Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. Collapse Details
    Canon 17-55mm vignettes in 4k, whats a good alternate IS lens when shooting 4k wide?
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Posts
    455
    Default
    I shoot a ton of handled sports content and the 17-55 2.8 IS has been my go to for a long time, it's a great range, not a heavy lens, and I think gives L quality results but when shooting above UHD, you can see the lens barrels in the corners of the frame. I realize the c300mk3 has stabilization built in but I'd rather avoid that if at all possible. Any ideas?


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Default
    Great lens (for range and price) - pretty damn sharp, just not built very ruggedly - still use it a heck of a lot on my Sony FS5. On my old Canon C100 there was a EF-S lens setting that cropped in slightly to avoid this kind of vignetting with EF-S lenses such as this one. Does the C300Mk3 have that setting?


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    191
    Default
    I'm having exactly the same issue. The c300mk3 really reveals its flaws to be honest. In addition to vignetting its also soft at the wide end on the mk3, at least I found that in my own footage. I did a commercial shoot recently where I was only using primes (also with the mk3) and the quality difference was night and day compared to the 17-55. Far more than I ever noticed on the c300mk2 or c100.

    There isn't a good solution here. The closest I've found is the 18-80 t4.4. It's not a perfect lens and introduces other complications, such as its size, but produces a far superior image.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member chris f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,486
    Default
    I had the exact same experience when switching to the C200 years ago. Ended up using the 16 - 35 F/4 IS for a couple of years and then finally bought the 18 to 80 on a great deal. 18-80 is probably my favorite lens Iíve ever used for handheld work on a Canon.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,099
    Default
    As Andy points out, there's a feature in C300-series cameras to kinda deal with this issue with EF-S lenses. The cameras include peripheral Illumination, chromatic aberration correction, etc settings for a bunch of Canon lenses. Check out pages 38 and 39 of the C300mkIII manual:

    https://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/8/03000...mk2-im5-en.pdf

    Doesn't make the 17-55 amazing, but does help.
    ----------
    Jim Feeley
    POV Media


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,639
    Default
    The 17-55 is from 2006.

    Its sharpness in the center and its overall control of CA (plus IS and a nice range) is a great accomplishment. Other lenses from around the same time are a 1 on a 1-10 scale in comparison.

    With that said, it's 2021 and better sensors will continue to showcase its overall softness wide-open compared to something like the world's best around the similar range, the 18-35.

    The centers - not included in the examples below - are pretty comparable (which is again impressive for the 17-55), but you can see how the Canon falls apart as you move outwards towards the mid-frame and corners.

    So using this lens at 17mm @f/2.8 on detailed environments will be its toughest task.

    17-55.jpg

    18-35.jpg

    https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=0


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,627
    Default
    maybe sigma 17-70? although it ramps from 2.8 to 4

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._DC_Macro.html

    it is an aps-c lens sold for other mounts in addition to canon (and the other brands' aps-c format is 1.5x crop and not 1.6x crop like Canon's ef-s lenses), so you should get adequate coverage


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio USA
    Posts
    658
    Default
    also, if you're using a hood, try the hood intended for the 24-105. Less vignetting for me with that hood on the 17-55.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Default
    Others have already pointed out the optical pros and cons of the 17-55mm. My biggest gripe with the lens aside from it's OK-but-not-spectacular optical performance is the mediocre manual focusing. The focus ring is small (I don't like lenses that prioritize size of zoom ring over focus ring), and the manual focus feel is just not great compared to some other Canon glass. Its throw is also very small and particularly narrow in some important parts of the focus range, so fine tuning focus can really remind you that you are not on a video centric manual lens, in contrast with a lens like the 70-200 L, which has a great focus ring feel.

    I keep saying this, but someone needs to come out with an aps-c/s35 lens in the 17-55 range that is 2.8 with all of the other qualities of the Canon 18-80. The latter is T4.4, which isn't always enough speed, the other cine options like the Fuji MK are great, but no OIS and won't work on EF because of flange distance, and all of the 17-55-ish 2.8 still lenses are pretty mediocre for manual use (Canon, Sigma, Tamron).

    I'm actually shocked that no one has tried to tackle that so far. I must be missing something since I'm not an optical designer. Yes, an f2.8 lens will be bigger, but I'd be happy with a fuji mk that had OIS, and as much as I love the 18-80's range, I'd happily give up a bit of that reach to have f2.8.

    Anyway, I think I've said this exact thing on like 38 different threads, so my apologies for the broken record. I just don't get why this incredibly useful doc style workhorse lens doesn't exist. The entire video world would be all over it. Just look at how many film makers who can afford a C300 mk1/2/3 have owned or currently own the 17-55mm f2.8. Obviously, it's a needed combo of range, speed, and OIS. But it's such a compromise compared to what could be done. Ok, rant over!


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,356
    Default
    While I'm not a huge fan of it, the Canon 18-80 is a pretty darn nice lens. And if that range is your bread & butter, New_Zealand is selling one on here for $3100(-$1500 new). I've contemplated one a few times, even though I own a 17-120.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •