Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is my lens defective? ("Ultra Wide-Angle Buyer's Remorse")
- Thread starter akadmon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As mentioned use M Mode, try F8 to F11, set speed accordingly,that's what suites my ultra wide, then i just use a wee touch of exposure compensation light depending, Don't use filters on ultra wides, your images are nice and clear, Ultra wides have a habit of drawing in a lot of light due to the shape of the front element, they do take a lot of getting used to, I switch between a nikon 70-200mm VR and Sigma 10-20mm, and it's a completely different shooting style, Just Practice, Practice and Practice 
you'll find your lens & camera are ok,good luck
you'll find your lens & camera are ok,good luck Now that I think about it, the lens that I should have gotten is the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (same price as the 10-22). The 10-22's extreme distortion can be fun, but it can also be distracting.
As others have pointed out, relying on the auto functions of the camera would give you the exact same result with the 18-55 (provided you get the same amount of bright sky and dark buildings in a shot). In similar shooting situation you'd have to mess with the settings with any lens. Get the book I mentioned before and start learning about photography, there's no way around it. I'd like to think that if you sink all the money into a dSLR system you'd want to learn how to use it properly. If you only shoot auto you might as well stick with a small point and shoot.
It probably would have a been a better choice, only if you were going to upgrade to full-frame later down the line. It's the alternative to the 16-35, which costs a little over twice as much. Definitely a tad sharper wide open, and awesome when stopped down a few steps. The distortion is definitely fun, and should only be used in certain circumstances.
What I would be concerned with is the 10-22 being EF-S, since it'll only work with crop cameras. If that isn't a concern for you, then I would enjoy the lens!
a 17-40 would have gotten you nowhere. it falls into the "standard zoom" category on your camera - same as your 18-55. if you don't like the extreme diagonals, that simply means you don't like ultra-wides, which means you wouldn't like a 17-40 on a 5D, 1Ds, or film camera.
Here are some sample shots I took in M+evaluative metering mode @ auto ISO (400).
#1 - 1/100s @f/14
#2 - 1/320s @f/14
#3 - same shot (#2) after boosting exposure in the lower 4/5th using Ligthroom's Adjustment Brush
As you can see, the bright (albeit mostly cloudy) sky in the first shot is blown out, a big white blob! The sky/cloud details are resolved quite well in the second shot, but the foreground is clearly underexposed. I was able to correct this quite easily by boosting foreground exposure using Lightroom's Adjustment Brush. The converse was not true: I could not regain highlights/shadows in the first shot by reducing exposure in the top part.
The moral of the story is: it is better to base your exposure on the brightest part of your shot, since you can always fix the underexposed parts later. I suspect this is true of any lens, but it is definitely true when it comes to my 10-22.
#1 - 1/100s @f/14
#2 - 1/320s @f/14
#3 - same shot (#2) after boosting exposure in the lower 4/5th using Ligthroom's Adjustment Brush
As you can see, the bright (albeit mostly cloudy) sky in the first shot is blown out, a big white blob! The sky/cloud details are resolved quite well in the second shot, but the foreground is clearly underexposed. I was able to correct this quite easily by boosting foreground exposure using Lightroom's Adjustment Brush. The converse was not true: I could not regain highlights/shadows in the first shot by reducing exposure in the top part.
The moral of the story is: it is better to base your exposure on the brightest part of your shot, since you can always fix the underexposed parts later. I suspect this is true of any lens, but it is definitely true when it comes to my 10-22.
Attachments
Yup, now you're getting it. You need to expose for the brightest area of the scene. If you aren't already, shoot in RAW, that way all the data that the image sensor can capture is still in the file & can be boosted.
Programs like Photomatix can also be used in post processing to blend multiple exposures to achive maximum dynamic range.
Programs like Photomatix can also be used in post processing to blend multiple exposures to achive maximum dynamic range.
Not if the shadow areas are more important than the highlight areas. Recovered shadows can look dreadful. Sometimes you have to sacrifice parts of the scene, sometimes that can add to image, other times it won't.
BTW You had room to do another exposure between the two you did [1/200th at f14] and the highlights may have been OK in that one too and the foreground less dark. if you really want to retain highlights, expose so they are nearly overexposed and you can also use fill in flash [depending on subject] to brighten up foreground. This is why you see people using flashguns in very bright sunshine.
But the problem in first few shots was as several people pointed out, they were way overexposed. A simply way to get a good baseline exposure is to take reading off palm of your hand [in same light as scene] and add a stop extra. So if hand reading says 1/500th at f8, shoot at 1/500th at f5.6 or 1/250th at f8 or any other variation of that exposure. You may have to tweak the fudge factor depending on your camera's metering and your own hand colour, but try that as a starting point. It was 2/3rds extra on my Olympus film cameras for example and 1 stop on my Canon DSLRs.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the lens you are using.
P does not mean Professional.
As others have mentioned, the sky is very bright and the black bus is very dark. You can't have both things exposed perfectly in the same photo. In this case your camera decided to properly expose the bus at the expense of the sky.
As others have mentioned, the sky is very bright and the black bus is very dark. You can't have both things exposed perfectly in the same photo. In this case your camera decided to properly expose the bus at the expense of the sky.
Here are a few more shots I took with my 10-22 today (all hand held). The first two pix are the same shot, the only difference being that I boosted #2's foreground exposure in Lightroom. Not the sharpest pic, I know, but a good save nonetheless, I think.
The other's are my money shots for today. The chimney (all that remains of the house that surrounded it) is about 30' tall, and I was standing no more than 10' in front of it -- amazing! The last one illustrates the great DOF this lens has (esp. when you consider this was shot at f /5.6 in a low light setting).
I've decided I'm going to keep my 10-22. It being so wide (i.e.,the probability of getting very bright and very dark components in the same shot go up exponentially) has taught me to appreciate the freedom afforded by the M mode. Also, the fact that I can save most of my prized shots in Lightroom, even when they are not perfectly exposed throughout, has reduced my misgivings about sticking with the 10-22. I realize I will use this lens for less than 20% of my shots, but I also know that I would be getting it in the next few months anyway, so I might as well keep it and get the 50-100 keepers that I otherwise would not be able to get on my upcoming summer vacation. In the meantime I'll keep saving for the 17-55
The other's are my money shots for today. The chimney (all that remains of the house that surrounded it) is about 30' tall, and I was standing no more than 10' in front of it -- amazing! The last one illustrates the great DOF this lens has (esp. when you consider this was shot at f /5.6 in a low light setting).
I've decided I'm going to keep my 10-22. It being so wide (i.e.,the probability of getting very bright and very dark components in the same shot go up exponentially) has taught me to appreciate the freedom afforded by the M mode. Also, the fact that I can save most of my prized shots in Lightroom, even when they are not perfectly exposed throughout, has reduced my misgivings about sticking with the 10-22. I realize I will use this lens for less than 20% of my shots, but I also know that I would be getting it in the next few months anyway, so I might as well keep it and get the 50-100 keepers that I otherwise would not be able to get on my upcoming summer vacation. In the meantime I'll keep saving for the 17-55
Attachments
thanks! They were all taken at like 11mm or 12mm
The waterfall one (first one) was a 30 second exposure.
I don't thing there is anything wrong with the lens. The problem is that there is too much light on the sky reflected toward the lens. You should always avoid framing your photos when the sun (sunlight) is a such sharp angle to the lens.
Yeah, when you are shooting that wide, more light is getting in the lens. Maybe use your camera's spot metering mode...
As others have stated, there is nothing wrong with your lens, try a graduated filter or try shooting under different lighting conditions. The camera cannot possibly properly expose both a sunny midday sky and a the building which is partially shaded.
Quote: "I got the lens on Wednesday (shipped to my office, since I didn't want my wife to know I bought another lens, costing almost as much as the camera!)."
There's something reassuring about your comment. I've been keeping my new XSi out of sight for the last couple of weeks. My wife hasn't realized that my classic Nikon SLR has turned into a Canon...yet.
There's something reassuring about your comment. I've been keeping my new XSi out of sight for the last couple of weeks. My wife hasn't realized that my classic Nikon SLR has turned into a Canon...yet.
If you're not quite ready for shooting on manual mode or need to shoot pictures quickly, I suggest using Aperture priority mode (A). Allows you to pick an aperture and suggests the right shutter speed, though you can still modify it.
Wide angle lenses are great, but they are not the best if you are trying to use them as a walk around lens as they only work under certain circumstances, for me I normally use it when I can't get far enough away to capture a scene with a normal lens, but it can also be used to get a unique perspective, like this picture.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3499678006/sizes/o/
Here are some I took when I first got the lens, I don't really get to use it much, hopefully I get to use it this weekend.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3108976319/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3194973853/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3215974031/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3215974283/sizes/l/
I might get flamed into oblivion for posting this, but it really is a good guide on how to use ultra wide lenses
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3499678006/sizes/o/
Here are some I took when I first got the lens, I don't really get to use it much, hopefully I get to use it this weekend.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3108976319/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3194973853/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3215974031/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/supersteve9219/3215974283/sizes/l/
I might get flamed into oblivion for posting this, but it really is a good guide on how to use ultra wide lenses
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
For digital, yes, it is better to err on the side of underexposing, but I remember film was the opposite. I could get more detail in the dark room from slightly overexposed parts of the frame, but underexposed parts stayed dark no matter what I did.
I really liked that picture. How did you get the sky to come out so vivid? It seems like a polarizer, but I thought polarizer would not work properly in an ultra wide angle ( based on Ken Rockwell
)
Only if you shot negative film, slides are just like digital, expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may.
Paul