canon 17-55mm f/2.8 vignetting at F2.8 + dust problem?

Im thinking about getting a 30D body with the canon 17/55mm f/2.8.

the reviews at B&H indicates that this lens is vignetting at F2.8, and that its

is extremley vunerble to dust. anyone here encountered these issues? and are

these disadventges enough of a reason not to buy? I wouldnt wanne buy such an

expensive lens and regret it.

thanks, Lior

Lior,

 

When they said vignette, did they mention the conditions under which vignette occurs? For example, with a stack of 3 77mm filters or what? I don't think that Canon would make a lens that has vignette by itself, i.e., with nothing stacked on it. Of course, wide angle lens will vignette if you stack bunch of screw-in filters/adapters to it.

 

tien pham

 

http://www.tkphamphotography.com

no, none of them mentioned using filters. however, one of them mentioned certain light conditions:

"when you have a bright,

even background - for example, taking sports photos inside a

gym (where you need the lens as fast as can be - F2.8), with

light walls..."

 

anyway, thats the link:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=12039&A=details&Q=&sku=425812&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

Lior

<p>Lots of lenses vignette*, particularly wide open, particularly at the wide end. If you use full-frame lenses on 1.6-crop bodies, you tend not to notice since you're not using the outer part of the lens' image circle. But using full-frame lenses (even many L lenses) on full-frame bodies, or "digital only" lenses on small-sensor bodies, yes, you should expect vignetting. And this lens is no exception.</p>

 

<p>See <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm" target="_blank">this review</a> for some quantitative information on how pronounced the vignetting is at various combinations of aperture and focal length. Really, this is about the only weak point for this lens; it's very sharp, fast, has IS, has the best AF equipment (ring USM), and chromatic aberration is well controlled.</p>

 

<p>As pointed out in the first response, even on a lens which doesn't exhibit a great deal of vignetting, you can usually cause vignetting by stacking a bunch of filters on the lens. So don't. One filter should be OK. More than one will almost certainly cause problems, particularly at the wide end.</p>

 

<p>To some degree, vignetting can be corrected in software. PTLens can do it, for instance. You don't want to rely on this to correct heavy vignetting, because when you pull up the dark areas, they'll show less dynamic range and more noise. But this is a workable solution for reasonably minor vignetting (such as you'd get on this lens by stopping down to f/4-f/5.6 or beyond).</p>

 

<p>It's not sealed like many of the L lenses are, and the front end extends while zooming, but this isn't sold as an L lens; it's sold as a high-end consumer zoom, and high-end consumer zooms typically are not sealed and usually extend while zooming. Even sealed L lenses move air around internally when zooming/focusing, and the air in them is not likely to be 100% dust-free, nor is the air inside the body, so the difference here isn't dust-free vs. dusty; it's merely a matter of degrees. Dust happens; it's a fact of life with a DSLR, so get used to it, take reasonable steps to reduce the amount of it that gets into the camera (e.g. changing lenses in the open on a beach on a windy day is not smart), and when the amount of dust on your sensor gets too annoying, clean the sensor.</p>

 

<p>I bought the 17-40/4L USM for my 20D because the 17-55 didn't exist at the time. The 17-40 is an honest-to-goodness professional-quality lens and it's my most used lens. If I stick with 1.6-crop, I intend to trade in the 17-40 to get the 17-55 at some point in the future. That should tell you how worried I am about the 17-55.</p>

 

<p>*: technically, this is usually not actually vignetting, but rather light falloff. But since most people simply use the term "vignetting" for any phenomenon that causes the outer parts of the image circle to be darker than the inner parts, let's just go with it, for the sake of simplicity.</p>

<P>I have an EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM and it does not vignette at 2.8 or any other aperture

(save stacking filters or installing the hood wrong). However there is a small amount of light

fall-off in the corners at 17mm F2.8 you may notice when shooting plain white walls. In

normal use I have not seen any light fall off.</P>

 

<P>Here's a photo shot at 17mm F2.8. It's pretty difficult to see the light fall-off:</P>

 

<img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/southwest_images/Fremont_0484a.jpg">

Incidentally, I haven't noticed any dust problems after about 9 months of use, suffering

plenty of desert, jungle and beach use. Now my old EF 28-135 IS USM was a virtual dust

vac...

<p>Regarding vignetting, from what I've seen essentially <i>all</i> lenses vignette wide

open. The question is not <i>whether the lens vignettes</i>, but rather <i>how much

and at what apertures.</i> If you are looking for a general purpose large aperture wide

zoom that doesn't vignette at all, you have a long search ahead of you... ;-)

 

<p>(I posted a <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/04/15#a1472">short piece

on this topic</a> elsewhere.)

 

<p>This is true of excellent lenses as well as lesser lenses. My L lenses show vignetting

wide open when I shoot subjects of uniform color and brightness. However, the vignetting

becomes insignificant when I stop down a bit.

 

<p>In some cases - and, fortunately, many of them are the same situations in which you

might shoot wide open - a bit of vignetting is not a problem, and it can even be a good

thing. Sometimes we'll <i>add</i> vignetting in post processing in order to deemphasize

subjects around the periphery of the frame and draw more attention to the main subject.

My belief is that this can produce a viewing experience in some cases that is closer to the

way we actually see - the subject we focus our attention on seems more "obvious" that

other background subjects in our field of view.

 

<p>So, my recommendation is... don't worry about a bit of vignetting.

 

<p>Also, a bit of dust on the front element of the lens or even elsewhere on the lens is

normally completely invisible in photographs. You can easily test this if you don't believe

me. Just put a bit of something dust-sized on the front element and take a photo.

 

<p>Take care,

 

<p>Dan

thank you all. Ive read all of your responses carefully and the links and examples youve attached helped me a great deal and taught me a lot.

you know, as someone new around this site, Ive got to say - this forum is nothing but a photographer's pradise. to recieve all your profound and proffesional responses within less then 2 hours since I posted my question...?! what is this place?! :-)

sorry if it sounds emotional, but it feels like you truley care. so again THANK U.

Lior

I have post a personal review there wher you could find some informations about that :

rgds

Patrick

 

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/canon_17_55

Yes, there is noticible light fall-off at f/2.8, but you can fix it in post-processing if it is objectionable in a given shot. I would prefer it not be there, but this is a design trade-off that gives you a fast, yet reasonably light-weight and compact lens. I've not had a dust problem at all.