«

Hi all

Anyone else heard of problems with dark corners on photos shot at wider end
of the lens, using a Canon 20D and 18-85IS lens?

I initially thought that maybe it was due to the lens hood or maybe even the
UV filter, but even with these removed I still get vingetting.

It is worse during dusk/dawn and is particularly noticeable against a clear
sky.

A fault, or so called characteristic?

Cheers

There are two different effects going on here; a) a light falloff due
to "shearing of the aperture" causing a cos**4 light fall off towards
the corners, and b) actual vignetting of the light bundles.

the 17-85 USM IS is a toy. Return it and grab a 17-40 L instead

"Tod" <> a écrit dans le message de
news:c7udnTBZr8-...
> Hi all
>
> Anyone else heard of problems with dark corners on photos shot at wider
end
> of the lens, using a Canon 20D and 18-85IS lens?
>
> I initially thought that maybe it was due to the lens hood or maybe even
the
> UV filter, but even with these removed I still get vingetting.
>
> It is worse during dusk/dawn and is particularly noticeable against a
clear
> sky.
>
> A fault, or so called characteristic?
>
> Cheers
>
>

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:05:47 -0500, "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com>
wrote:

>the 17-85 USM IS is a toy. Return it and grab a 17-40 L instead

I agree with that. I'm just getting a body and that as well as other
lenses. I'm not getting any of the EF-S lenses.

You can get a body and that lens 2049 and change at B&H and have a
far better system.


************************************************** ***********

"For a Texan the names of guns and caliber numbers are
magic; Winchester and Colt and Remington and Smith & Wesson;
.30-30 and .22, .44 and .45 and .32 and .38-Special.
You could speak of a Texas boy's growth as his .410, his 20
and 12 guage years."

_Home From the Hill_
William Humphery

"John A. Stovall" <> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:05:47 -0500, "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >the 17-85 USM IS is a toy. Return it and grab a 17-40 L instead
>
> I agree with that. I'm just getting a body and that as well as other
> lenses. I'm not getting any of the EF-S lenses.

The 10-22 is a _lot_ of fun. It focuses _amazingly_ close, too.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Are you saying that you are just going to get an L lens. I wonder if I
can see any difference in an 8x10 taken with the same camera.

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>"John A. Stovall" <> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:05:47 -0500, "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>the 17-85 USM IS is a toy. Return it and grab a 17-40 L instead
>>>
>>>
>>I agree with that. I'm just getting a body and that as well as other
>>lenses. I'm not getting any of the EF-S lenses.
>>
>>
>
>The 10-22 is a _lot_ of fun. It focuses _amazingly_ close, too.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
>
>

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:d02qpc$24j$...
>
> "John A. Stovall" <> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 16:05:47 -0500, "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >the 17-85 USM IS is a toy. Return it and grab a 17-40 L instead
>>
>> I agree with that. I'm just getting a body and that as well as other
>> lenses. I'm not getting any of the EF-S lenses.
>
> The 10-22 is a _lot_ of fun. It focuses _amazingly_ close, too.

That's next on my list. I should receive the first three pieces of my 20D
outfit tomorrow, and next week will scoop the 10-22. It looks really nice. I
went with the 17-40L and 70-200L (f4) for starters. All the "old" gear is on
E-Bay and doing quite well. After the auctions close, and I know exactly how
much I can play with, I'll go from there. I would like to find something to
match the 17-40, though. There's a gap between 40 and 70, but not too bad.

Onward and upward...
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>

"measekite" <> wrote:

> Are you saying that you are just going to get an L lens. I wonder if I
> can see any difference in an 8x10 taken with the same camera.

If you shoot a cheap consumer zoom wide open, and a L lens stopped down to
f/5.6, you should be able to see the difference. Things like CA, soft
corners, light fall off are visible in prints.

The argument for cheap zooms, however, is that _any_ photograph is better
than _no_ photograph.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com> wrote in message
news:...
> the 17-85 USM IS is a toy. Return it and grab a 17-40 L instead
>

The OP was referring to the 18-55 kit lens, not the 17-85 which is a good
lens (and not cheap at $600). I am not sure in what sense the 17-85 is a
"toy". Its very solidly constructed and takes very good photographs. Many
users who own the 17-40L and the 17-85 speak very favourbly about the 17-85.

> "Tod" <> a écrit dans le message de
> news:c7udnTBZr8-...
>> Hi all
>>
>> Anyone else heard of problems with dark corners on photos shot at wider
> end
>> of the lens, using a Canon 20D and 18-85IS lens?
>>
>> I initially thought that maybe it was due to the lens hood or maybe even
> the
>> UV filter, but even with these removed I still get vingetting.
>>
>> It is worse during dusk/dawn and is particularly noticeable against a
> clear
>> sky.
>>
>> A fault, or so called characteristic?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>
>

Yes but the 75-300 IS Canon and the 17-85 are not what you would call
cheap Zooms. They cost a lot of money. I do agree the the DR Kit lens
is a cheap zoom.

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>"measekite" <> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Are you saying that you are just going to get an L lens. I wonder if I
>>can see any difference in an 8x10 taken with the same camera.
>>
>>
>
>If you shoot a cheap consumer zoom wide open, and a L lens stopped down to
>f/5.6, you should be able to see the difference. Things like CA, soft
>corners, light fall off are visible in prints.
>
>The argument for cheap zooms, however, is that _any_ photograph is better
>than _no_ photograph.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>
>
>