|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
24/06/2008 13:46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of those lens questions!
|
|
As it's all your fault, you've got to help me with some info! 
Just bought a Canon 5D and now find I need a wide angle lens (didn't realise about the vignetting on the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8  ) . There are quite a few 2nd hand 16-35mm f2.8 or 17-40mm f4 about.
Question - is it worth paying a bit more and buying a 16-35mm and is the mark I OK? If buying a mark II I'd have to buy a new one, then the cost becomes a bit too much.
ta muchly.  Lisa.
|
|
Bettina
|
|
(Kein Titel)
|
|
24/06/2008 14:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
24/06/2008 15:11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
Lisa means mechanical vignetting due to the fact that the 17-50 Tamron is an APS format lens...
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
If you're happy using a prime lens, the EF 24 f2.8 works well on my 5D, and it's quite a compact lens. I also have the EF 20 f2.8 which I bought to get me a half decent wide-angle on my 10D, but I've hardly used this on the 5D.
(I'm not sure if my memory is correct, but I think DPP can correct for certain aberrations if you shoot in RAW. Might be worth checking out with regard to the vignetting issue with wide-angle lenses used close to their full aperture.)
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Unless you need f2.8 I'd recommend the 17-40 f4 L. I've never used it on FF but bought it for my 10D (1.6X) and now use it on my 1D (1.3X) so obviously can't comment on vignetting on full frame. I haven't heard of any nay-sayers and I can't recommend it highly enough. It's my 'walk-about' lens.
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
Question - is it worth paying a bit more and buying a 16-35mm
Lots of people have the 17-40 f/4L and few people have any problems with them. With such a short lens you can use quite a long exposure hand held, it's unlikely that you'd really need a f/2.8 lens in this focal length range (and, if you did, a prime would probably suit you better).
The extra millimetre at the short end of the 16-35 is insignificant but the extra 5mm at the long end of the 17-40 might quite often make the difference between having to change the lens and not.
I think my wallet would need an awful lot of convincing that the extra cost of the 16-35 was justified.
Add to that the fact that the 16-35 is considerably bulkier and heavier and, IMO, it's a bit of a no-brainer.
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
The 17-40 can produce fairly bad vignetting, but it does appear to cary from sample to sample. Mine is OK, but I did try one that wasn't - in fact it was a lot worse than my old 20-35 f2.8L. If I could afford the Mk II 16-35, I would probably go for it, but the edge quality of the original 16-35 isn't great on full-frame, and so I think the 17-40 is a better option TBH.
|
|
Bettina
|
|
(Kein Titel)
|
|
24/06/2008 16:54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
Lisa means mechanical vignetting due to the fact that the 17-50 Tamron is an APS format lens...
But she mustn't put that lens on the 5D. 
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
24/06/2008 16:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
Lisa means mechanical vignetting due to the fact that the 17-50 Tamron is an APS format lens...
But she mustn't put that lens on the 5D.
Too late I think..........
|
|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
24/06/2008 17:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
Too late I think..........
Er.... yeah! It's an EF mount so it works OK, you just get a nice round image in the centre. Lisa.
|
|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
24/06/2008 17:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
If I could afford the Mk II 16-35, I would probably go for it, but the edge quality of the original 16-35 isn't great on full-frame, and so I think the 17-40 is a better option TBH.
Thanks everyone - I think what Nick has said has made my mind up. Lisa.
|
|
Bettina
|
|
(Kein Titel)
|
|
24/06/2008 17:45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Too late I think..........
Er.... yeah! It's an EF mount so it works OK, you just get a nice round image in the centre. Lisa.
But if it's an EF-S mount lens ... oh, disaster looms. DON'T USE IT!
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
But if it's an EF-S mount lens ... oh, disaster looms.
Yes, it won't fit.
Sigma (& maybe other indie) lenses designed for APS-C sensors use a standard EF bayonet and do not contain components which might hit the mirror when used in a full frame camera. They're perfectly safe to mount, but will not cover the full frame - the corners will be completely black, not just darkened by a bit of vignetting.
|
|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
24/06/2008 23:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Yep just as Marvin says, like a very dark pinhole pic. Thanks for the concearn Bettina - I did read the Tamron specs and check out the back of the lens against a Canon EF lens before I tried it.
ta lots. Lisa.
(where did I put that M42 adapter?) 
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
I've posted this before, I'll post it again: 5D and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX at 18mm
Perfectly safe, but not very useful!
|
|
jennief
|
|
(enthusiast)
|
|
25/06/2008 11:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
FWIW I have the 17-40 f4L and its just fine. I haven't noticed much vignetting with my copy. The other lens which I have really enjoyed using is my 50mm f1.8 and it was cheap as chips-great in low light, pin sharp and can make excellent blurred backgrounds.It is quite a favourite!
|
|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
25/06/2008 12:08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Yes I was thinking the same thing Jennie, as I'm going to have a gap between 40 and 70mm both at f4. Lisa.
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Well there's the 24-105, of course....
The 50mm f1.8 is cheap and pretty decent indeed, and the only reason not to have one is ownership of one of the other 50s...
|
|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
25/06/2008 13:37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Yes I had considered that Nick but wanted to go wider. Lisa.
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Yup, I'm just being a bit naughty...
One of the few other options is the Sigma 12-24, which is VERY wide - but the 17-40 is a much more useful lens most of the time.
|
|
PhilW
|
|
(Blue Peter Badge Winner)
|
|
25/06/2008 16:45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Lisa,
I happiliy use the 17-40 on my 5D. Any slight vignetting that you want to get rid of is easy during raw conversion in ACR. It is a bit softer at the 17mm end than the 40mm end but still well within the (my) bounds of acceptability.
In fact all 4 of my Module 6 (people) shots here:
http://www.pbase.com/calis/module_6
Were taken with the 5D/17-40 combo.
Message me if you'd like any high res files sent over for you to look at.
Very occasionally I wish for f2.8, usually in a darkened derelict interior where I could use a little more light. In those cases I just spin up the ISO as up to 800 it hardly effects printquality on the 5D.
|
|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
25/06/2008 16:47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Hmm - I'll have a look at the Sigma (you can never go wide enough ) Lisa.
|
|
lisadb
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
25/06/2008 16:52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Your pics always look fantastic Phil. I had a look at your people pics but only quick 'cos your stuff always makes me want to give up and start a different hobby. Thanks for the info. Lisa.
|
|
PhilW
|
|
(Blue Peter Badge Winner)
|
|
25/06/2008 16:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
Quote:
Your pics always look fantastic Phil. I had a look at your people pics but only quick 'cos your stuff always makes me want to give up and start a different hobby. Thanks for the info. Lisa.
LOL *Blushes*
|
|
|
Re: One of those lens questions!
|
|
I just got a 17-40 and in its first few outings I haven't seen any obvious vignetting on my 5D even with a polariser fitted - though I didn't use it wide open. Editing a picture in DPP using the NR/Lens aberration section you can see subtle changes in the corners if you set peripheral illumination to 120 and flick it on and off but nothing really gross that would suggest correction was necessary. Suggest you try before you buy.
|
