1-D Mark II & wide angle vignetting

I am new to the Canon crowd and have a question about vignetting I am noticing.

When I use a Sigma 18-50mm DC f/2.8 or the Canon 17-40mm f/4 I see vignetting

on the monitor. Is this normal for a 1-D Mark II and wide angle lens? I know

it sounds stupid but this was never a problem with my Nikon bodies and the same

basic lens length.

Isn't the Sigma 18-50 DC lens for APS and DX sensors? The sensor on the 1DII is quite a bit

bigger than those, so it's not surprising that combination shows vignetting.

 

I use the !DII with a Canon 17-40 without any vignetting problems.

You won't see vignetting on a 17-40 on a 1DM2 (1.3 crop).

 

Maybe you are using the wrong hood or a non low-profile filter? Remember, vignetting means "like a shadow" and does not really describe light fall off.

I tried no filter and no hood and low-profile filter and hood and still see slight traces. Just a little annoying. What about the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8? Have a friend who swears no vignetting but if I see it with a 17-40mm seems I would still see it with 17-35mm. Just pondering out loud. Other than this small problem I like the system so far. No really sure it is head and shoulders better than the Nikon but after 15 years it was time for a change. Thanks for the input.

Yes the Sigma is designed for APS sized sensors - good for 1.5 and 1.6 crop cameras but no gaurentee it won't vignette on a 1.3 sensor.

I wouldn't use that lens on that camera. It is not designed for 1.3x crops and never was intended to be used with them. No wonder you see this.

There should not be a problem with the 17-40 on a 1D2. I use mine regularly and have no problems with vignetting.

 

I recently bought a Sigma 14/2.8 and that one doesn�t even vignet on my 1D2. In fact I am quite surprised by the quality. Of course there is some distortion in the edges. But that is normal with this focal length.

<p>FWIW, photozone.de has tested a whole bunch of lenses on a 350D (1.6-crop) and found that many full-frame lenses show very slight vignetting even on that small sensor. And I do mean very slight; a few tenths of a stop, enough to measure, but not enough to make a practical difference to most photos. It wouldn't be entire surprising to have somewhat more vignetting on a 1.3-crop body. For the 17-40, they found up to half a stop with the lens wide open (of course, it varied by focal length) on a 1.6-crop body.</p>

 

<p>Keep in mind, too, that the term "vignetting" is thrown around (including by me) to describe things which sometimes, technically, aren't vignetting. Light falloff is an optical problem inherent to lenses in general, and more pronounced in wide-angle lenses, and it produces the same symptom: the farthest parts of the image from the centre (corners and edges) are darker than the centre. See <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/lensFAQ">question 18 on this photo.net static page</a> for a little bit of info on the difference.</p>

 

<p>A single filter on the 17-40 shouldn't cause a problem; <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef17-40usm.htm" target="_blank">even on a full-frame body, it's reported that a filter doesn't cause vignetting</a>. And of course Canon recommends using a filter on this lens if dust and water resistance are required, as the whole lens is sealed except for the area around the front element.</p>

 

<p>I use the 17-40 on a 20D (1.6-crop). I generally leave a UV filter on the front per Canon's recommendation. I'm satisfied with its performance with respect to vignetting/falloff, although admittedly I often shoot it at around f/8 (which should cure pretty much any vignetting) and a 1.6-crop body is not a very severe test of vignetting.</p>

I've got 1D MkII and EF17-40/4 L .... no distinct vignetting by eye. Because digital sensors require the light coming fairly squarely on them I would not be surprised if there actually was some marginal but measurable vignetting, but, like said, no vignetting by (my) eyes.