HORRIBLE vignetting with FF DSLRs

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    And here I thought it was only with WAs. These are not my shots, I
    noticed them after one of the shots was posted.
    Good shots, hampered by the camera lens.

    Telelphoto wide open.

    http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/74000263

    WA stopped down, but look, actually image CUT OFF! Not just
    vignetting!

    http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/70768650

    I'd say it's time Canon pulled it's finger out and DESIGNED lenses for
    digital sensors.
    Enough with relying on ancient film lenses to do a half-assed job.
     
    RichA, Feb 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. LOL! This is why you make a $15 investment and buy a adapter so you can use
    your Nikkors on the 5D. You never see these problems on the 5D when the
    17-35/2.8 or the 28-70/2.8 Nikkors are installed. I just can't see the
    logic in buying Canon's flagship dSLR for $7K and crippling it with cheap
    glass.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Are you sure that the w/a shot wasn't from incorrect - or incorrectly
    fitted lens hood or filter(s)? Looks like that to me.

    I had a look at it in PTLens - and it's beyond repair IMO.
    I thought an expensive lens like 16-35 f2.8L would not be so bad.
     
    frederick, Feb 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Unfortunately, the 16-35/2.8 has been a major embarrassment for Canon on FF
    bodies. This really isn't anything new since this lens suffered from the
    same ailments when use with film. This is the driving force for many Canon
    shooters to buy the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. Generally, any lens you have to use
    software to correct optical flaw isn't worth using.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Still carrying on the vendetta, Rich? Interesting that in a gallery of
    many hundreds of well-executed photographs, you pick on 2 out of about 3
    (I looked at about 1/3 of all the pictures and that was all I spotted)
    with some corner cut-off or vignetting. The rest are quite remarkably
    free of it. I suspect, as someone else suggested, that the photographer
    used a too-thick filter on the flawed ones, but there is no data to
    confirm or deny this. Perhaps he will comment, if he reads this.

    Interestingly, I could not even see any lens data to show he was
    actually using Canon lenses, though from the quality of the photos I
    think he may well have been doing so.

    And, Rich, FYI it is only those with little or no knowledge of optics
    who assume that vignetting is only a problem with WA lenses. Many
    moderately priced telephoto zooms suffer the same problem.

    2/10 for regular attendance, try harder.

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Feb 7, 2007
    #5
  6. RichA

    Mark² Guest

    That second image looks like blockage to me, too. Lens vignetting isn't
    that abrupt.

    The FIRST image looks wrong, too. The entire right side is dark, rather
    than mainly the corners. Normal vignetting doesn't look like that.
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #6
  7. RichA

    default Guest


    In the telephoto shot, the cruise ship is going up a pretty steep hill. Is
    it because Canon bonded the sensor die in crooked in the package?
     
    default, Feb 7, 2007
    #7
  8. RichA

    Skip Guest

    Rita, stop spreading and augmenting Rich's lies. The 16-35 is nowhere near
    as bad as that, and that obviously a poorly fitted or chosen lens hood on
    that shot. Since the lower corners are not as bad as the upper, my vote is
    for the poorly fitted hood. And there is no identification of the actual
    lens used, is there?
    Rita, additionally, there are so few people actually buying that Nikkor to
    mount on their 5D as to be insignificant. The only instances I've seen
    reported, other than you, of people using that lens on a 5D is by people who
    already had the lens because they already had Nikon gear and got tired of
    waiting for Sony to finally get off their corporate ass and supply Nikon
    with a 35mm sized sensor.
     
    Skip, Feb 7, 2007
    #8
  9. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Skip wrote:
    And there is no identification of the actual
    The lens data is in the EXIF of the jpeg.
     
    frederick, Feb 7, 2007
    #9
  10. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Why anyone that felt they needed/warranted a 5d would use 1/5000 sec,
    f2.8, and ISO 200 for such a shot is also a mystery to me. Perhaps they
    were using action/sport mode and framing the shot with the rear LCD.
     
    frederick, Feb 7, 2007
    #10
  11. RichA

    Mark² Guest

    That's what I was thinking.
    That's about as poor a situation for that aperture I could imagine.
    Even if the guy was in a vibrating, buzzing single engine plane, he wouldn't
    need that shutter speed...
    -Clearly shot by someone who seems likely to have the wrong hood on, or a
    double filter...or some other such example of ignorance. :)
     
    Mark², Feb 7, 2007
    #11
  12. Haven't you thought of the possibility that the cruise ship and all the
    boats around it are sliding backwards, not moving forwards?
     
    Phil, Non-Squid, Feb 7, 2007
    #12
  13. RichA

    default Guest

    An interesting possibility. We can be sure that the problems in the picture
    couldn't possibly be related to the actions of the photographer.
     
    default, Feb 7, 2007
    #13
  14. The latter is a pretty clever trick - could you please tell me which
    button to press on my 5D to frame the image in the rear LCD. Somehow the
    instructions seem to have missed it...

    David
     
    David Littlewood, Feb 7, 2007
    #14
  15. The latter is a pretty clever trick - could you please tell me which
    button to press on my 5D to frame the image in the rear LCD. Somehow
    the instructions seem to have missed it...

    David[/QUOTE]

    You need to upgrade your camera to enjoy that facility. <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 7, 2007
    #15
  16. RichA

    TJWilson Guest

    Not meaning to insult the photographer in question but perhaps its
    just... dare I say... a bad picture (oh my gawd, did I just say that
    out loud?). There is no guarentee that the more expensive your camera
    gear the better the pictures, regardless of what the kid at Best Buy
    said. Sadly this is the basis whereupon legions of people spend their
    childrens inheritance to follow the "he who spends the most wins"
    credo in order to take average at best pictures (they are easy to
    spot, typically middle aged men with pro bodies and enormous telephoto
    lens swinging around their necks walking around at photography shows
    with a "hey look at me I'm a photographer" look on their faces).

    The day Canon, Nikon, Sony et all come out with the "Real
    Photographer" mode (perfectly composed, perfectly exposed, the perfect
    picture in all regards) is the day we should put our gear in the
    closet and find something else to do... like die laughing.
     
    TJWilson, Feb 7, 2007
    #16
  17. RichA

    Skip Guest

    I
    saw no lens brand ID in the EXIF, could you elucidate>
     
    Skip, Feb 7, 2007
    #17
  18. RichA

    Skip Guest

    The 5D doesn't have a "sports/action mode," nor can you frame the shot with
    the LCD. You don't know that camera, or DSLRs, very well, do you?
     
    Skip, Feb 7, 2007
    #18
  19. RichA

    Skip Guest

    By the way, in light of the lack of lens ID, if that were a Canon lens, I'd
    suspect that it's a 24-105 f4, given the focal lengths and apertures used.
    The tele shot maybe, if it's a Canon, a 70-200 f2.8L, but there are other
    mfrs who produce that focal length and aperture in a lens. And the
    "vignetting" in the first shot isn't vignetting, I'd suspect the
    photographer is shooting through something that causes the effect at the
    edges.
     
    Skip, Feb 7, 2007
    #19
  20. RichA

    Bill Funk Guest

    Where did you see which lens was used?
    I looked at the EXIF info; it's not there.

    --
    San Francisco Mayor Gavin
    Newsom admitted to having
    an affair with his friend's
    wife while he was divorcing
    Fox News anchor Kimberly
    Guilfoyle. The city may never
    forgive him. If there's one
    thing they can't stand, it's
    somebody who's in bed with
    Fox News.
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 7, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.