17-40mm L Lense Vignetting Full Frame SLR?

[nicholas_siebenmorgen]

I'm on the verge of ordering a Canon 17-40mm L lense for my 20D.

However, I've read a few complaints about vignetting problems on full

framed cameras. Considering I'll most likely buy either a 5D or other

full framed DSLR within a year I can't have this. Has anyone using

this lense with a full frame camera had any problems with vignetting

or heard of any. I haven't found any samples of the problem and the

complaints seem to be overwhelmed by the praises of this lense so it

is hard to tell. That's why I'm posting the question here. Thanks for

any help you can give.

 

Nick

[neilb]

i use it on my 20D and my Elan IIe, no vignetting at all...

[ron_jonson]

At one time, I used the 17-40mm on an Elan 7. It's a really great lens. I was impressed by how sharp it was with the enlargements I made. I saw some vignetting when at the widest focal length and using filters (shooting B&W) and the lens hood. Not sure which caused the vignetting or if it would've been there without the filter or hood. Didn't care. Didn't bother. Still captured some great images. Never understood why vignetting bugs so many people for what those people shoot. It can actually add a nice effect to some images. It can also be cropped out or dodged/lightened. I understand if you're shooting commercially or whatever, but..... well then again, I like Holga shots, so what do I know.

[shambrick007]

No issues on my 1n <p><img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3734687-lg.jpg><p><img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3734752-lg.jpg><p>><img src = http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3734731-lg.jpg><p>...but of course, that's film...

[rodney_gold1]

It does vignette at wide open under certain circumstances , if you have even backgrounds etc. It also does so right thru the zoom range , not just at wide. It's not a real problem in real life circumstances but tends to be more pronounced with flash indoors etc.

You must ask yourself why you want to go FF cos when doing so you do tend to see more abberations and light fall off on most lenses and dont really gain much apart form being able to go ultrawide or use specialised optics.

Heres some pics of vignetting on FF with a 17-40 and a 28-300 L

http://www.5d.fotopic.net/c718605.html

[david_kieltyka]

The 17-40mm, at least my copy, performs very well on the 5D. Corner falloff is minimal at all focal lengths. Minimal enough as to not matter at all. Here's one of the first photos I took with the combo, from a test shoot a friend & I did about six week ago. My friend already owned a 5D at the time, and the results of the shoot convinced me to buy one for myself.

 

I've seen some falloff with the 5D but mostly at wider apertures at the long end of telephoto zooms. The issue is with the lenses themselves rather than the camera. (I've seen the same effect with these lenses on my EOS 620 with transparency film.)

 

-Dave-<div></div>

[jbq]

No problem here. Certainly no more on a 5D than on film, and certainly not enough to stop me from using it.

[andrew robertson]

Vignetting is a problem of the past if one shoots RAW.

 

As is CA, thus negating any desire for me to bother upgrading my 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM to

the 17-40.

[chris_floden]

I use the 17-40 on my 1DsMkII without having any problems worth mentioning.

[awindsor]

Wide open there is light fall off near the corners (as there is on almost any wide angle lens) but it is not problematical. If you believe Nikon hype then it might be worse on a DSLR than it was on my film body but nothing I have seen bears this out.

[rick s]

Vignetting was never really an issue before DSLR's with cropped frames came along. Remember, most of these lenses were designed to work on full-frame 35mm cameras to begin with.

[john_baker4]

You may experience problems when using normal polar filters with FF/Film bodies with lenses wider than 20mm - you will need to look out for the thin or slimline version. This is not an issue with 1.3 or 1.6 cameras.

[bill_goldman]

All retrofocus wide angle lenses exhibit some edge falloff. Technically, this is not vignetting. Vignetting is caused by some physical object, such as a too narrow lens hood or stacked filters, intruding into the corners of the image.

 

The edge falloff will be the same with or without a standard filter and the proper lens hood.

[benb]

I'm not seeing any vignetting problems yet with my 17-40 on the 5D... it looks great. The lens is a ton more fun to use then it was on my 10D.

 

There is a lot of FUD going around from Nikon shooters about the 5D sensor somehow causing lenses to vignette and have light fall off...

 

It really is not an issue. It's the same as film, I bet a big part of the issue is people who have never shot with 35mm film before, they have gotten used to being able to stack filters on wide angle lenses and not see issues. And there are also a lot of heavy zoom users who seem to think they can get something for free.

 

Other people have talked about the 17-40 being unacceptably soft in the corners but I am not seeing that either.. it's really difficult to get enough DoF to have sharp corners at the wide end anyway. You certainly are not going to be able to do so without using a tripod and most likely calculating the depth of field carefully.

[benb]

Also if people are firing the flash that is just ridiculous. I don't think there are any Canon flashes which can provide coverage on a 17mm lens.

 

My 420EX couldn't even cover the whole frame with the 17-40 on the 10D, with the corners cropped out.

[jbq]

Ben: actually, the 580EX covers as wide as 14mm, but...

 

-With over $4000 worth of gear (FF DLSR + lens + flash), buying an off-camera cord and maybe a lightweight tripod isn't going to hurt the budget.

 

-Most likely, flash + ultra-wide means interior, in which case you'd be much better off bouncing the flash. I've used my 420EX bounced off a lumiquest pocket bouncer plus white ceiling, at 17mm on film, without a problem.

 

-None of those issues are specific to digital cameras.