canon 10-22mm lense any good underwater?

[matt2jo 0]

Hello, I am doing pool photography and am looking at using the Canon 10-22mm ultawide lens behind a nexus acrylic dome port. Has anyone used this combo, or atleast the lens underwater? My shots are going to be close up and the lense will need to focus reasonably fast (babies only under for a few seconds). If this lens is no good can anyone recommend another lens?

 

I am using a canon 400d with a patima housing. I have been told the nexus ports use the same thread and will work. If anyone can confirm this that would be great.

 

Thanks,

 

Matt

[paninaro 0]

I'm surprised no one has answered this thread yet.

 

I have the Canon 10-22 on a Canon 20D in an Ikelite housing, with the 8" acrylic dome. It's an awesome lens, but takes some adjustment in technique that I don't quite have yet. I don't get a chance to dive it much up here in Puget Sound, as wide angle is kinda silly when visibility is 5-10 feet; but I've dove it in the tropics, like these shots I took on the Spiegel Grove off Key Largo earlier this month: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cwilso/tags/spiegelgrove/.

[scubarobot 0]

The 10-22 is not a very good lens above water. Lots of distortion around the edges and not as sharp as an L series lens. you can go with the 16-35L I.

[Havskatt 0]

I do disagree with scubaroot statement.

 

The 10-22 is probably the best lens in its class and for shure to shoot wide angle underwater is much more useful than a 16-35 on APS-sized sensors.

 

You can read a review of the lens here

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

 

Bear also in mind that this reviewer prefers to use Nikon equipment

[scubarobot 0]

Sorry I was just being honest. I am a fulltime commercial photographer so I am keen to the differences in the lenses. Also I am speaking from experience using both lenses not just relying on a review. I do agree that the working range would be shifted 25.6-56mm on a apc sized sensor. You can rent a 16-35mm lens for about 25/day it also has better focus reponse since you are shooting babies.

Edited June 30, 2007 by scubarobot

[Andy Morrison 1]

I find my 10-22 to be good above and below water as well. No it's not as fast or sharp as my 16-35 but it's darn close and much, much cheaper. And on a 1.6x camera you'll have a true wide angle as pointed out. But you're really comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't hesitate to use if for your intended application. I think it will focus fast enough.