Canon lens vignetting demo with FF sensors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark², Feb 18, 2006.

  1. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Here's an interesting site that has created a very nice demonstration of a
    large number of Canon lenses...showing how much vignetting is present at
    various focal lengths.

    http://tinyurl.com/bjru8

    It takes a little fiddling to figure out how the page is set up, but click
    on the different options above the samples, and you'll get the idea. If you
    click on "Contour Results," you can choose the lens, the focal length, and
    the aperture value...for a very detailed view of the frame, complete with EV
    zones within the frame.

    -Mark
     
    Mark², Feb 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:YELJf.43$vd2.25@fed1read04...
    > Here's an interesting site that has created a very nice demonstration of a
    > large number of Canon lenses...showing how much vignetting is present at
    > various focal lengths.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/bjru8


    Thanks for the link - the vignetting stuff has been added since I last
    visited.

    If anything, he seems even keener now on zooms than I recall. Pity that the
    L zooms are somewhat large and heavy - I prefer not noticing what I'm
    carrying.

    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK
    http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
     
    Malcolm Stewart, Feb 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:YELJf.43$vd2.25@fed1read04...
    > Here's an interesting site that has created a very nice demonstration of a
    > large number of Canon lenses...showing how much vignetting is present at
    > various focal lengths.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/bjru8
    >
    > It takes a little fiddling to figure out how the page is set up, but click
    > on the different options above the samples, and you'll get the idea. If
    > you click on "Contour Results," you can choose the lens, the focal
    > length, and the aperture value...for a very detailed view of the frame,
    > complete with EV zones within the frame.
    >
    > -Mark
    >

    I notice that his 16-35 and 17-40 vignette tests include a standard UV
    filter. That could contribute significantly to the vignetting, I'd think...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Feb 19, 2006
    #3
  4. In article <LkUJf.906$kt2.624@fed1read02>, Skip M
    <> writes
    >>

    >I notice that his 16-35 and 17-40 vignette tests include a standard UV
    >filter. That could contribute significantly to the vignetting, I'd think...
    >

    There are comparisons with and without filters, which are only included
    at the wide end - hover the mouse over the thumbnail and it shows the
    data.
    --
    Kennedy
    Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
    A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
    Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Feb 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Mark²

    Skip M Guest

    "Kennedy McEwen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <LkUJf.906$kt2.624@fed1read02>, Skip M <>
    > writes
    >>>

    >>I notice that his 16-35 and 17-40 vignette tests include a standard UV
    >>filter. That could contribute significantly to the vignetting, I'd
    >>think...
    >>

    > There are comparisons with and without filters, which are only included at
    > the wide end - hover the mouse over the thumbnail and it shows the data.


    Oh. I just wasn't patient enough, just hovered the mouse over a few of
    them. I guess, coincidentally, over the ones with the filter.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Feb 19, 2006
    #5
  6. On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:43:08 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:


    I fail to understand the obsession people have with vignetting. If you
    don't like it fix it in Photoshop just like we did in the darkroom
    with wet processing.

    Secondly, in January at a printing seminar, the noted landscape
    photographer taught the intentional production of a vignetting effect
    to enhance the image and keep the viewers eye centered on the primary
    subject. I would also point out that Ansel Adams did the same thing
    by intentionally darkening the corners of his LF prints to produce
    this.


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

    "A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
    color of blood in black and white"


    David Douglas Duncan
    Speaking on why in Vietnam
    he worked only in black and white
    http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
     
    John A. Stovall, Feb 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    John A. Stovall wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:43:08 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > I fail to understand the obsession people have with vignetting.


    Did I write something that indicated an obsession with vignetting?
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #7
  8. "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:43:08 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > I fail to understand the obsession people have with vignetting. If
    > you
    > don't like it fix it in Photoshop ...


    When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon shot
    noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further increased
    by post-processing it.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 19, 2006
    #8
  9. Mark²

    Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon shot
    > noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further increased
    > by post-processing it.


    Sir yes Sir, but imho that noise increase should need something like a
    2 ou 3-stop vignetting to be apparent, not something really common in
    real world (unless shooting at 12mm FF or so)?

    I must admit I also agree with the proposal to make, by default, a bit
    of vignetting to keep the interest of the reader in the center (ie not
    in the corners) of the image.
     
    , Feb 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >> When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon shot
    >> noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further increased
    >> by post-processing it.

    >
    > Sir yes Sir, but imho that noise increase should need something like a
    > 2 ou 3-stop vignetting to be apparent, not something really common in
    > real world (unless shooting at 12mm FF or so)?
    >
    > I must admit I also agree with the proposal to make, by default, a bit
    > of vignetting to keep the interest of the reader in the center (ie not
    > in the corners) of the image.


    So you always want your subject focus to be dead-center in the frame??????
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #10
  11. Mark²

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:51:04 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>> When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon shot
    >>> noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further increased
    >>> by post-processing it.

    >>
    >> Sir yes Sir, but imho that noise increase should need something like a
    >> 2 ou 3-stop vignetting to be apparent, not something really common in
    >> real world (unless shooting at 12mm FF or so)?
    >>
    >> I must admit I also agree with the proposal to make, by default, a bit
    >> of vignetting to keep the interest of the reader in the center (ie not
    >> in the corners) of the image.

    >
    >So you always want your subject focus to be dead-center in the frame??????


    So you always want your subject focus to be tucked all the way into a
    corner??????
    :)

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 19, 2006
    #11
  12. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:51:04 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>>> When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon
    >>>> shot noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further
    >>>> increased by post-processing it.
    >>>
    >>> Sir yes Sir, but imho that noise increase should need something
    >>> like a 2 ou 3-stop vignetting to be apparent, not something really
    >>> common in real world (unless shooting at 12mm FF or so)?
    >>>
    >>> I must admit I also agree with the proposal to make, by default, a
    >>> bit of vignetting to keep the interest of the reader in the center
    >>> (ie not in the corners) of the image.

    >>
    >> So you always want your subject focus to be dead-center in the
    >> frame??????

    >
    > So you always want your subject focus to be tucked all the way into a
    > corner??????
    > :)


    Neither assumption about framing is logical...which to me only points to why
    it's reasonable for people to want to avoid heavy optics-based vignetting.
    I can't for the life of me figure why some here insist that vignetting is an
    inherently "good thing." It can be useful or harmful. As for me, I'd like
    to know the way different lenses handle it, and this is why I find the site
    useful.

    Mark
     
    Mark², Feb 19, 2006
    #12
  13. Mark²

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:11:21 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    number here)@cox..net> wrote:

    >Bill Funk wrote:
    >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:51:04 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    >> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>>>> When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon
    >>>>> shot noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further
    >>>>> increased by post-processing it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sir yes Sir, but imho that noise increase should need something
    >>>> like a 2 ou 3-stop vignetting to be apparent, not something really
    >>>> common in real world (unless shooting at 12mm FF or so)?
    >>>>
    >>>> I must admit I also agree with the proposal to make, by default, a
    >>>> bit of vignetting to keep the interest of the reader in the center
    >>>> (ie not in the corners) of the image.
    >>>
    >>> So you always want your subject focus to be dead-center in the
    >>> frame??????

    >>
    >> So you always want your subject focus to be tucked all the way into a
    >> corner??????
    >> :)

    >
    >Neither assumption about framing is logical...which to me only points to why
    >it's reasonable for people to want to avoid heavy optics-based vignetting.
    >I can't for the life of me figure why some here insist that vignetting is an
    >inherently "good thing." It can be useful or harmful. As for me, I'd like
    >to know the way different lenses handle it, and this is why I find the site
    >useful.
    >
    >Mark
    >

    Neither do I.
    I can see how it might be useful to introduce vignetting in some pics,
    but certainly not by default.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 19, 2006
    #13
  14. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >> When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon
    >> shot noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further
    >> increased by post-processing it.

    >
    > Sir yes Sir, but imho that noise increase should need something
    > like a 2 ou 3-stop vignetting to be apparent, not something really
    > common in real world (unless shooting at 12mm FF or so)?


    A 50mm at f/1.4 or f/2.0 can get a light fall-off of approx. 1.5 to
    2.5 stops:
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/Vignetting_50mm.png
    And I've seen some zoomlenses probably doing worse, even at smaller
    apertures.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Mark²

    Rich Guest

    On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:39:22 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    >>> When you 'fix' it in Photoshop, the fixed parts have more Photon
    >>> shot noise due to underexposure, and that extra noise is further
    >>> increased by post-processing it.

    >>
    >> Sir yes Sir, but imho that noise increase should need something
    >> like a 2 ou 3-stop vignetting to be apparent, not something really
    >> common in real world (unless shooting at 12mm FF or so)?

    >
    >A 50mm at f/1.4 or f/2.0 can get a light fall-off of approx. 1.5 to
    >2.5 stops:
    >http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/Vignetting_50mm.png
    >And I've seen some zoomlenses probably doing worse, even at smaller
    >apertures.
    >
    >Bart


    So what is the ultimate cause? The lenses, or is it the lens mount
    diameter on the camera? In other words, could they make lenses that
    woudn't suffer from it?
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Feb 20, 2006
    #15
  16. Mark²

    Guest

    Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
    > Neither assumption about framing is logical...which to me only points to why
    > it's reasonable for people to want to avoid heavy optics-based vignetting.


    What I thought is that, in the few cases where both there is heavy
    vignetting (seems I'm underestemating this, but I don't shoot FF since
    4 years anymore) and it is unwanted, it can be corrected at a very
    reasonable image quality expense.


    > As for me, I'd like
    > to know the way different lenses handle it, and this is why I find the site
    > useful.


    I think also we all do agree to that!
    But, in my particular case, it simply won't be the main criterion...
     
    , Feb 21, 2006
    #16
  17. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    John A. Stovall wrote:

    > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:43:08 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >
    > I fail to understand the obsession people have with vignetting.


    Because it's worse than with film and no all digital cameras do it.

    > If you
    > don't like it fix it in Photoshop just like we did in the darkroom
    > with wet processing.



    It's not like you can recreate the missing infiormation.

    >
    > Secondly, in January at a printing seminar, the noted landscape
    > photographer taught the intentional production of a vignetting effect
    > to enhance the image


    It's nice to have a choice, not all images benefit from this. One could just
    as easily argue "Look at the interesting images made with a holga,why do
    you need anything better?"

    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Feb 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Mark²

    Stacey Guest

    Mark² wrote:

    > I can't for the life of me figure why some here insist that
    > vignetting is an
    > inherently "good thing."


    Because it's something that their beloved Canon optics do. If water sprayed
    out of the back of a canon camera when you pressed the shutter, they'd
    argue that it feels good on a hot summer day.


    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Feb 22, 2006
    #18
  19. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    John A. Stovall wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:43:08 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
    > number here)@cox..net> wrote:


    > Secondly, in January at a printing seminar, the noted landscape
    > photographer taught the intentional production of a vignetting effect
    > to enhance the image and keep the viewers eye centered on the primary
    > subject.


    He can sugar-coat it all he wants, but I would call that, "Making the best
    of a limiting factor."
    :)
     
    Mark², Feb 22, 2006
    #19
  20. Mark²

    Mark² Guest

    Stacey wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >
    >> I can't for the life of me figure why some here insist that
    >> vignetting is an
    >> inherently "good thing."

    >
    > Because it's something that their beloved Canon optics do.


    Vignetting is exclusive to Canon?

    No.
    It's just that Nikon has yet to make use of their 35mm lenses yet with their
    DSLRs.
    :)

    >If water
    > sprayed out of the back of a canon camera when you pressed the
    > shutter, they'd argue that it feels good on a hot summer day.


    Not this Canon shooter!
    :)
     
    Mark², Feb 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kit lens vignetting at 27 mm

    , Jan 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    333
  2. Kit lens vignetting at 27 mm

    , Jan 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    286
  3. Tod
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    543
    measekite
    Mar 2, 2005
  4. W (winhag)

    Vignetting on 'full frame' sensors vs. 35mm film test?

    W (winhag), Nov 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    918
    Lorem Ipsum
    Nov 15, 2005
  5. brett

    Vignetting with Canon EFS 17-85mm lens

    brett, Jul 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    944
    Marcin
    Aug 3, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page