HORRIBLE vignetting with FF DSLRs

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

  1. As they do, as the poster pointed out. But you know what some people
    That's a bet you would actually lose, unless the guys at the "alternative
    systems" forum on fredmiranda are full of it. To those guys, prized "L"
    glass for their 5D's doesn't come with a red ring.
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes, the Sigma 10-20 is a suprisingly good lens. Besides the
    For a "digital-only" lens it has a very impressive image circle. It can be
    used on the Canon 1D series (not 1Ds obviously) with reasonable results.
    There is mucho light falloff at the corners, but the image circle covers the
    sensor from 12mm upwards.
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Well, in all fairness the 17-40 needs a front filter to complete its
    weathersealing. One can easily imagine that the shooter has a UV filter
    semipermanently mounted for this purpose (or for front element
    "protection" - which makes more sense on the Canon ultrawides than on any
    other lens I can think of, given the totally absurd hoods they are fitted
    with) and just screwed a polarizer on top of it then and there without
    thinking any more about it. It can happen to all of us given a moment's
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 12, 2007
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You'd lose mightily. There are plenty of instances of people who only
    have Canon gear asking for advise on which alternate lens to buy.
    Just read the forum messages if you are really curious.
    RichA, Feb 12, 2007
  5. You got it! They lust for the classic Nikkors.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 12, 2007
  6. You're not kidding! After putting the 17-35/2.8 and Noct on the old 5D
    those two lenses are now married to it. They will never go back on the
    Nikon dSLRs nor will the 5D ever be touched with Canon glass again.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 12, 2007
  7. RichA

    Skip Guest

    That doesn't contradict what Mark said, from what I read on FM, those guys
    did have the glass, already.
    Skip, Feb 13, 2007
  8. RichA

    Mark² Guest

    And the point is simple: Very FEW folks are doing this.
    Mark², Feb 13, 2007
  9. That's a bet you would actually lose, unless the guys at the
    In your dreams, maybe.

    Leica. Or simetimes Zeiss. Not often Nikkor.
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 13, 2007
  10. That doesn't contradict what Mark said, from what I read on FM, those
    I'd say you'd have to be pretty damned anal about your photography to accept
    all that hassle, yes.
    Ståle Sannerud, Feb 13, 2007
  11. Mark,

    You think these two (or is it three*) jokers want to pay attention to
    trivial distractions like facts? They are having too much fun in
    whatever la-la land they occupy.

    *They must be breeding - serves us right for feeding them.

    David Littlewood, Feb 13, 2007
  12. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    On the contrary, many have. Mass production of Leica R and Contax to
    EF mount adapters plus the significant rise in used prices of Leica
    and Contax glass is no coincidence.

    It has now become difficult to find used Leica R and Contax lenses
    because so many of them are doing duty on Canon EOS DSLR bodies.

    I'm partly responsible, with six Contax lenses. ;-}

    Still, I would not pretend that this community represents a large
    proportion of Canon DSLR users.
    Tony Polson, Feb 13, 2007
  13. LOL! Some people, mostly Canon users, get caught up with trying to save face
    instead of accepting the fact that WA Nikkors work so much better on the 5D
    than anything Canon can produce. Hey, if you're happy shooting with
    substandard lenses, by all means knock yourself out.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 13, 2007
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    The idea of "fixing" vignetting in software only goes as far as
    thinking that underexposed areas brought up to a normal level of
    illumination somehow look identical to properly exposed areas.
    Colour, noise, detail. Does anyone believe that?
    RichA, Feb 14, 2007
  15. If you read what I wrote (and what I was responding to), instead of just
    repeating your views, you will see that I have made no comment of any
    kind about how good Nikkors would be on a Canon body. I have never tried
    it, and I try to avoid expressing specific views about things of which I
    have no direct knowledge.

    What I actually commented on was assertions such as "most serious Canon
    shooters would rather spend $3,000 for an old worn out Noct than they
    would a brand new shiny Canon 50/1.2 at $1,500" (posted 1:05:52 on 10
    February). I have never met, or seen, such a person, and at least in the
    UK have never seen it commented on in the photographic press. Tony
    Polson gave a much more sensible view: "Still, I would not pretend that
    this community (i.e. those using kludges to fit other brand lenses)
    represents a large proportion of Canon DSLR users".

    David Littlewood, Feb 14, 2007
  16. RichA

    Skip Guest

    But, Tony, are they buying the Leica R and Contax lenses after they buy the
    5D, or did they already own them before they bought the 5D?
    Skip, Feb 14, 2007
  17. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Personally, I bought all my Contax lenses after buying the 5D.

    However, I am sure that many Leica R and Contax users must have seen
    the Canon EOS 5D (or 1Ds) as the perfect upgrade path to digital,
    subject to the limitatons of using an adapter. So you have a point.

    On the other hand, the online forums at FredMiranda.com do suggest
    that many Canon users have picked up Leica R and Contax glass to use
    on their Caon DSLR bodies.

    As to the split of numbers of Leica R/Contax users upgrading to
    digital, versus the numbers of Canon owners discovering the delights
    of "German" glass, that is anyone's guess. And I would not even want
    to hazard a guess as to what that split might be.

    I use the word "German" with care because much of the Leica glass used
    was made in Canada or even Japan, and most of the Carl Zeiss for
    Contax glass came from Kyocera Yashica.
    Tony Polson, Feb 14, 2007
  18. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Does it really matter? The whole
    idea that someone is doing it speaks volumes about Canon's inability to make
    anything beyond mediocre WA glass. You have even demonstrated your disgust
    in the 16-35/2.8. It's sad when you have to crop off 35% of an image to
    hide the defects since "nobody cares or looks at the corners."

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 14, 2007
  19. LOL! Right! You've been doing a good job of bashing the D40 even though
    you haven't tried one. Have you tried the D200? I'll venture a guess not.
    It would seem like you are overestimating your importance again. What
    bearing does your observations or lack of have on the real world?

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Feb 14, 2007
  20. RichA

    Skip Guest

    Rita, find a single instance of me "demonstrating" my disgust with that
    lens. Go on, show us all. And then show us side by side comparisons of the
    Nikkor 17-35 and the Canon 16-35, wide open, and the widest focal length, on
    the 5D. You're really the only person here capable of doing so, since you
    have the 5D, Nikkor and the adaptor for it.
    Time to prove your point, rather than just babble about it.
    Skip, Feb 14, 2007
    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.