20D, 17-85IS Lens, Dark Corners Of Photo

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by A, Dec 18, 2004.

  1. A

    A Guest

    Anyone else found corners of their photos are dark (Vignetting) when using a
    Canon 20D and 17-85IS lens, at 17mm, in relatively low light, with high
    aperture?
     
    A, Dec 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. A

    A Guest

    BTW, I had a lens hood on. Which was a genuine Canon lens hood for the
    lens.
     
    A, Dec 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Why not try some test with the lens hood off. It is a round lens hood
    or is it rectangular? If the later is it possible to put it on different
    ways?
     
    Joseph Meehan, Dec 18, 2004
    #3
  4. A

    ZONED! Guest

    Does it happen with the hood off?
     
    ZONED!, Dec 19, 2004
    #4
  5. A

    Bill Crocker Guest

    That lens, does not do that camera, justice. I think Canon created that
    lens, so first time buyers of the 20D, could afford a complete camera. If
    you wanted to buy the 20D, with a Canon "L" series lens, you would possibly
    begin to think it's out of your price range.

    Bill Crocker
     
    Bill Crocker, Dec 19, 2004
    #5
  6. A

    Skip M Guest

    Make sure you have it mounted correctly, it can be misaligned easily. I had
    this problem on my 28-135 on a film body, once.
     
    Skip M, Dec 19, 2004
    #6
  7. A

    ZONED! Guest

    Although I am not familiar with that particular lens I always figured
    your statement to be true. However, since it was designed with that
    body in mind it should not vignet.
     
    ZONED!, Dec 19, 2004
    #7
  8. A

    Musty Guest

    Thats not accurate. I have a 20D with that lens (17-85) and I do not see
    this issue (I have taken enough photographs in that condition to know). It
    must be the hood.

    I also recently read a post of user who had both the EF-S 17-85 and EF 17-40
    f/4L and he felt that the 17-85 took just as good images. Oh, by the way,
    the L series is about $650, and is in no way out of the range of the 20D
    buyer. Besides the 17-85, I also own a 70-200mm f/4L. When buying a $1500
    body, and L-series lens is not exactly "out-of-range" by any means.
     
    Musty, Dec 19, 2004
    #8
  9. A

    A Guest

    I will do some tests with the hood off when I get a chance. Strange for a
    genuine hood to cause vignetting though.

    As for the other debate, 'L' series 'V' EF/EF-S, it does depend on money.
    'L' lenses are well known for their excellence, but if I bought the 20D with
    'L' lenses, as opposed to EF/ES-S lenses, it would have been out of my price
    range.

    When I bought the 20D, I transferred from Minolta 35mm, so there was a big
    outlay of money for a complete useable kit, as Bill mentioned. 'L' series
    lenses will have to come in the future, but at the moment, the EF/EF-S
    lenses will do me fine.
     
    A, Dec 19, 2004
    #9
  10. Do you mean _black_ corners or _darker_ corners? Most 35mm wide angle lenses
    have darker corners wide open and have to be stopped down to get even
    illumination across the field.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 19, 2004
    #10
  11. A

    Big Bill Guest

    I think you're confusing two different things.
    "EF/EF-S" is a mount specification.
    "L" lenses is a quality thing.
    The two are not comparable.
    There are many "L" EF lenses.
     
    Big Bill, Dec 20, 2004
    #11
  12. pjruiz(nospaam), Dec 20, 2004
    #12
  13. A

    Musty Guest

    The reason I mentioned the 17-40mm f/4L (L-series) is because it costs a
    little more than the 17-85mm EF-S. The L is $678 and the 17-85 is $590
    (www.17photo.com). Its only once you go to f/2.8L glass where things start
    getting more expensive (and/or IS). Buying a $1500 body followed by a $680
    lens is hardly out of reach, unless someone spent all their money on the
    body, which would not make sense. BTW, the 70-200mm f/4L is under $600. If
    you look at 35mm SLR photographers, they will by a $1500 body and shell out
    $1500-$3000 on a lens without a blink. Really the body is a minor cost
    compared to the amount you will spend on glass and lighting.
    "L" is really a quality measure, whereas EF/EF-S is a mounting standard. The
    L-series lenses I mention above are EF mount. Advantage of EF-S mount is
    wider angles, size and weight making use of the DSLR sensor and geometry. I
    expect L-level EF-S lenses in the near future. The reason is that it will be
    cheaper to offer L quality on EF-S mount as opposed to EF.
     
    Musty, Dec 21, 2004
    #13
  14. A

    Musty Guest

    So, what was the result with hood off??

    I took almost 100 shots this weekend and I dont see the vignetting with the
    17-85mm IS EF-S (even at wide open).
     
    Musty, Dec 21, 2004
    #14
  15. A

    nick c Guest


    I use the 17-85 lens as a general purpose lite weight well balanced lens
    on the 20D and am pleased with its performance. I haven't encountered
    vignetting but I don't use the appropriate Canon lens shade. There are
    times when I will purposely vignette photos using Photoshop (generally
    B&W photos for affect). I also envision potential cropping of a photo
    that I intend to print in various sizes and make necessary allowances at
    the time I take a particular photo or series of photos.

    I use a lens shade that was made for the Tokina ATX 28-135 lens. This
    lens shade has a tightening screw on the side and I place the shade on
    the filter thats being used. It will also fit on the lens itself but not
    as securely as when fitted to a filter, though it has never come loose
    when placed on the lens without a filter.

    Reason I like using the Tokina shade instead of the regular Canon shade
    is I can easily turn polarized filters and similar type filters and not
    find using a shade with such type filters to be a nusence.

    Anyway, aside from my personal practices, I haven't encountered anything
    unsatisfactory when using the 17-85 lens.


    nick
     
    nick c, Dec 23, 2004
    #15
  16. A

    Bob Lashley Guest

    When the poster first mentioned this, I knew he meant using the hood.
    I've done a lot of shooting with my 20D but just recently got the hood
    for the 17-85 IS lens, and immediately noticed this issue. So I also
    immediately learned to remove the hood when I zoom out to the 17-20
    range.

    Yes, this is Canon's hood designed exclusively for use with this lens.
    Very disappointing. And very expensive at ~$35 USD.

    Cheers!
    -bob
     
    Bob Lashley, Jan 4, 2005
    #16
  17. SNIP

    The OP also mentioned shooting at low light with "high aperture". I'm
    not sure what he meant with "high aperture", but if he meant
    large/wide-open aperture (given the low light), then most lenses will
    show more vignetting/fall-off, especially with wide angle lenses. That
    is mostly caused by plain physics, but can be improved by closing down
    the aperture. If the situation improves by closing down the aperture,
    then it is less likely that the hood is causing it. If fall-off is
    practically eliminated by closing down the aperture, then the hood
    doesn't play a role.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 4, 2005
    #17
  18. A

    Chuck Guest

    Joseph Meehan

    Joseph, explain to me the Irish math please :)
     
    Chuck, Jan 18, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.