Vignetting on the 5d MK II

[cjogo]

<p>Has most of the corrections for this Canon problem been finally fixed > with the MKII?</p>

[canfred]

<p>Vignetting is a lens issue , I use the 24 f1.4 L and a 50mm f1.4 even shooting raw there is no significant problem.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>What about a 24-105 ? Thinking of moving up this Spring >> </p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a> <br /><br />helps this you, I normally ignore the vignetting issue.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>"Has most of the corrections for this Canon problem been finally fixed > with the MKII?"<br>

<br /><br>

Like Manfred said, it is the lens that suffers light fall-off, not the camera. Nothing here to fix. Incidentally, you can use the build-in "Lens Peripheral Correction" feature to lighten the edges automatically with problematic optics. Or you can engage "Lens Peripheral Correction" after the fact in DPP with a single mouse click.<br>

<br /><br>

All, every single lens, suffers some light fall-off. It's a fact of optical design the outer edges of the image circle are darker. Wide zooms are the worse. With that said, I've used the 24-105 with my 5D for nearly 3 years and only rarely noticed light fall-off. It's mainly a problem at the wide angle side at F4. And, I manly use 24mm for sweeping landscape views so it would be silly to shoot wide open. And, the only other time to use 24mm F4 is for candids in dark interiors. A little light fall-off actually improves the image, leading the eye towards the subject. I normally leave "Lens Peripheral Correction" off in DPP as I prefer the slight darkening of the edges.<br>

<br /><br>

Here's a 5D/24-105 image wide open at the wide end. Hard to see the light fall-off isn't it. Unless you shoot blank whites walls or blue skies wide open you'd rarely see it.<br>

<img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/southwest_images/ballys_0177.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[cjogo]

<p>SINH :: the link does seem to bring up the vignette problem ,,,,,,,although it is prevalent across the web ....my clients can not ignore the problem - and I am not going to fix 500 images. Hope we do not have to move to Nikon.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>"my clients can not ignore the problem - and I am not going to fix 500 images. Hope we do not have to move to Nikon."</p>

<p>Wide Nikon lens suffer light fall-off too. It's not a Canon problem it's a fact of wide zoom design. Sheesh, if it bothers you so much just leave "Lens Peripheral Correction" turned on (probably ships with it on as default--my 50D did). There is nothing to fix. The camera corrects it automatically. You won't need a single mouse click.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>I will be using the lens primarly for weddings/portraits with that blue sky. Maybe the LPControl can be left on in the MK II ..would really like that camera this Spring/Summer. The 20d works fine for most of my digital work presently ...but, I may want to explore ISO's above 400. </p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>As mentioned, there is light fall-off with all bodies, all lenses. <br /> <br /> I think the most successful approach is to "use" the fall-off and incorporate it into your photography style. I do minimal post-processing of my wedding images and enjoy having the natural 'vignette' created by light fall-off for my images. It is part of my "signature" style. If the light fall-off and corner distortion didn't exist naturally, I might try to create it in Photoshop. Fortunately, well-controlled exposures and the natural "Physics" of current technology create the look I'm looking for.<br /> <br /> A good friend of mine is a Psychologist. He's fond of commenting about how people would be generally better off by "embracing" their problems. As a photographer, my suggestion is the same - "embrace" the 'problems' and make them work for you.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>>>Has most of the corrections for this Canon problem <<<br>

"my clients can not ignore the problem - and I am not going to fix 500 images. Hope we do not have to move to Nikon."</p>

<p>Sorry but this is totally unprofessional, uneducated nonsense. This is No problem and a physical fact that has been part of this game since it began with all brands and formats. The 20d You Should know is a CROP camera using the center of the lens only. If you can`t deal with it stick to crop bodies, 20d is fine at 800iso and 40/50d a vast improvement. I`ve have never had a client in over 4 decades complain of vignetting, learn the limits of the lenses you use. :)</p>

 

[cjogo]

<p>I guess that is why I "embrace" film more than digital - no limits on the lenses. The "signature" style reminds me of early days of > too large of filter & /or wrong shade on the front of your lens. Our 20d works fine, just did not like the noise/grain of images above 400 ... Guess I will stick to crop bodies. Professionally do not want to deliver vignetted corners to our clients . Thanks Kindly everyone.......</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Well, since it's a lens issue and not a "media" one, you'll get the same problem with film...but labs generally process it out (vignette) for you. I much prefer to determine how the variables are handled rather than handing a negative over to a lab and having them do it - like I did for many years.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>I guess I shot 120 so long > never saw the inherent vignetting ..... May just move up to the 40d > my 17~40 L does not seem to have much problem with a crop camera. Will also do a research on the "Lens Peripheral Correction" ..that may take care of most my problems.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>The 40d is a few leapfrog jumps ahead of 20d. Cleaner noisewise, readable fonts on the large 3in LCD, spot meterting, top lcd duplicated on the large rear LCD (easier for me in low light) the whole system is quicker and more efficient tho not a huge difference with IQ normal size prints, but still worth the step.</p>

<p>For portraits daylight blue skies, you`d rarely shoot wide open? so vigneting masked with MF down 1 stop, tho could get it on my hassy`s with a 40mm lens wide open, I like christophers approach to LFO but some lenses worse than others, doubt one would signiture this one, 5d + tam 17 50 2.8, even f6.3 did not help, wunda why? heh heh</p>

<p>Wish you luck </p><div></div>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>The 5D Mk2 is now showing up what used to be only seen on 100 or less iso slide film...the imperfections in Canon lenses, L series included. Its good in that it has a great sensor, but bad in that people are now getting disappointed with Canons glass. That's the way it goes with the resolution now available which exceeds the lens's capability.<br>

Mind you, it will be the same for Nikon too with the new D3x sensor. We are very self critical of Nikon, lens wise. But we Nikonians always knew that. We are now entering a new era and we are discovering just why Leica lenses are so good (and so expensive). The same goes for the lenses in medium format digital. Only the best, fast Blad lenses offer complementary resolution when used with a Phase One back etc. Its also why large format people sort of go on their knees over the resolution of their Schneider lenses.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>So the reports on the 50d are not that much better than the 40d ? Especially in the ISO 100 range ( where 79% of my shots are set ) I don't really chimp --just read the histogram & still carry a hand meter for everything --Manual camera and flash . Maybe a 17-55 2.8 /// 40d will be all the jump I need for 2009...better for my econonmics.</p>

[jake_holt]

<p>I've shot approx. 100,000 images with my 5D's over the last 2.5 years, and exactly zero images have been "ruined" by vignetting. YMMV.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>JAKE ::: that's encouraging ~! I have just seen so many threads about the problem and examples of the images >> just got frightened away from the full frame cameras. I would be using a 24-105 L almost 90% of the time, as long as I can be assured the dark corners will not appear > I am sold. </p>

[chrisjb]

<p>nobody could guarantee no dark corners, but if you are doing weddings I would not use a 24 105 f4 IS, you would be better served with a 24 70 f2.8 for better IQ, Also your 17 40 will perform far better on a FF. :)</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I just finished shooting over 500 images in an event using a 24 L, zero vignetting. My 14 mm Tamron on the 5D, I get vignetting. You would not have been able to do the event I did with the 24-105 L, no windows, recessed lights, dark, and no flash or light allowed. Many Catholic Churches do not like flash or lights during the ceremony. I do get slight vignetting with my 24-105 but that is a walk around type of lens.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>1. Slight vignetting (= peripheral illumination fall-off in this discussion) often doesn't matter, ...</p>

<p>2. ... but even heavy vignetting can be fully corrected in DPP, with built-in settings ...</p>

<p>3. ... and you can do it in batches.</p>

<p>So where's the problem?</p>

<p>That said, there are a few things to be aware of. First, you pay a small price in dynamic range near the periphery, because you are selectively pulling up that area. This very seldom matters. Secondly, in-camera correction on the 50D and 5DII affects only JPEG images directly (including the embedded JPEG in the .CR2 file), but also sets a flag to make that same level of correction the default for conversion from RAW in DPP. The level applied in-camera is around two-thirds of that needed for full correction, and can be switched on or off but (as yet) is not adjustable in-camera (it should be, a simple firmware enhancement). Thirdly, only Canon lenses are supported, although there are now profiles for almost all EF lenses, and for all approved lens + extender combinations. Finally, for in-camera correction there is a limit to the number of profiles that can be loaded simultaneously, but it is large enough to cope with most needs.</p>

[tholte]

<p>If you are currently satisfying your customers with a 20D, you will be wowwing and zowwing them with a 5D or 5DMKII.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>I agree with Jake Holt. I have shot the 5D with the 17-40 and 24-70 and I don't see a problem with vignetting. For sure a small persent may show this if you look hard but its really not a problem if you shoot Canon or Nikon it is how it is. The quality and pictures are fantasic with both. It was never better.</p>

[yannik_hay]

<p>I have the 5D Mark II and it is set on Peripheral illumination correction and it does the work: I haven't seen any vignetting yet. I am working with it since the 12th of December with the 16-35mm lens L II which is also a superb lens.</p>

[wentbackward]

<p>Older camera's (actually even my relatively new M7II) recommend a centre graduated ND filter to balance out the vignetting on certain lenses. M7II lenses are often touted as being some of the best glass available in medium format but yet still suffer this issue. It is a decision and compromise made at design time. It's a question of the lens, not the camera, knowing the equipment and shooting accordingly.</p>

<p>If the client demands modifying 500 images and you want to keep the client, you'll modify the images or pay someone to do so.</p>