lisadb
veteran
Reged: 05/09/2006
Posts: 1585
Loc: Staffs
|
|
As it's all your fault, you've got to help me with some info! 
Just bought a Canon 5D and now find I need a wide angle lens (didn't realise about the vignetting on the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8  ) . There are quite a few 2nd hand 16-35mm f2.8 or 17-40mm f4 about.
Question - is it worth paying a bit more and buying a 16-35mm and is the mark I OK? If buying a mark II I'd have to buy a new one, then the cost becomes a bit too much.
ta muchly.  Lisa.
--------------------
wollemi - 'look around you, keep your eyes open and watch out' (Australian aboriginal word)
My Flickr page
|
Bettina
Kein Titel
Reged: 12/02/2004
Posts: 4059
Loc: London
|
|
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
--------------------
Bettina
http://www.vibrantpictures.co.uk
Vibrant Pictures on Flickr
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9296
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
Lisa means mechanical vignetting due to the fact that the 17-50 Tamron is an APS format lens...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2380
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
If you're happy using a prime lens, the EF 24 f2.8 works well on my 5D, and it's quite a compact lens. I also have the EF 20 f2.8 which I bought to get me a half decent wide-angle on my 10D, but I've hardly used this on the 5D.
(I'm not sure if my memory is correct, but I think DPP can correct for certain aberrations if you shoot in RAW. Might be worth checking out with regard to the vignetting issue with wide-angle lenses used close to their full aperture.)
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Norman
Reged: 23/09/2004
Posts: 1573
Loc: West London, UK
|
|
Unless you need f2.8 I'd recommend the 17-40 f4 L. I've never used it on FF but bought it for my 10D (1.6X) and now use it on my 1D (1.3X) so obviously can't comment on vignetting on full frame. I haven't heard of any nay-sayers and I can't recommend it highly enough. It's my 'walk-about' lens.
--------------------
Regards,
Norman
www.photobox.org.uk
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the start of a new argument.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4447
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Question - is it worth paying a bit more and buying a 16-35mm
Lots of people have the 17-40 f/4L and few people have any problems with them. With such a short lens you can use quite a long exposure hand held, it's unlikely that you'd really need a f/2.8 lens in this focal length range (and, if you did, a prime would probably suit you better).
The extra millimetre at the short end of the 16-35 is insignificant but the extra 5mm at the long end of the 17-40 might quite often make the difference between having to change the lens and not.
I think my wallet would need an awful lot of convincing that the extra cost of the 16-35 was justified.
Add to that the fact that the 16-35 is considerably bulkier and heavier and, IMO, it's a bit of a no-brainer.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36969
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
The 17-40 can produce fairly bad vignetting, but it does appear to cary from sample to sample. Mine is OK, but I did try one that wasn't - in fact it was a lot worse than my old 20-35 f2.8L. If I could afford the Mk II 16-35, I would probably go for it, but the edge quality of the original 16-35 isn't great on full-frame, and so I think the 17-40 is a better option TBH.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Bettina
Kein Titel
Reged: 12/02/2004
Posts: 4059
Loc: London
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
Lisa means mechanical vignetting due to the fact that the 17-50 Tamron is an APS format lens...
But she mustn't put that lens on the 5D.
--------------------
Bettina
http://www.vibrantpictures.co.uk
Vibrant Pictures on Flickr
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9296
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Full frame sensors are prone to vignetting, whatever lens I use.
Lisa means mechanical vignetting due to the fact that the 17-50 Tamron is an APS format lens...
But she mustn't put that lens on the 5D.
Too late I think..........
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
lisadb
veteran
Reged: 05/09/2006
Posts: 1585
Loc: Staffs
|
|
Quote:
Too late I think..........
Er.... yeah! It's an EF mount so it works OK, you just get a nice round image in the centre. Lisa.
--------------------
wollemi - 'look around you, keep your eyes open and watch out' (Australian aboriginal word)
My Flickr page
|
lisadb
veteran
Reged: 05/09/2006
Posts: 1585
Loc: Staffs
|
|
Quote:
If I could afford the Mk II 16-35, I would probably go for it, but the edge quality of the original 16-35 isn't great on full-frame, and so I think the 17-40 is a better option TBH.
Thanks everyone - I think what Nick has said has made my mind up. Lisa.
--------------------
wollemi - 'look around you, keep your eyes open and watch out' (Australian aboriginal word)
My Flickr page
|
Bettina
Kein Titel
Reged: 12/02/2004
Posts: 4059
Loc: London
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Too late I think..........
Er.... yeah! It's an EF mount so it works OK, you just get a nice round image in the centre. Lisa.
But if it's an EF-S mount lens ... oh, disaster looms. DON'T USE IT!
--------------------
Bettina
http://www.vibrantpictures.co.uk
Vibrant Pictures on Flickr
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4447
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
But if it's an EF-S mount lens ... oh, disaster looms.
Yes, it won't fit.
Sigma (& maybe other indie) lenses designed for APS-C sensors use a standard EF bayonet and do not contain components which might hit the mirror when used in a full frame camera. They're perfectly safe to mount, but will not cover the full frame - the corners will be completely black, not just darkened by a bit of vignetting.
|
lisadb
veteran
Reged: 05/09/2006
Posts: 1585
Loc: Staffs
|
|
Yep just as Marvin says, like a very dark pinhole pic. Thanks for the concearn Bettina - I did read the Tamron specs and check out the back of the lens against a Canon EF lens before I tried it.
ta lots. Lisa.
(where did I put that M42 adapter?) 
--------------------
wollemi - 'look around you, keep your eyes open and watch out' (Australian aboriginal word)
My Flickr page
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36969
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
I've posted this before, I'll post it again: 5D and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX at 18mm
Perfectly safe, but not very useful!
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
jennief
enthusiast
Reged: 28/04/2007
Posts: 264
Loc: Perthshire
|
|
FWIW I have the 17-40 f4L and its just fine. I haven't noticed much vignetting with my copy. The other lens which I have really enjoyed using is my 50mm f1.8 and it was cheap as chips-great in low light, pin sharp and can make excellent blurred backgrounds.It is quite a favourite!
|
lisadb
veteran
Reged: 05/09/2006
Posts: 1585
Loc: Staffs
|
|
Yes I was thinking the same thing Jennie, as I'm going to have a gap between 40 and 70mm both at f4. Lisa.
--------------------
wollemi - 'look around you, keep your eyes open and watch out' (Australian aboriginal word)
My Flickr page
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36969
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Well there's the 24-105, of course....
The 50mm f1.8 is cheap and pretty decent indeed, and the only reason not to have one is ownership of one of the other 50s...
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
lisadb
veteran
Reged: 05/09/2006
Posts: 1585
Loc: Staffs
|
|
Yes I had considered that Nick but wanted to go wider. Lisa.
--------------------
wollemi - 'look around you, keep your eyes open and watch out' (Australian aboriginal word)
My Flickr page
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 36969
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Yup, I'm just being a bit naughty...
One of the few other options is the Sigma 12-24, which is VERY wide - but the 17-40 is a much more useful lens most of the time.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
