Vignetting on 5D Kit lens

[hakhtar]

I note quite pronounced vignetting when using 24-105mm L with 5D at 24 mm and

f4 (still apparent at f8). Is the lens faulty or is it supposed to be like

this! Is there anything that I can do to make it better! Thanks.

[Stock-Photos]

Search the photo.net forums for "5D vignetting"

 

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%3Aphoto.net&q=5D+vignetting

 

One thing you can do to reduce it is stop down the lens more.

 

Also the vignetting can be reduced using newer versions of Photoshop.

Click filter, distort,lens correction then adjust the vignette slider.

[christopher hartt dallas]

What kind of filter are you using on the lens? At 24mm you're beginning to bump into filter thickness issues on a full frame body, regardless of f stop. Take the filter off and see if you have the same issue. If not, try a "slim" filter.

[mpalmquist]

at 24 F4 there is noticible vignetting but with my copy it is better at 5.6 and still noticible not bothersome at F8. There is nothing you can do to make it better without filter/post processing it is physics - the image circle is not much bigger than the sensor so the corners show vignetting. This is why people using a wide angle large format lens often use a 'center filter' which is a gradient neutral density filter dark in the center clear at the edges to 'cancel' out the effect but also taking adding 1-1.5 stops exposure. I suppose you could try to find a 77mm center filter but I have never seen one. You can also emulate this in Photoshop with an action, search for digital center filter.

[emre]

It's the lens; expensive ones have less of it. Fortunately, it can easily be corrected in software.

[mpalmquist]

here is a good page about center filter I googled real quick.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/center-filters.htm

[awindsor]

Emre,

 

The only more expensive lens in the focal length is the 24-70/2.8 and that is marginally (based on street prices - the 24-105/4 IS has a higher MSRP).

 

Mus Akhtar,

 

The 24-105/4 IS is notorious for vignetting at the wide end. I don't think there is anything wrong with your lens. The 24-70/2.8 has lower vignetting wide open at 24mm than the 24-105/4 IS. It is only really a problem at 24mm and can be slightly ameliorated by stopping down; however 24mm at f22 is worse than f5.6 at 35mm and longer.

 

Check out

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon24-70f28/ff/1vignet.gif

[awindsor]

Wrong link. Sorry. Here is the correct one

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon24-105f4/ff/1vignet.gif

[gdanmitchell]

The 24-105 vignettes wide open on full frame. Actually, all lenses vignette. The 24-105 at

f/4 on full frame just vignettes more than some other lenses.

 

All things in photography represent some sort of trade-off and no equipment is "perfect."

In the case of the 24-105 the downside tradeoffs include vignetting wide open (which is

not always an issue, depending upon the subject, and can be compensated for in post-

processing) and the maximum aperture of "only" f/4. Upside tradeoffs are longer focal

length range, relatively small size and weight for this type of lens, IS, very sharp image

quality especially at smaller apertures.

 

For my purposes this lens represents an excellent option. I typically shoot at smaller

apertures, often doing landscapes from the tripod. When I need f/4 it is there and works

well as long as the shot can tolerate vignetting or can be fixed in post-processing. The

relatively small size and weight are advantages for me when I hike and backpack. In the

latter and similar situations, IS is useful when I don't have time for the tripod.

 

If the pluses don't balance the minuses for your style of photography you may want to

consider at alternative lens like the 24-70 or even a set of primes.

 

Dan

[jim_larson1]

Known issue with this lens. . . a 4.3X zoom. One of the trade-offs in a lens that costs a mere $1000+

[pbizarro]

This strong light fall-off in the corners up to f/8 was the reason why I did not buy the lens. It was immediately reported by Chasseur D'Images, a magazine that I trust. Further user reports just confirmed that.

 

Since I shoot slide film, the poor performance of this lens in this regard, was a show-stopper for me. It's a pity, because otherwise it looks like a perfect travel lens.

 

I ended up buying the 24-70 L, and I have never looked back; it's a fine lens too!

[hakhtar]

Many thanks folk! Two things: I have not used a filter on this lens, and having 24-105mm L I can't afford 20-70mm L lens!

Being conscious of the Vignetting issue, I checked my 17-55mm f2.8 - that too shows Vignetting at 17mm!

[gdanmitchell]

<p>To follow up...

 

<p>My main lenses are the 17-40mm f/4, the 24-105mm f/4 IS, and the 70-200mm f/4.

I have used them on a 350D for several years. After purchasing a 5D I thought it would be

a good idea to shoot some photos under relatively controlled circumstances with all three

lenses, with a goal of understanding their performance characteristics on this camera

more fully - so I did a <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/

2007/03/31#a1396">basic test of the three lenses on the 5D</a>.

 

<p>All three of these excellent lenses exhbit vignetting wide open in a controlled test. I

figured this would be the case, but understanding how vignetting changes at different

apertures lets me make more intelligent choices of lens and settings when I'm in the field

actually making photographs.

 

<p>(I discovered some other interesting things as well in my test that have affected how I

use all three lenses more effectively.</p>

 

<p>Knowing that a lens vignettes at f/4 does not lead to the conclusion that you should

not use that lens or that you should not shoot it at f/4. It does help you understand the

tradeoffs that you'll make though.

 

<p>I've made successful photographs of theatrical performances on the 24-105 shot at f/

4 - you wouldn't even notice the fact that

vignetting is present unless you were told it was there or you were specifically looking for

it. (The apparent vignetting in the linked shot is actually the effect of stage lighting that

falls off at the edges of the set - I actually <i>increased</i> the vignetting effect in this

photo to reduce the presence of objects around the edge of the scene.)

 

<p><img src="http://64.81.64.200:81/images/photoblog/JamoFiddler20070331.jpg">

 

<p>On the other hand, I avoid f/4 on such a lens when doing low light landscapes with

lots of sky - instead I'll close down at least a couple stops and use a tripod. The following

was actually shot with the 17-40, not only vignettes but has extremely soft corners at f/4.

 

<p><img src="http://64.81.64.200:81/images/outside/

RacetrackDuskSky20070402.jpg">

 

<p>Dan

[mendel_leisk]

Mus, when you started this thread, the 17-55 occurred to me, as another lens with fairly noticeable light fall-off, on the crop bodies.

 

Regarding your 24-105, I think you've made a good choice. The 24-70 does have less light fall off on full-frame like the 5D, it is a very sharp lens, can focus quite a bit closer than the 24-105 and has f2.8. But that's about it.

 

The 24-105 is shorter and lighter, has IS and greater zoom range. It's 24mm end is slightly wider than the 24mm of the 24-70. The color seems better to my eye: clean whites, compared to the 24-70's redder hue.

 

Looking through a lot of my recent pictures with the 24-105, it was very rarely that I noticed light fall-off. Many of the shots were at 24mm, but the f-stops tended to be around 5.6~11. I mostly shoot in Program Mode. I know wide open at 24mm light fall-off will be evident, but it just seems to be a rare occurence, and I think that's what counts.

 

I have both the 24-70 and the 24-105, the latter acquired more recently. When I first got the 24-105 I used it almost exclusively. Then I started pixel peeping comparison shots, and tipped back to using the 24-70. Then I started noticing the downsides of the 24-70: the weight/bulk, the (redish) hue, lack of IS showing in blurred shots.

 

The 24-105 is a compromise lens, but a pretty good balance.

[john_bellenis]

When I was faced with the familiar decision between the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4 IS, I

found myself really wanting to prefer the f4 lens... it had IS which I liked, was a bit lighter,

had the extra 35mm of reach and seemed like the perfect walking around lens. I figured

that I could compensate for the loss of one stop by upping the ISO if necessary, not a huge

problem with 5Ds.

 

However, after trying the lenses out extensively in the store (Calumet) I left with the 24-70

f2.8 precisely because of the excessive light fall off wide open at 24mm on the 24-105.

There was also some more barrel disortion evident on that lens, and I liked the brighter

viewfinder image from the 24-70 f2.8. It's not as sexy or feature packed as the newer

24-105mm, but I have never regretted my decision - the 24-70 is tack sharp with minimal

fall off or distortion and with great bokeh wide open.

 

Yes, you can correct the vignetting in PS or RAW processing, but unless every image was

shot at the same aperture and focal length, it will be a time consuming image by image

procedure - not something I'd want to add to my workflow...

[jim_greer]

To John Bellenis, what specifically are you referring to when you say the 24-70 L is "not as sexy or feature packed as the newer" 24-105 L IS? Are you referring here just to the 24-105's longer reach and IS, or is there an "older" version 24-105 that somehow is lacking? The word "newer" I guess is what's confusing me.

[john_bellenis]

Hi Jim,

 

By "newer" I was referring to the fact that the 24-105 f4 IS is a newer lens (as in more

recently released) than the 24-70 f2.8.

 

Yes, the "sexy" features I was referring to are the IS, the extra zoom reach and also the

fact that it is lighter...

 

Hope this clears that up... - John