Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon EF-S 10-22 Image Circle

Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
1,146
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Website
www.joetaylorcinema.com
Does anybody out there know the image circle for the Canon EF-S 10-22 and if it will fully cover the EPCI-X's sensor?
 
Joe Taylor said:
Does anybody out there know the image circle for the Canon EF-S 10-22 and if it will fully cover the EPCI-X's sensor?
Click to expand...

Joe:

I have a 10-22, but I'm not sure on that. However, I had an interesting revelation regarding the Tokina 11-16. As you may know the 10-22 has an EF-S mount which won't allow it to be mounted on regular EF full frame cameras like the 5D markII. However, the tokina - also designed for APS-C does have a regular EF mount and I mounted it on a 5DMark II and it covers full frame from about 13.5-14mm to 16.

I've been using my R1 with a Birger EF mount since the beginning. I'm working on getting an Epic-X as soon as possible - with a RED Canon mount - so will check as soon as I get it.
 
Hello Michael, that's interesting about the Tokina. I, too, have the Birger, but have noticed that my 10-22 is VERY soft around the edges, especially at the wider end. My other Canon lenses don't have this problem. Could be a back focus problem. Looking forward to what you discover when you upgrade.
 
Joe,

Might want to have your lens checked, when I first got the Birger I bought both the 10-22 and 11-16 I tested them both on a 40D and found that the 10-22 was slightly sharper, including on the edges. The difference was very slight, I would go with either lens, - I only sold the Tokina because it was the first one that someone wanted.
 
I don't have a 10-22, I only researched it before buying, but as far as I remember it is supposed to be a little bit sharper all around like Michael already pointed out. I chose the Tokina for the little bit extra speed, but other than that I read that the 11-22 edges out the 11-16 in all other aspects.

Michael, do you know if you can mount EF lenses on an EF-S mount? Or are they 100% incompatible systems?
 
I've thought of having the 10-22 tested but it performs so well perfectly on on my 40D. I'd like to find somebody in Vegas who also uses the Birger and checking to see how it works on their camera, especially if they've had the MX upgrade. Thanks, guys, for your help.
 
It is my understanding that while they share the same sensor, the RED 1 MX and Epic reveal a different amount of that sensor. We already know the 10-22 works on RED 1 (original sensor and MX). We don't know if it will cover the whole sensor Epic.
 
coverage

coverage

It came up somewhere already. Per Abel chart the Epic recorded diagonal is about 31.5mm That's very close to super 35 film diagonal and the APSC chip diagonal. I say it will cover, in fact I'll say pretty much all APSC format (EF-S in Canon lanquage)still lenses will cover. 5D2 chip is about 43mm diagonal so the circle must be much larger....
 
For a while I owned both and did a bunch of tests for perspective distortion.
For CA and sharpness I relied on this test by the-digital-picture here LINK
 
Very helpful information. Thanks everybody.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I don't have a 10-22, I only researched it before buying, but as far as I remember it is supposed to be a little bit sharper all around like Michael already pointed out. I chose the Tokina for the little bit extra speed, but other than that I read that the 11-22 edges out the 11-16 in all other aspects.


Michael, do you know if you can mount EF lenses on an EF-S mount? Or are they 100% incompatible systems?
Click to expand...

Yes, EF lenses work on everything i.e. full frame, APS-H and APS-C. The EF-S lenses are built so they won't go on a full frame body because the elements can protrude farther out which could possibly cause the larger full frame mirror to hit it. Apparently, since the 11-16 doesn't protrude at all, Tokina made it with the normal mount so it works on either Full frame EF or APS-C EF-S.

(If I had realized that I might not have sold it :-) )


My guess is that Jacek (Optitek) is right - although the Epic 5K is a little larger - there is probably enough fudge factor that they will cover.

Remember that EF-S lenses are only really critical on the very wide end because it is almost impossible to make a reasonable size/cost Full frame lens wider than 14mm. The reason there are many more EF-S type lenses is because they can be smaller/lighter/cheaper/faster for the same focal lengths and or size. That's why for example a Sigma 18-50 with a 2.8 constant aperture for EF-S can be about $500 and an equivalent 24-70 Canon 2.8 for EF full-frame is $1200+ and twice the size/weight.
 
I mentioned that I had both for a while and I sold the 10-22
CA was about the same, sharpness (to me) seemed the same
perspective distortion didn't seem to alter despite the different number of elements
but what decided it for me was the vignetting on the 10-22 on aps-c (see my earlier link).
 
Yea, it seems they are both great lenses IQ wise so it is more of a mount, speed and zoom range decision imo.

Michael Hastings said:
Yes, EF lenses work on everything i.e. full frame, APS-H and APS-C. The EF-S lenses are built so they won't go on a full frame body because the elements can protrude farther out which could possibly cause the larger full frame mirror to hit it. Apparently, since the 11-16 doesn't protrude at all, Tokina made it with the normal mount so it works on either Full frame EF or APS-C EF-S.

(If I had realized that I might not have sold it :-) )


My guess is that Jacek (Optitek) is right - although the Epic 5K is a little larger - there is probably enough fudge factor that they will cover.

Remember that EF-S lenses are only really critical on the very wide end because it is almost impossible to make a reasonable size/cost Full frame lens wider than 14mm. The reason there are many more EF-S type lenses is because they can be smaller/lighter/cheaper/faster for the same focal lengths and or size. That's why for example a Sigma 18-50 with a 2.8 constant aperture for EF-S can be about $500 and an equivalent 24-70 Canon 2.8 for EF full-frame is $1200+ and twice the size/weight.
Click to expand...

Thanks, this makes a lot of sense. Sorry, you ain't getting your 11-16 back :-) but if you find me visiting my family in FL you can borrow it, not that you would need it with all the other glass you got now. :-) That Sigma 8-16 sounds like a lot of fun for example. How does that one stack up in terms of IQ? I suppose it would only be fair to compare from 11mm and longer though, with the wider range being a cool bonus. Too bad about the aperture not being fixed, that really bugs me personally, but being able to go to 8mm rectilinear sounds like it would more than make up for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top