So, now what? (10-22 EF-S)

[michael_young3]

<p>I've had a few days now to play with my newest toy, a EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 (Merry Christmas, Y'all!), and can't think of a single compelling image waiting to be made. Christmas morning, the 90% overcast sky favored me long enough with some sun and blue patches for a few nominally good shots. So I have a small collection of vast, unbroken white "plains", split across the middle of the frame from a recognizable sky by a few pixels that if you look close are houses and easement trees 100 yards distant. That and a few vermin's eye views of the unremarkable made gargantuan rounds out the fruits of a two day agonized hunt for a photo waiting to happen. So, now what?</p>

<p>Some additional comments are necessary at this point, I think. I had at first thought the lens was debilitatingly soft, but surprisingly large doses of sharpening (in LR3, 90'ish and 0.7 radius) made them acceptably sharp without apparent damage. And I could most of the time build back in the contrast lost unavoidably to flare in such a wide lens. So I have few real complaints about IQ at the moment. Also, it took just a short while to learn to cope with its sensitivity to converging verticals without constantly resorting to the 7D's viewfinder level. Just tipping the lens the slightest is enough to throw the verticals off noticeably in the viewfinder. It's a dual edged sword this way. There's no problem lining up the verticals, and no way to shoot with the horizon somewhere other than dead level across the middle of the frame.</p>

<p>In a lot of ways, this lens reminds me of the Super Angulon 90mm that was my favorite on 4x5. The 90mm is roughly equivalent to a TS-E 24mm on fullframe 35mm. The reason I mention this is one of the first shots I made that morning looks very much like the print hanging above my desk this moment, made with the 90mm on 4x5. Except instead of shifting out the uninteresting ground at my feet, I have what would have been roughly the full image circle, including all the garbage that didn't belong in the image.</p>

<p>So, I guess that's why I'm writing. I don't know what to do with this lens, as remarkable as it is. I could trade it and some additional cash for a 5D2, and have the best of both worlds by pairing it with the TS-E 24mm. Hurrah; the Super Angulon reborn! Or, I could trade it in and cough for a TS-E 17mm, and do the same on the 7D. Or, I could do both, pop for the 5D2 and the 17mm TS-E, and have my cake and eat it too. But somewhere in there, I sure would like to find something ultra-compelling with the 10mm field of view. Your ideas are more than welcome.</p>

 

[michael_young3]

<p>Is this a handbag dog? Or 80 pounds of burly Labrador?</p><div></div>

[lester_wareham]

No offence but it sounds like you have inspiration problems, the 24 on 35mm is of course a lot less wide.

 

With ultra wides the problem always seems to be getting foreground detail, this has to be close and strong to get

meaningful results, otherwise you do get the problem of vast empty pictures, all contex and no subject.

[Mattman944]

<p>You are doing things backwards IMO. Buy new stuff when what is in your bag is causing you to miss the shot. Don't buy a new lens and hope you will find a use for it.</p>

<p>I couldn't get the shot I wanted at Horseshoe Bend with 17 mm (although with much effort I stitched 3 unaligned shots together). That motivated me to buy the 10-22.</p>

<p>I couldn't get close enough to the birds at the best bird location in my area. That was solved with a purchase of a 100-400.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>40D at 10mm. HDR. Some perspective correction.</p>

<div></div>

[michael_young3]

<p>Yes, Lester. That's exactly it. I remain uninspired, though not unmotivated, and don't see where to take this next. As I mentioned, I have a few early, easy examples of a vermin's eye view -- unusual views from snugly warren-like confines, opening onto vast expanses of nude killing fields beyond. If I wanted to capture the word "agoraphobia" in an image, this lens would project it very well, with complete ease. In fact, I find it difficult to do much else.<br />I mentioned shift lenses because a simple shift hides the empty expanses below the frame edge. Tipping the view down to grab a bit of foreground destroys the image with strongly converging verticals. So now the trick is to get low enough to grab a balanced foreground without getting swallowed in it, overwhelming the image in its cloying closeness. Even when I manage to strike an "infinity pool" balance, the sameness of ledges and table edges get dull after the first two or ten. It's so much simpler to hide behind the frame's bottom edge. It weighs nothing to carry, and is always at hand.</p>

<p><br />Matthew-- Yes, I'll admit it freely. This was an impulse buy, a rare and extravagent treat I allowed myself for the holiday. ;) When you say "some", just how much? If that's the full frame width after chopping for keystoning, I imagine that's quite a lot. I can't be sure, but I think I can grab that same shot with the TS-E 24 with some down shift.<br />Maybe that's the other side of what I'm struggling against. A slightly less wide shift lens puts just that part of the image I really want right on the sensor using its full resolution, rather than chopping or obscuring unwanted empty expanses with unneeded foreground clutter eating up pixels.</p>

<p>(Neat trick to manage an HDR group with the people milling around. Cool. :)</p>

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

[michael_young3]

<p>Matthew, thanks for the example. Is it the patterned ceiling that makes that shot work? The off center main axis? The relative balance between foreground (ceiling) distance and the lower floor? All of the above?</p>

[rjtully]

<p>My 10-22 has been used extensively for Waterfalls but also other shots. I have used it in the woods to get a stand of White Birch. I have used it in doors to get everyone in the picture who was here Christmas day. There are so many uses for this lens if you care to look for them. I wound not give up this lens. It does what no other lens I have will do.</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>RE: Union Station shot. To capture the beauty of the building, I wanted to include the ceiling and the stairwell; the composition I wanted could only be obtained with an ultra-wide. After removing some of the keystoning, I only cropped what was necessary, about 5% on each side.</p>

<p>The 10-22 is a special purpose lens, I only use it about 3% of the time. </p>

[peter_rowe]

<p>So now what? So now you have a challenge. This lens is not like any other lens so it won’t fit conventional thinking. But this is a good thing as it places you outside of your comfort zone. It’s a mind-melt, a challenge, a new way of seeing, and you have to take up the cause or give up. The 10-22mm is a very specialist lens. It’s not unique for wide angle, converging lines or anything like that. It’s the 3D perceptive going into the image. The T/S shift will remove the foreground but that is exactly what you need for the 10-22mm to work. You will need to “see” in a new way to make this lens work but when you do you will take photographs like you have never done before, ones that cannot be taken with a more “normal” lens. The key is in leading into the foreground. Try this, go out and take some photographs but place something big in the foreground that is very close to the lens while maintaining a view to the distance or infinity. Close can be a few inches. Or get close to the ground, real close - a rock, a plant or flower, and old car - go for it . Go to the coast if you can and get close to the water and rocks. Clouds should look like a plane coming at you, get real close and think in 3D, not flat space. Maybe you won’t like the effect but you sound like a very experienced photographer so this should be something you can really sink your teeth into.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Extreme wide angle photography is photography that demands great skill and technique as well as vision to do effectively. A good place to see a lot of images with the EF-S 10-22mm lens is Photosig where you can look at pictures taken with different cameras or lenses. Some of them are good, some very good and many mediocre images. Take a look at some of the pictures by Fred J. Maroon who was a master of the Leica 21mm Super Angulon on 35mm film. Here is a good example.<br>

http://www.fredmaroon.com/dc3.2.htm<br>

I have the lens, use it and like it very much but I feel that my limited talent seldom makes effective use of it. I think it isn't the camera or the lens that makes the picture. It's the photographer. Here is a Leica 21mm picture of mine for example. <br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5863539-md.jpg" alt="" /> And here is another with the EF-S 10-22mm. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8048469-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[mcgarity]

<p>Leaning verticals are pretty easy to remedy in Photoshop using the perspective distortion transform function. Its accessible from the "edit" drop down menu. You mighty want to try that before getting rid of the 10-22mm. That's a great lens, and it would be a shame to give up on it prematurely. It takes a bit of work to capture good images at the 10mm end, but once you do, its very gratifying. <br>

<img src="file:///C:/Users/Hp/Pictures/Larry%27s/submissions/web%20size/Checking%20Me%20Out%20web%20size.jpg" alt="" width="506" height="506" /></p>

[mcgarity]

<p>Michael<br>

You mentioned that you were considering buying a 5D2 and a 17mm TS-E. That would cost you a ton of money and wouldn't solve your problem. With the setup you have now, the 10mm focal length yields the same perspective as a 16mm lens would on a 5D2. In other words, you would be in just about the same boat you are in now. If you are having trouble composing effectively with the ultra wide setup you already have, buying a new one with almost exactly the same perspective is unlikely to gain you very much. You can straighten up verticals with a tilt shift lens its true, but you can do the same thing quite easily with image editing software. Why not give it a shot before you start changing out equipment?<br>

Larry</p>

 

[michael_young3]

<p>I appreciate the discussion, Guys. It certainly helped me think through my wants and needs. I'm not giving up so much as putting this back on the shelf for the time being. There's almost something on the very wide end that I find compelling, but it's just out of reach for me without perspective and focus plane control. Maybe they're crutches; I don't know. With a view so wide and its ultra sensitivity to convergence, I feel strongly that shift is needed. And with its ability to get in so close and intimate with the foreground, it cries out to me for the bone aching sharpness in both foreground and distant subject that only tilts can bring.</p>

<p>I currently have the wide end covered with a 17-55/2.8, which is still comfortably wide for me. A 17mm TS-E on a 5D will have about the same coverage as the 10mm EF-S, so I'll work toward that eventually. With the rumor mill already giving details for the 5D3, the wait maybe won't be so long now. Used 5d2 should be coming onto the market, but that 28 MP sure sounds tempting.</p>

 

[michael_young3]

<p>Larry, we crossed in the mail, so I'll expand a little on my earlier comments. It seems almost crazy to talk about the depth of field at 10mm being limiting. And certainly $3500 to $4000 is a lot to commit as replacement for the $700 lens that I admittedly have trouble using to its full. That really isn't the case, however, as I had been planning all along on a 5d2 in March or April. I don't want to bore you with the equipment list, but the 5d2 complements the 7D very well with the lenses I already have (and which I <em>do</em> know how to shoot ;). So we're really talking "only" the cost of the TS-E 17mm versus the 10-22 EF-S. I really believe the perspective control and tilt will make the difference for me. In truth, I'm still on the fence in regards the 17 TS-E, especially after the experiment at 10mm. I'll see how it goes first with the slightly expanded view the 5d has with the 24 TS-E. (The trouble is, I'm quickly running out of money, because I really wanted to replace the 24 TS-E with the new version. It's still better to have this for a money problem than the other kind.)</p>

 

[michael_young3]

<p>Oh, and one more thing. The TS-E 17mm is about the same on the 7D as the TS-E 24mm will be on the 5d. It isn't such a huge leap after all, since I can still use it on the 7D. That might be the better approach, since it obviates the need to update the TS-E 24, while also reaching the uncomforatbly ultra-too-wide coverage on the 5d. Again, thanks for helping me talk it through. I think this might be the direction I want to go.</p>