 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 1
Hi all. Looking for those that have a Canon 10-18mm. I am thinking of purchasing an inexpensive wide angle lens. Hubby and I are going to Canada and parts of south-east US in October and I want to buy a good value wide angle lens for my 60D in order to take shots of the Rockies and lakes from Jasper to Calgary and again for the Smokies around Asheville in the US. The Canon 10-18mm is in the price range and looks to be what I need. So who out there has one, and can you recommend it?
Cheers, Ann
60D, Canon 18-200mm, Canon Fisheye, Canon Macro, Canon 50mm prime, Tripod. Photoshop Elements, Picasa.
www.travellerspoint.com/users/aussirose www.flickr.com/aussirose
If you're limited by budget, this will do the job for you.
It's a little on the slow side, but for daylight vistas, it will do a pretty reasonable job.
All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.
Threadstarter
Thanks Benny
Hey, aussierose. Is this an "inexpensive" lens? If so, how does it perform?
I checked only one review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...-STM-Lens.aspx
and in it found this disturbingly non-committal excerpt (highlighting added by me):
Summary
With the EF-S 10-18 STM IS in its lineup, Canon is certain to significantly increase its ultra-wide angle zoom lens sales. This lens is not the perfect/ultimate ultra-wide angle APS-C zoom lens, but I'm still waiting to find that lens. What the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens does have is image quality and autofocus accuracy that competes very strongly with the currently available lenses in this class. While this lens has the narrowest max aperture of those lenses, none of the others offer IS. And, the 10-18 is the smallest, lightest and most affordable option.
The ultra-wide, ultra-light, ultra-small, ultra-affordable Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens will be a no-brainer choice for a large number of APS-C DSLR kits.
All I can think of is that you are going on an important (implied) and expensive trip and want to take this?!!!
CC, Image editing OK.
Consider using your existing ‘Canon Fisheye’ (assumed that is the EF 15 F/2.8) and de-fishing the images in Post Production.Originally Posted by aussirose
WW
WW. Can this be practicably done? I know I have trouble de-widening my 8mm rectilinear lens images, ie, removing the edge stretching.
Is there some program, or action in Pshop?
Am.
Last edited by ameerat42; 14-07-2015 at 5:12pm.
Whichever one you choose, get yourself a CPL and a Grad ND filter to go on it. Canada is big sky country and the National Parks around that area (Banff NP and Glacier NP, etc) are full of waterfalls, lakes, huge mountains and beautiful fluffy white clouds. You don't want to blow those out.
Last edited by Warbler; 14-07-2015 at 7:11pm.
Yes; and to varying degrees of final quality. Photoshop is probably the simplest. CS2 (a very early iteration) is quite rudimentary but still can attain excellent results - depending upon the USES of the final image:
In CS2 and similar later versions the simple method is: FILTER > DISTORT > LENS CORRECTION > REMOVE DISTORTION (BARREL AND PINCUSHION SLIDER). (see below for quick example)
Some later versions of Photoshop are more sophisticated. Light room is more sophisticated and likely easier for batches. There are plug-ins to PS and LR specifically for De-Fishing which are very good. 'Fisheye-Hemi' plug in is very good for Landscape work. There are very sophisticated stand alone PP Programmes, too. DXO is a good all round lens correction tool which is quite popular and as I understand it has de-fishing built into it.
The EF 15 F/2.8 is a good performer and, considering that the OP has an APS-C Format Camera, the 15mm would not be recording image data from its weakest optical areas (edges and corners).
*
The comment about the OP using an existing lens was predicated because the OP seemed to be on a budget; and as you mentioned the lens the OP is thinking about buying, is perhaps questionable. The advice was more about the concept that it is often NOT necessary to spending more money on more tools and gadgets when there might be options using the tools already at hand might be easier, better and also less expensive.
*
Obviously, there is always the consideration of the Law of Diminishing Returns where one has to balance Cost vs. Practical Outcomes. In this regard it would bode well for the OP to define exactly the outcomes and the uses for the images.
At an extreme making the suggestion of buying a 5DMkIII or 5Ds and a TS-E 17mm F4L and a Tripod and Geared Head would be reasonable.
At the other extreme the gear that that the OP already has can result in very acceptable results and not necessarily only using the “Canon Fisheye”, as the “18 to 200” or “50 prime” could be used and the images later stitched in Post Production.
*
Here is a very quick example using the rudimentary tools in CS2.
An indoor shot was chosen to allow analysis of the many straight edges.
Please disregard the acutance and general noise and IQ, because the de-fished image was manufactured from the web low res file and not the original raw file which is on our hard drive library and not able to be accessed by me at this time.
These choices were made to provide an example so to show ‘the worst’ that de-fishing could be.
Also note that for a landscape scene, there are fewer straight lines, slightly arched so these would not necessarily be noticed.
Image 01 REFERENCE IMAGE (JPEG SOOC) – EF 15 F/2.8 lens used on a 5D Series Camera :
*
Image 02 – Post Production, but no 'de-fishing':
*
Image 03: - Rudimentary De-Fish of Image 02, using CR2 as described above:
Note the Horizontals are very well corrected, but there is a slight curvature in the window line (camera left) and the top gantry (camera right), as both diminish to the Vanishing Point.
***
I do not concur without strong caveat.
If the OP is unskilled and is not versed in the uses and all the nuances of these two types of Filters, then:
> be aware that neither a CPL nor Grad ND Filters will attach to the EF 15 F/2.8 (still assuming that is the lens which is described by the OP).
> the OP specifically mentions vast landscape scenes within which there will very likely be vast expanses of blue sky spread across the horizontal of the Frame. Using a CPL in that shooting scenario can be a very dangerous practice, because the hue of the blue sky will be rendered in different tones and depths and this is very difficult, or impossible to correct in Post Production.
> arguably the better GND Filters for Ultra Wide Angle Landscape Work are those which are square and sit in a Filter Holder, the screw in type are very limiting because the graduation begins at the middle of the filter and thus severely restricts the Composition possibilities.
> if one is not versed in the nuances of using Filters in Bright Sunlight when using an UWA Lens, then the possibility of: Flare, Veiling Flare and Reflections (Ghost Images) would be a concern.
> the Dynamic Range of the EOS 60D is at least 7 Stops with good noise measure and using raw capture and a reasonable camera raw converter, 11 Stops is attainable. That (7 Stop) DR would be more than adequate to allow fine shadow definition (for example in a canyon) and still not allow any white clouds to blow out. In this respect, ensuring that the correct exposure is attained is important. If in doubt then, simply use bracketing for the exposures.
Often the Dynamic Range of what can be DISPLAYED on-line, or PRINTED on paper, is confused with the Dynamic Range of useable data which can be ACCEPTABLY RECORDED in the IMAGE FILE of the Digital Camera and then later COMPRESSED in Post Production Program to provide an excellent Final Image.
WW
All Images ©AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015, WMW 1965~1996
Her skills are listed as intermediate William. I expect she knows how to use a CPL or ND filter.
Ta for that WW. I have been using the Warp tool in PS (CS2) to squeeze in the edges more relative to the middle zones.
I had used tat filter before, but I will revisit it now.
If I may buy in to the discussion above, I will just say that though both points of view have validity, and they are two
fairly equal ways of achieving a desired result, I have tended to go for the one WW describes. I did go to Canada, did not
have any CPL or other filters, and was able to easily recover a pretty good dynamic range from my raw images - within the
limitations of my camera. But I will hasten to say that similar problems apply almost anywhere, not just there. I have had
problems, for example, dealing with acceptable DR in beach and cloud shots. For my equipment, dealing with strong highlights
yields usually better results than with trying to boost underdone shadows.
Oh well, that's it.
You are welcome.
*
I’ve used that too. I have the same problematic issues as you described.
*
The levelling and squareness of the Camera’s Viewpoint is important, if you just want use the barrel / pincushion slider CS2.
So for example, in the sample image that I posted, I was careful to square the camera and also achieve the Camera Elevation to best balance the barrelling in the VERTICAL AXIS of the FRAMING of the shot.
I suggest that you investigate ‘Fisheye-Hemi’, especially if your are using an 8mm lens on APS-C Format it should (my understanding of the theory) work well for you. (I haven’t de-fished 8mm used on APS-C).
***
Maybe and maybe not: I don’t know. I did not assume anything in that regard one way or the other.
However, given that another commentator (yourself) had advised, fait accompli, that an ND and GND filters were essential for the tasks described and lenses that were being discussed, (advice to which I did not agree): it was then necessary to outline exactly why I held that opinion. Also it was necessary present the major traps that the OP might come across, should she purchase the filters and not understand all the nuances of using them.
Especially if the OP chooses to use a 15/2.8 - the filters simply won’t fit or it will be a very difficult task for her.
There are many other reasons too, for my commentary, not the least of which (addressing your last): I’ve come across many Students and Photographers who think they know quite a lot, but don’t, and as already mentioned the OP appears to be on a budget and good quality CPL and GradND are not inexpensive items; and there are usually quite viable alternatives because most Landscape Scenes fall well within the DR of the EOS 60D.
WW
Last edited by William W; 15-07-2015 at 6:45pm. Reason: added more info re camera position for easier de-fishing using CS2
Threadstarter
Wow. Ok you all have me thinking now. The fisheye I share with hubby and I purely use it for extreme circular photos. Probably wouldn't be into straightening photos taken from it. Yes I wouldn't be without my CPL's and NDF's. Yes I use my 18-200 most of the time but would like to put on a lightweight wide angle lens sometimes especially if I don't want hike with a lot of weight around my neck. The 50mm is good and I probably should rethink about doing panos with it instead. Thanks guys. Will need to give this some more thought.
They are really good and yes...value for money. :-)
+1 for the 10-18, excellent value as well. If you’re going to buy online make sure the dealer can deliver before your departure date, one particular online dealer I’ve purchased from has been consistently slow delivering despite showing items as “in stock”.
Last edited by phild; 05-10-2019 at 12:40pm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
