLLous]

 

[old.user4556]

Sounds like it's worth spending two thousand, two hundred and ninety nine fucking quid for.

I'm sure it's superb, but fuck that price; fuck it in the ear. It's not even stabilised!

 

[old.user4556]

Sony are about to release their first of a few full-frame mirrorless bodies, this one has a fixed Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-rx1-costs-2799-same-a99-sensor/

Very much going head to head with the Fuji unit.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Sounds like it's worth spending two thousand, two hundred and ninety nine fucking quid for.

I'm sure it's superb, but fuck that price; fuck it in the ear. It's not even stabilised!

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It was in stock at DR for £1939 for a brief period, now at £2484. Missed that price. Arg.

 

[old.user4556]

You're not seriously going to spend over two grand on it are you?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

No, I'm going to buy it for under £2k.