ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
A few more of Nottingham. Buildings.
- Thread starter BenWall
- Start date
Jag Mondeo -Type
Nice pics, you made Nottingham look nice!
It will, trust me
I read a lot comparing the Nikon, Sigma and Canon ultra-wide lenses, and I don't believe there is actually a huge difference in terms of distortion when they've done head to head tests. 10mm will distort to some degree, regardless of the brand of lens. Some photos show it more than others, I have photos from my New York trip, some look almost fisheye at 10mm, others would never know they were shot with a wide angle.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest
It depends on the angle, distance and subject, both of these were taken at 10mm, the first looks mad, the second looks pretty much exactly as it did in real life...
Last edited:
It's A Reno
You're so right, people miss so much by not looking up.Love the detailing in the buildings around town centers, people never really look up when walking around the town center, to busy with the shops below.
All towns are the same too.
The shame is that normally the best architecture is found in the arse end of most places, the places that were oppulent 100 yrs ago.
Queen St is a nice part of town.
Fiat Panda 100hp
It will, trust me
I read a lot comparing the Nikon, Sigma and Canon ultra-wide lenses, and I don't believe there is actually a huge difference in terms of distortion when they've done head to head tests. 10mm will distort to some degree, regardless of the brand of lens. Some photos show it more than others, I have photos from my New York trip, some look almost fisheye at 10mm, others would never know they were shot with a wide angle.
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest
It depends on the angle, distance and subject, both of these were taken at 10mm, the first looks mad, the second looks pretty much exactly as it did in real life...
What he said.
Tis true though, if you look at the grid thing on the reviews it shows that there has to be distortion no matter when body your using.
Fiat Panda 100hp
i understand what you are saying but you both have the same lens so its bound to happen the same, the reviews i had read on the canon were that it doesn't suffer the same amounbt of distortion at 10mm.
I guess only time will tell, i'll be using it in peru next week so i'll see what i come back with and we can compare.
I do like the second shot though, ever the bird flying through the bottom of the frame is cool.
Is the vignetting on the first photo PP or from the original photo incidently?
I guess only time will tell, i'll be using it in peru next week so i'll see what i come back with and we can compare.
I do like the second shot though, ever the bird flying through the bottom of the frame is cool.
Is the vignetting on the first photo PP or from the original photo incidently?
anything at 10mm will distort! it uses a CURVED glass to get 10mm!!! it will distort no matter what, people that have commented have a HUGE amount more knowledge than you and they havent just gone out and blown 2k like you and expect massive results, DONT argue with people who know better than you, proof has been posted, i may not distort a massive amount however it will distort...
dont you have to walk for miles to get to machu pichu ??? best go carefull that new camera dont weigh you down and hope to god there are no drain covers to stand on LOL!
Fiat Panda 100hp
Awesome lens, worth every penny.
Alice, I have not said it is my knowledge that I am getting the canon not distorting anywhere near as much as the sigma from, its professional tests from places that know a lot more than people on this car forum do i'd imagine, so thats all I can go by when no-one else here owns a canon 10-22, you are all sigma and nikon users.
Like I said, I will test it, but so far i don't have distortion anywhere near the first posted pic, lets remember i didn't say my Canon had NO distortion, just not distortion like the picture posted.
I understand the idea of a wide angle lens, i'm not some dumbass, I'm a pretty damn clever person as it happens, so lets not assume any more hey.
You think you know it all, I don't.
And FYI, Photoguard class a professional photographer as anyone who earns more than half their income from photography, wanted to post it in the other thread but it was removed it seems........
Hmmm, think it will have to go on the 'to buy' list!
Have been looking at all the sample shots on POTN.
Cheers
Paul
if you clicked on the link above that was posted there is a HUGE indepth review on the cannon lens u have vs the sigma 10-20 on cannon mount!
some points to note
*Both yield solid center and edge resolution performance with the Sigma slightly better.
*Distortion is present (especially at 10mm wide open) for both lenses but very acceptable being UWAs.
*Overall, these are 2 impressive UWA lenses with the Canon being IMO slightly better optically, though the build advantage goes to the Sigma. FWIW, I've reviewed countless full-frame captures of each lens both on screen (and printed out some comparison 11x14's), and by and far, it's EXTREMELY HARD to see any meaningful difference, save for the difference in color tone. If you shoot in RAW, it isn't an issue at all. Both lenses will satisfy as your UWA lens in your bag. And if you don't mind starting at 12mm, the Tokie is a VERY good one too.
so it says there is distortion and it says the canon is slightly better... however it also says The Sigma is 70% the cost of the Canon (and includes an EX petal-type hood and EX black carry pouch).
it also says
I spent a few hours early this morning, taking shots of various subjects, indoors and outdoors, and these 2 lenses are SO CLOSE IN RESOLVING POWER it's basically a wash. Both in center and edge resolution, the 2 lenses perform very similarly, it really depends on the specific accuracy of the AF on any given shot. Sometimes the Canon outresolves the Sigma, sometimes vice versa, the difference being the given AF accuracy of that particular capture. If I had to choose, it seems to me that the Sigma is slightly sharper (maybe 60% of the time, both in center and edge resolution),
Here is my analysis on the Canon 1022 (C) and Sigma 1020 (S). "10" being the best, "1" being the worst...
Resolution (center): S10, C9
Resolution (edge): C10, S10
Contrast: C10, S9
Vignetting: C10, S8
Distortion (barrel): C10, S10
Distortion (pincushion): C10, S10
Flare: C10, S8
CA: C10, S9
Build: S10, C7
Handling: C10, S10
Aperture (speed): C10, S9
AF (noise): C10, S9
AF (speed): C10, S9
MFD & Magnification: S10, C9
Widest FOV: C10, S10
Bang for Buck: S10, C7
10D/D60/D30 compatible: S Yes, C No
sigma out scores the canon the whole time...
i think i know more about photography than you do yes, i do this for my living... im paid to know what im talking about i also read reviews and do my research and listen to other people who know there s**t i dont just dismiss it because i feel like it...
photoguard do that because if your earning more than half your income through photography that means your in the public doing it often enough to need the public liability insurance!
some points to note
*Both yield solid center and edge resolution performance with the Sigma slightly better.
*Distortion is present (especially at 10mm wide open) for both lenses but very acceptable being UWAs.
*Overall, these are 2 impressive UWA lenses with the Canon being IMO slightly better optically, though the build advantage goes to the Sigma. FWIW, I've reviewed countless full-frame captures of each lens both on screen (and printed out some comparison 11x14's), and by and far, it's EXTREMELY HARD to see any meaningful difference, save for the difference in color tone. If you shoot in RAW, it isn't an issue at all. Both lenses will satisfy as your UWA lens in your bag. And if you don't mind starting at 12mm, the Tokie is a VERY good one too.
so it says there is distortion and it says the canon is slightly better... however it also says The Sigma is 70% the cost of the Canon (and includes an EX petal-type hood and EX black carry pouch).
it also says
I spent a few hours early this morning, taking shots of various subjects, indoors and outdoors, and these 2 lenses are SO CLOSE IN RESOLVING POWER it's basically a wash. Both in center and edge resolution, the 2 lenses perform very similarly, it really depends on the specific accuracy of the AF on any given shot. Sometimes the Canon outresolves the Sigma, sometimes vice versa, the difference being the given AF accuracy of that particular capture. If I had to choose, it seems to me that the Sigma is slightly sharper (maybe 60% of the time, both in center and edge resolution),
Here is my analysis on the Canon 1022 (C) and Sigma 1020 (S). "10" being the best, "1" being the worst...
Resolution (center): S10, C9
Resolution (edge): C10, S10
Contrast: C10, S9
Vignetting: C10, S8
Distortion (barrel): C10, S10
Distortion (pincushion): C10, S10
Flare: C10, S8
CA: C10, S9
Build: S10, C7
Handling: C10, S10
Aperture (speed): C10, S9
AF (noise): C10, S9
AF (speed): C10, S9
MFD & Magnification: S10, C9
Widest FOV: C10, S10
Bang for Buck: S10, C7
10D/D60/D30 compatible: S Yes, C No
sigma out scores the canon the whole time...
i think i know more about photography than you do yes, i do this for my living... im paid to know what im talking about i also read reviews and do my research and listen to other people who know there s**t i dont just dismiss it because i feel like it...
photoguard do that because if your earning more than half your income through photography that means your in the public doing it often enough to need the public liability insurance!
I did read the link thanks and its funny how you seemed to pic out all the sigma pluses......
*The Canon has better flare-resistance characteristics. (so theres less need for a hood, have you seen the size of the hood, its tiny and really wouldn't make a whole lot of difference!
*CA is extremely well managed by both, with the Canon (arguably) being slightly better.
*The Canon's AF is "swifter" and also silent (due to its USM unit); it is also very accurate.
*While the Sigma is "only" 3 ounces heavier than the Canon, when each lens is "in hand" you can actually feel the difference. The Canon "feels" much lighter.
*Under harsh lighting conditions (see Test3), the Canon fares better.
he may say the sigma is sharper but above he says the canon is slightly better optically.
From those 1-10 ratings, the only thing the canon seems to fall down on is build quality, but i can't say it feels any less quality than my other lenses really, its not quite L but its not far off.
I know that the canon is a very consistent lens, there don't seem to be any bad ones out there where as apparently its very pot luck as to whether you get a good sigma of this lens as there are lots of dodgy ones out there, I was mearly thinking that this could be one of them with that amount of distortion if its supposed to be on par with the canon, like i said, mine has a tiny bit of distortion at some angles, but nothing anywhere near the one posted, and I am in posession of the lens to be able to test it.
Plus that is just one review, every other review I have seen classes the canon as a better lens, more expensive yes, but you get what you pay for at the end of the day and i'd rather pay a little extra and not have to worry about whether I have a good copy or not!
How you can say the sigma out scores the canon the whole time, i'm not sure, when the canon out scores the sigma 7 to 4 (not counting compatibility which is not really a factor IMO) with the rest being even, maths not your strong point? (P.s C stands for Canon )
*The Canon has better flare-resistance characteristics. (so theres less need for a hood, have you seen the size of the hood, its tiny and really wouldn't make a whole lot of difference!
*CA is extremely well managed by both, with the Canon (arguably) being slightly better.
*The Canon's AF is "swifter" and also silent (due to its USM unit); it is also very accurate.
*While the Sigma is "only" 3 ounces heavier than the Canon, when each lens is "in hand" you can actually feel the difference. The Canon "feels" much lighter.
*Under harsh lighting conditions (see Test3), the Canon fares better.
he may say the sigma is sharper but above he says the canon is slightly better optically.
From those 1-10 ratings, the only thing the canon seems to fall down on is build quality, but i can't say it feels any less quality than my other lenses really, its not quite L but its not far off.
I know that the canon is a very consistent lens, there don't seem to be any bad ones out there where as apparently its very pot luck as to whether you get a good sigma of this lens as there are lots of dodgy ones out there, I was mearly thinking that this could be one of them with that amount of distortion if its supposed to be on par with the canon, like i said, mine has a tiny bit of distortion at some angles, but nothing anywhere near the one posted, and I am in posession of the lens to be able to test it.
Plus that is just one review, every other review I have seen classes the canon as a better lens, more expensive yes, but you get what you pay for at the end of the day and i'd rather pay a little extra and not have to worry about whether I have a good copy or not!
How you can say the sigma out scores the canon the whole time, i'm not sure, when the canon out scores the sigma 7 to 4 (not counting compatibility which is not really a factor IMO) with the rest being even, maths not your strong point? (P.s C stands for Canon
)just doing a search and the first one i came to, from a nikon user rating the 10-22 canon.......
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon[/FONT]
I could post many more reviews but i think you know the real answer, I don't really have to defend my decision to pay a little more for the lens.
I'm not saying the sigma isn't good, I just think for the extra money the canon is slightly better, but thats why it costs more i guess.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Great! I'd buy one in an instant if I shot Canon.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]Distortion[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Canon 10-22mm has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested, which means it's much better than my Nikon 12-24mm., much better then the Tamron 11-18mm, much better than the Tokina 12-24mm and much better than the Sigma 10-20mm, period. No contest: compare the numbers in my wide digital zoom comparison. It's also much better than the Canon 17-40mm L and 16-35mm L used on full frame digital and film cameras. Bravo! [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The good news is that the 10 - 22's distortion is also trivial to correct completely in PhotoShop CS2. Use the figures below and plug them into the right place explained on my page on fixing lens distortion. If you do that the distortion cancels completely.[/FONT]
I could post many more reviews but i think you know the real answer, I don't really have to defend my decision to pay a little more for the lens.
I'm not saying the sigma isn't good, I just think for the extra money the canon is slightly better, but thats why it costs more i guess.
There will be a certain amount of distortion with any wide angle.
Distortion will be emphasised by the perspective and overall composition, i.e. angling the camera up with a wide angle tends to exagerate any distortion, note the appearance of the buildings in shot one which appear to be leaning away from the camera.
How about trying the same sort of shot with your 10-22 and post the results.
Cheers
Distortion will be emphasised by the perspective and overall composition, i.e. angling the camera up with a wide angle tends to exagerate any distortion, note the appearance of the buildings in shot one which appear to be leaning away from the camera.
How about trying the same sort of shot with your 10-22 and post the results.
Cheers
i'm happy to do that, won't be for about a week though as i am going abroad, but I will be happy to try the same shot, might not be nottingham though, thats a bit for away for us southerners!
dave stick your canon lens on, place an object in a room at weist height... stick the lens on 10mm... stick the camera at exactly the same height as the object so the lens is parrallel to the floor, and is level, take a pic... now pic the camera up, to head height still at the same distance to the object, angle ur head down, so your using the same focus point in the viewfinder and focus on the image... take it and compare... make sure there are objects to the side... i guarantee your lens distorts!!
Fiat Panda 100hp
If I were the o.p I'd close this thread.
Can we stop bickering about "I know best" for fcuks sake, and get back to the topic.
Talking of back to topic, it must have taken ages to photoshop all the ganstas with guns out of the first two pics.:rasp:
Lmao it did, clone tool in PS FTW!
And yes.... back on topic please lads...it really doesn't matter about the tech side of s**t..it's about personal expression, well to me it is.
P.S I know more than both of you put together
Anywho, here are some more pictures...
Thanks for looking.
hang on, i'll just get on to mensa and tell them i'm a fraud as Cliosport say i'm not clever enough.................
Focus TDCi
Well Ben I don't know how to put this to you kindly mate, but I think you're rubbish. So's your whole setup infact. Give up.
I'm totally kidding of course; I love the photo of the statues, that's why I need an SLR.. they seem to jump right out of the photo (unless that's you tinkering on PS?)
Some of the buildings shots and the colour in the sky on the cables photo are very well executed too.
I'm totally kidding of course; I love the photo of the statues, that's why I need an SLR.. they seem to jump right out of the photo (unless that's you tinkering on PS?)
Some of the buildings shots and the colour in the sky on the cables photo are very well executed too.
