Vignetting on the 5d MK II

[cjogo]

<p>I am a ~ one lens ~ kinda of guy for weddings. A 28-70 L works great on my Canon A2e & the 17 -40 on the 20d. The ocassional tripod mounted 70-200 for church cermonies. <br>

"Learn the limits of your lens you use " I remember from my view camera days ..having to purchase a lens that would cover the format. Always looking for a wideangle for a 5X7 > so we would have full swings/tilts on a 4X5. <br>

We spend very little time editing in CS and certainly do not wish to add work > because of a lens issue. Will wait for a few more bugs to be aligned correctly ...but, good encouraging words here > sounds like the new camera software : will take of a large part of the Canon arsenel.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>.I am a ~ one lens ~ kinda of guy for weddings. A 28-70 L works great on my Canon A2e & the 17 -40 on the 20d. The 28-105 fixed F/stop range is my fav. The occasional tripod mounted 70-200 for church cermonies.<br>

<br /> "Learn the limits of your lens you use " I remember from my view camera days ..having to purchase a lens that would cover the format. Always looking for a wideangle for a 5X7 > so we would have full swings/tilts on a 4X5.<br>

We spend very little time editing in CS and certainly do not wish to add work > because of a lens issue. Will wait for a few more bugs to be aligned correctly ...but, good encouraging words here > sounds like the new camera software : will take of a large part of the Canon arsenel.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Is light fall off now being more noticed since more people are using FF digital cameras? <br>

It was pretty much cropped out in cameras with APS sized sensors.<br>

I have a bunch of slides and film showing the same characteristic. </p>

<p> </p>

[cjogo]

<p>I think the limitations will keep me about 2 years behind the technology --great for my pocketbook -- a used 40d should be averaging about -$500 for 2009 ~! Just barely leaving film this year > have to charge up that 20d, for the next season.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2027</p>

<p>I suppose there is no degradiation when using this parameter --I could just leave it on ?</p>

[cjogo]

<p>http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2027</p>

<p>I suppose there is no degradiation when using this parameter --I could just leave it on ? I will just ask Santa for a 50d with a 17-55 2.8</p>

[jake_holt]

<p>Choosing a crop sensor camera over a full frame camera simply due to vignetting is akin to choosing a Kia over a BMW because the BMW spins its tires when you take off too fast! What I'm trying to say is, IMO, a full frame camera has so many advantages over a cropper that dealing with vignetting is small potatoes. In regard to my earlier post, I haven't used the 24-105 at all, so I can't speak as to its performance, however, I often use fast primes wide open, (24 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.8) which is where vignetting typically most often occurs, and have seen nothing that I would consider "heavy vignetting." A little, maybe, but nothing to worry about given how I like to shoot. <br>

<P></p>

<p>Simply put, at least for me, full-frame vignetting is a complete non-issue, something that has just been trumped up on the interwebs by pixel peepers who want to complain! Sooooo...go get that 5D or 5D mark 2, you won't regret it!</p>

[jake_holt]

<p>Oh yes, if you're curious, take a look at the galleries on my site, www.jakeholt.com</p>

<p>About 95% of that stuff was shot with a 5D. See if there is any vignetting that you would find objectionable!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>An odd thread but all lenses vignette - especially wide angles. I note several comments that 120 does not. Both my Mamiya 645 with the 35mm lens and my Fuji GX680 especially with the 50mm display some vignetting (the Fuji is great apart from that lens as the other have much larger image circles to allow for the lens movement). Both the canon 17-40 and 16-35 mkII show slight but acceptable vignetting when wide open but my new 5D MarkII can perform acceptable in camera correction. Even the Contax G2 with the zeiss 21mm lens shows vignetting. The only way to avoid the issue is to use longer focal lengths or larger image circles. Out of interest my 5D MarkII has better image quality that my EOS1Vs or my EOS1NRS - it's main problem is it is not as nice to handle and has much slower AF. The AF is especially an issue in poor light.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>JAKE :: not too bad but, bugs me to see a corner dark --when it was not shade or oversided filter but, the lens itself. I only saw it on a few images - great artsy shots though~! Wish our clients were that "modern" and gave us the time to create.</p>

<p>I am only going to use one zoom ...none of the primes. Could learn to live with it~~so we could upgrade to FF.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>C jo, I think the best way to resolve your delemma is to hire a 5d/5d2 for a short time or borrow one from a friend and try it, you say you have a 28 70 f2.8 which should work very well, same view as the A2, I have 24 70 + 24 105 on 5d so you`d be best judge with your lens HTH :) </p>

[cjogo]

<p>They don't rent around here --but, have a friend with the 5d ....and a 24-105 I can borrow........shoot a few and I will know immediatley. </p>

[alanmac]

<p>I use a 5D (not a 5D Mk II) but FF nonetheless. I frequently use a 24-105 f4 as my working lens. Under certain lighting/colours, it does vignette, but generally only around the 24mm end of the lens. Solution 1: Remove the filter off the lens for that particular shot/sequence. May not be the best for the lens? but seems to remove the vignetting almost completely. Solution 2: (Leaving filter/s on) Use the lens down to about 40mm - problem solved.</p>

<p>Alan</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>If you believe that peripheral illumination fall-off doesn't happen when a FF lens is used on a 1.6-factor body, just take a look at the bar charts on PhotoZone. What is true is (i) that it is less, perhaps much less, severe than with lenses designed for 1.6-factor such as the EF-S lenses, (ii) that, taken across the whole frame in each case, a FF lens used on a 1.6-factor body will show less fall-off than when that same lens is used on a FF body, and (iii) that it is often at a level that has negligible impact on the end result anyhow.</p>

<p>"I am a ~ one lens ~ kinda of guy for weddings. A 28-70 L works great on my Canon A2e & the 17 -40 on the 20d. The 28-105 fixed F/stop range is my fav. The occasional tripod mounted 70-200 for church cermonies." "I think the limitations will keep me about 2 years behind the technology --great for my pocketbook -- a used 40d should be averaging about -$500 for 2009 ~! Just barely leaving film this year > have to charge up that 20d, for the next season." C Jo, aren't you a touch under-capitalised for work as a professional wedding photographer?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I don't think it is correct to say that wide angle vignetting is just a "lens issue". It depends on the lens and the sensor optics. Film responds differently than digital sensors to light coming in at an angle. Some lenses have more perpendicular output and work better with a wide variety of sensors. But also the sensor optics can be designed to work better with older lenses.</p>

<p>Manufacturers try to design their sensor optics (microlenses etc.) so that the results are good with as many lenses as possible but they're also redesigning their wide angle lenses so that they are more digital friendly. There are ultrawide angle lenses which basically display almost black corners on full-frame digital and are useless. Then there are some (like the 14-24 Nikkor) which has almost no falloff. It seems that most lenses 28mm and longer don't have this optical incompatibility issue.</p>

[sean_r2]

<p>C Jo, doesn't Camera West in New Monterey rent out gear? I've never been in there to confirm that, but I had heard they do.</p>

[sean_r2]

<p>"C Jo, aren't you a touch under-capitalised for work as a professional wedding photographer?"<br>

I think C Jo knows when he has a good camera, and sticks with it. No need to jump and buy a new camera when it comes out. Think of it this way--Keeping with the 20D, he's had the same great camera all these years, while suckers went out and bought the 30D, then the 40D, and now the 50D, all the while the 20D is still the same great camera.<br>

Though, to be honest, I'm surprised you've never tried the older 5D by now, C Jo. You shoot the fancy gigs with celebrities in the PG area, or so Don's told me. You'll love it if you rent or borrow one. ;-)</p>

[cjogo]

<p>"C Jo, aren't you a touch under-capitalised for work as a professional wedding photographer?" <p><br>

I don't believe anyone asks us what gear we use, professionally ~~ just if the end product has the quality the desire......and what they can afford.<br>

I like to stay about a year & 1/2 behind the latest photographic digital technology ...you save a great deal and everyone works out the bugs for you. I also have had a recording studio, for 20 years > and in that market, I like to stay about 10 years behind the latest. <p></p>

<p>SEAN : a lot of the "fancy gigs" still require film , believe it or not. It's the turn around time > film is much faster. :: Will check into renting a 5d for the afternoon @ Seans'. Since most of my clients rarely go beyond 8X enlargements and then the remaining 98% ~ are just 4X...the 20d/RAW has been more than enough. Sure the screen gets a little larger , etc. on the newest models but, I use the screen more on my hand meter & just occasionally the 20d 's histogram. The 10+ year old A2e Eos has given us years of service > never failed yet.</p>

[sean_r2]

<p>There's certainly nothing wrong with staying to older gear to save money. In that regard, I've heard so many great things about the original 5D, that you'll likely enjoy that one a ton. I hope you enjoy the test run, C Jo!</p>

<p>The 20D is a great little workhorse. I'd still be using mine, except I bought it used, previous owner treated it wrong, and it isn't as reliable as I'd like. My 30D, however, is a wonderful camera. No need to go out and buy a 50D. For some reason people tend to forget the older technology was a marvel back in the day. Just look at old ads for the 10D or even the D30...those statements weren't false, the newer cameras just got more bells and whistles.</p>

<p>By the way, it's great to hear the higher end "gigs" want film.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>Nothing wrong at all with using equipment that delivers the goods but isn't quite the latest version. My comment wasn't about that, but about the impression I had, possibly wrongly, that you were placing your trust in old hard-worked kit continuing to work at critical moments, and at best relying on film and digital as back-ups for one another. Your client may not be interested in how you deliver the end product, but if there suddenly isn't any end-product, that's pretty bad news for the happy couple.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>ROBIN :: Yes ~ I have had a partial card loss --and a few film problems since 1973 ..... The 20d would be our backup and most likely a 40d as our primary. The actual cameras do not seem to have the a weakness at the critical moment > its the storage media. I used the Nikons for backup for our Hassy/ RZ67 days...as long as you have some means of continuing the task at hand.<br>

SEAN :: Not that the gigs in question want film --they just need it ASAP. No way to edited 300 RAWs ( & keep the cost down on CS billable hours ) that you shoot all day < 7AM / 2PM > and have them printed by 5PM . Drop off the film @ your local lab and they have it all printed on time > ready to deliver promptly.</p>

[berg_na]

<p>In a digital camera, it is not true that vignetting is only caused by the lens. <a href="http://www.prophotowiki.com/w/index.php/Microlens">The microlens can also introduce significant light fall-off at the edges of the sensor</a>.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I'm late to the party in this thread, vignetting affects both film and digital cameras. The issue is only very slightly related to the recording surface, be it digital or film, and virtually completely caused by unavoidable characteristics of lenses. While some lenses will show less vignetting than others, all lenses vignette. In fact, I think many who have not carefully looked at the performance of their lenses in somewhat controlled conditions might be very surprised to see which lenses produce visible vignetting.</p>

<p>In most cases it is just not a real issue in real photographs. If you don't want vignetting you can stop down or correct for it in post-processing. However, sometimes - quite often, actually - some vignetting is a Good Thing, and quite a few photographers <em>introduce</em> the effect intentially during the post-processing stages.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>Just to confirm that said and shed a lil light on the subject :-) this extract is from canon USA site . HTH . Have a great new year all</p>

<p><a name="Cos4law"><em>Cos4 law</em></a><br /><em><img src="http://www.photo.net/sys/images/spacer.gif" border="0" alt="" width="565" height="5" /><br />States that light fall-off in peripheral areas of the image increases as the angle of view increases, even if the lens is completely free of vignetting. The peripheral image is formed by groups of light rays entering the lens at a certain angle with respect to the optical axis, and the amount of light fall-off is proportional to the cosine of that angle raised to the fourth power. As this is a law of physics, it cannot be avoided. However, with wide-angle lenses having a large angle of view, decreases in peripheral illumination can be prevented by increasing the lens' aperture efficiency (ratio of the area of the on-axis entrance pupil to the area of the off-axis entrance pupil).<br /></em></p>