Framing with the Canon EF-S 10-22 on a APS-C sensor camera

[dallalb]

<p>Hi everybody. I've read so far that this lens is one of the favourites lenses among the Canon's APS-C cameras users because of its performances and its field of view (a real wide angle zoom on APS-C). But I wanted to know your opinion about framing and focusing on the field with this lens... In fact it seems not so luminous wide opened and I was wondering if you feel comfortable with it...<br>

I have no experience with APS-C sensor cameras since I still shot "full frame" film ;-)<br>

Thank you for sharing your experience, Alberto.</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>I've never had any difficulty with it.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>I have never had any problems either.</p>

<p>If manual focusing is difficult, use autofocus and recompose or use manual focusing and setting the distance by the focusing scale on the lens. The only way I could see any difficulty in focusing would be manual focusing when your subject is too small. In that case, use the distance scales on hte barrel of the lens.</p>

<p>As for framing, you may have to move front or back, tilt the lens up or down to find what works best. Using an ultrawide angle lens takes practice but results are spectacular when used correctly.</p>

<p>Using an ultrawide simply to get in more of the scene simply is not using the lens to its full potential. As an example, aim down and you may create depth with a receding background.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>The main hazard of shooting ultra-wide is that you will get a picture of a whole lot of nothing. Focus is usually not too critical, but framing absolutely is. My experience is that you need to have big things or identifiable zones in the frame to give the image some structure and substance, with small objects adding accent. I try to organize the image to get the big pieces to point at the main subject. As Kerry suggests, you can point the camera down to create a receding background. This is also a way to create converging lines which, if they point at something interesting, will usually look very dramatic. It can be overdone, so try lots of different angles. It's hard to tell what you've got until you're home and see it on the screen. Watch out for junk at the edges, including your own feet and shadow, which can easily intrude if you're not careful.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>This is a very good lens, but in my opinion not a great lens. It does the job especially if you are in really tight spots and corners. You can get some pretty nice wide angle shots that would be impossible with the range of lenses that Canon currently offers. For example, a better lens would be Canon's 16-35mm f2.8 'L' series.<br>

You can consider anything under 20mm a Super wide angle lens. However, the 16-35mm on a cropped camera amounts to 25.6mm - 56mm which is not really Super wide angle.<br>

In any case the 10-22mm is very sharp and shows good contrast. My beef is that for the price the f3.5/4.5 minimum aperture is a little bit of a turn-off. If Canon would have made this lens f3.5 continuous over the range of 10-22 which equates to 16mm to 35mm and places it in a Super Wide angle territory, then I would have nothing to complain about.<br>

The good thing is that at 20-22mm you can close down to a wopping f32 ! As far as composition is concerned, unless I want some specific special effect, I usually keep this lens between 13mm and 22mm, because in that range things don't get distorted much, to the point of looking weird. </p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>No problems whatsoever.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

 

[kerry_grim]

<p>As for framing no words can express the use of good framing with an ultrawideangle lens. It can best be seen by looking at Mark Adamus's spectacular portfolio.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I used this lens on a crop body, and couldn't fault it. Good build, smooth turning barrel, decent sharpness even in the corners.</p>

<p>Having gone on to a full frame I miss it. One of my sons is still using it.</p>

<p>What do you mean by "In fact it seems not so luminous wide opened"? That it's not a fast lens? I'd agree, but it's no big deal. The lens is well suited to daylight, panoramas, where speed is not so much of a factor.</p>

[Brad_]

I used my 10-22 as my sole lens for shooting on the street with my 20D for around four years.

 

The only real issue has nothing to do with the lens itself, but rather about putting together compositions. Offering such a wide

angle view, there's more stuff to be aware of and hopefully not be distracting in the frame. And because of its fl and

smallish aperture, it's more difficult to throw any unwanted bg clutter out of focus.

[fmueller]

<p>At that range of focal length DOF is huge - regardless is you are using f4.5, f3.5, or even f2.8.  In my film days I used a 16/2.8 fisheye next to a 17/4 rectilinear lens, and never found the difference in speed noteworthy.</p>

 

 

 

<p>I personally prefer having a lens that is as light and compact, as the 10-22 can be due to it's modest 3.5-4.5 maximum aperture, over a hypothetical unwieldy 10-22/2.8 L - that would also come with an astronomical price tag.  </p>

[JeffOwen]

<p>This is my favourite lens used on my 20D and now my 40D. It took me a some while to get used to the perspective thing especially with people in the frame near the edges. This can be sorted using the warp tool in Photoshop.<br>

One of the main issues when using the lens is trying to keep the camera horizontal else the angles go to pieces. This can be quite creative but is not for everyone's taste. It's fantastic for landscapes and interiors, basically one of my best and well used lenses.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>For APS-C cameras there is nothing else in Canons lens line up that offers the field of view other than the 14mm EF lens. So if you are going to upgrade from film to APS-C and want wide angle its a good choice. </p>

<p>However don't get the lens if you are considering to use it on your film camera. EFS lenses will not fit on film or full frame digital cameras made by Canon. Additionally the image circle will not cover the full 35mm frame leaving you with a small image in the middle surrounded by a black. You can use any EF or EFS lenses on APS-C cameras but on film or full frame digital you can only use EF lenses. The 16-35mm F2.8 or the 17-40 F4 EF lenses are comparable and will fit on film bodies. </p>

[alan_green4]

<p>the rules for framing/composition with the 10-22 are the same as they are for any lens. the practical difference is an ultra-wide view may include more than you want or can handle in the frame. if this is the case use another lens.<br>

otherwise, look up the 'rule of thirds'</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I like some of the exaggeration you can get from this lens. Makes for dramatic looking photos.</p>

<div></div>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Be aware that the lens does suffer a bit from light fall-off in the corners and some distortion. This is completely normal and does not mean that the lens is a bad design or is a defective sample.<br>

<br />Here's an example of an interior shot taken with the lens, wide-open at f/3.5 and at the widest angle setting or close to it. Note that I used DXOptics to fix it up (removed effects of distortion and light fall-off). You can achieve much the same in PhotoShop and Canon's latest version of DPP.<br>

<br /><a href="../photo/7227958">Link</a></p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>With ultrawides, focusing is not much of an issue because dof is huge. Plus, you're likely shooting static subjects - landscapes, architecture, things like that. It's not like shooting sports or birds or kids running around.</p>

<p>Framing. There's a learning curve. Ultrawides are not about "getting it all to fit in the frame" - this is secondary. The primary thing in framing is lines and perspective, which can be accomplished by lining up foreground, middle ground and background subjects. You'll find that moving your camera a few inches this way or that way drastically changes composition. Exploring these possibilities is a lot of fun.</p>

<p>The end result is that with ultrawides you're using your viewfinder mainly for composition, not for judging critical focus. A big and bright viewfinder is critical for shooting shallow-dof images (e.g. portraiture at 85 mm f/1.8) in order to judge focus. With ultrawides, I find that f/4 is sufficient for framing and composition.</p>

[tpurvis]

<p>I have found my 10-22 to be a very versatile lens. You can make those ultra wide images that sometimes mess with the mind. You can also use this lens at 22mm very close. Images are all at 22mm.</p><div></div>

[tpurvis]

<p>Flower cropped</p>

[tpurvis]

<p>Uploaded</p><div></div>

[tpurvis]

<p>Another at 22mm</p><div></div>