Canon 20D With Canon 18-85IS Lense Dark Corners (Vignetting)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tod, Mar 1, 2005.

  1. Tod

    Tod Guest

    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
     
    Tod, Mar 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tod

    MitchAlsup Guest

    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.
     
    MitchAlsup, Mar 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tod

    Chuck Guest

    the 17-85 USM IS is a toy. Return it and grab a 17-40 L instead
     
    Chuck, Mar 1, 2005
    #3
  4. 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, Mar 1, 2005
    #4
  5. The 10-22 is a _lot_ of fun. It focuses _amazingly_ close, too.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Tod

    measekite Guest

    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.
     
    measekite, Mar 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Tod

    TAFKAB Guest

    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...
     
    TAFKAB, Mar 1, 2005
    #7
  8. 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
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Tod

    Musty Guest

    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.
     
    Musty, Mar 2, 2005
    #9
  10. Tod

    measekite Guest

    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.
     
    measekite, Mar 2, 2005
    #10
    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.