C300: EF-S lenses on C300mark2, 17-55 vignetting etc

V

Vino

Active member
Hi all, this have probably been a topic before, sorry about that, but:

Can you adjust the C300m2 for EF-S-lenses like the 17-55?

I could with the C100m2 but cannot find the way to do it on the C300m2.

The vignetting on the 17-55 is more and more disturbing to me. Since I think the 24-105 is not wide enough (for documentary) Ive started to look at the 18-80 but its quite an investment. (If I was in the conspiracy business I would image The Company want us to buy the 18-80 and therefore don't fix the EF-S adjustment... but well I don't know, and maybe its only me who haven't found a way to adjust it).

Happy New Year,

V
 
Not sure on the EF-S setting. I haven't seen it, now that you mention it. Are you using a hood? I switched to the hood for the 24-105 on the 17-55 and I don't see much vignetting anymore when at 17mm. Having IS on apparently exacerbates vignetting in conjunction with the hood too.
 
Short story: go read page 37 of the C300m2 manual.

The longer story is that there's no way to fix this and it's not a conspiracy to make you buy a more expensive lens. APC-C sensors are physically smaller than Super 35 sensors - not by much but enough to cause vignetting when you combine a APC-C lens (i.e., any EF-S lens) with a Super 35 sensor.

The C300m2 (and the C200 for that matter) have a setting to mitigate this. It's Camera Setup > Periph. Illum. Corr. It's not magic 'though and there are some downsides (mainly that you might see more noise in the corners).
 
The C100 has a setting that crops the sensor slightly for ef-s lenses. I have not seen the same setting on the C300. You could always crop in post.
 
FWIW the Tamron 17-50 (Non VC) covers a larger image circle than the Canon 17-55. (I suspect this is because Tamron made the same lens in Nikon mount which has a slightly larger crop sensor than Canons crop)
 
fhammond said:
Short story: go read page 37 of the C300m2 manual.

The longer story is that there's no way to fix this and it's not a conspiracy to make you buy a more expensive lens. APC-C sensors are physically smaller than Super 35 sensors - not by much but enough to cause vignetting when you combine a APC-C lens (i.e., any EF-S lens) with a Super 35 sensor.

The C300m2 (and the C200 for that matter) have a setting to mitigate this. It's Camera Setup > Periph. Illum. Corr. It's not magic 'though and there are some downsides (mainly that you might see more noise in the corners).
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree.
When I was shooting the 17-55 2.8 on my BMPC it was no problem since the crop factor on that camera is 1.78.
But the C200 crop factor is 1.53 and S lenses are designed for crop factors of 1.6.
That 5% can make a meaningful difference.
A lot of people like this lens as their go to on the C200.
My thoughts couldn't be more different.
I have to zoom to 20-30 mm at 2.8 to get rid of corner darkness or side darkness.
Even at 5.6 I have to zoom to get rid of it.
This is with peripheral illumination turned on.
I want to be able to use 2.8 on a 2.8 lens.
I've gone back to shooting FF lenses on my C200.
17-40 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4.
Unfortunately only the 24-105 has IS.
If the way the 17-55 behaves on a C300 m2 might be different, but if it's anything like on the C200, I don't recommend it.
 
Stills2HDConvert;1986736. If the way the 17-55 behaves on a C300 m2 might be different said:
The 17-55 is my go to doc lens on the 300 mk 2, but only when shooting in HD. It will vignette in 4k espcially if using !S . I really would like an update to this lens that had a larger image circle and the build quality of the 24-70 2.8 & with IS.
The 18-80 is a great lens for the price, but its size rules it out for some of my applications . I also like the 2.8 of the 17-55 vs the 4.4 of the 18-80 . I shot hand held with the 18-80 off the back fo a motorcycle for 4 hours, no shoulder rig. Certainly not the ideal situation but the lens was fantastic and i didn’t need shallow DOF. the 17-55 would have worked but the toggle zoom on the hand grip with the 18-80 was indispensable.
Click to expand...
 
Must just be me but half of the time I used to add vignettes in post for interviews and typical spokesperson stuff so having the lens do it isn't a huge issue. It can show up on the 17-55 2.8 IS on certain shots you don't want it to but generally, I don't notice it and it doesn't bug me. If I am shooting on a white BG, I do see it and it does bug but generally, not an issue and I shoot a LOT with the 17-55 .28 IS on the C200 and C300 MKII.
 
Thanks for all replies. Ok now I know for sure that the C300m2 lacks the EF-S correction thats in the C100m2. A pity I believe. Would be great if it could be implemented in a future firmware-update.
(thanks for the page 37 advise, yes it says: "This camera’s sensor is larger than the sensor size for which EF-S lenses are designed (APS-C). When using
EF-S lenses with this camera, you may notice peripheral illumination fall-off or vignetting.")

It didn't struck me that the IS could make the vignetting worse, truly good to know, Im almost always handheld doc-style.

I agree with puredrifting, the vignetting is definitely not a problem all the time. But during some wide shots, at for instance beach/sky/landscape/white-indoor, its annoying and ugly.

Mark, what do you think about the 18-80 handheld? Im not that interested in the servo, I use crash-zooms (for cut) a lot more. But Im interested in the reach and getting a go-to-doc-lens.... Anyone believe a cheaper non-servo 18-80 is in the making???
 
Not trying to ruffle any feathers here, but Canon's logic is probably along the lines of the 300, 500, etc. are their high-end cameras and as such will only be used with "high-end"(read full frame L or s35) glass and there is no need to compensate for aps-c lenses, whereas the C100's are lower-end cameras and may be used with cheaper aps-c lenses that don't completely(under all circumstances) cover the s35 sensor.
 
Vino said:
Mark, what do you think about the 18-80 handheld? Im not that interested in the servo, I use crash-zooms (for cut) a lot more. But Im interested in the reach and getting a go-to-doc-lens.... Anyone believe a cheaper non-servo 18-80 is in the making???
Click to expand...

There is a lot to like about the 18-80. As mentioned I used the toggle on the handle to actuate the zoom because that’s what I needed for the moto situation. Canon saw to it that there are plenty of options for the 18-80 lens, toggle zoom, ENG style zoom grip, all manual zoom and focus. So yeah, if you want that all manual zoom operation its there for you. You”ll probably want to shoulder rig if you use this lens for extended periods of HH shooting. I’d say a rig would be mandatory. I didn’t use a rig for the moto shoot because it was too limiting and I knew I did not have to shoot continuosly for 4 hours.
I’ve said this before - the autofocus implementation on the 18-80 at least in my experience was a step above any other canon lens I have used. In situations where I expected it to completely fail it was dead on. That might be a happy thing for you or you may not care at all. My advice would be to rent or borrow one and scope it out - see if it works for you and or what you would need to make it work for your shooting style. The only draw back for me in terms of it being a great go to doc lens is the 4.0-4.4 stop.
 
Mark Smith said:
There is a lot to like about the 18-80. As mentioned I used the toggle on the handle to actuate the zoom because that’s what I needed for the moto situation. Canon saw to it that there are plenty of options for the 18-80 lens, toggle zoom, ENG style zoom grip, all manual zoom and focus. So yeah, if you want that all manual zoom operation its there for you. You”ll probably want to shoulder rig if you use this lens for extended periods of HH shooting. I’d say a rig would be mandatory. I didn’t use a rig for the moto shoot because it was too limiting and I knew I did not have to shoot continuosly for 4 hours.
I’ve said this before - the autofocus implementation on the 18-80 at least in my experience was a step above any other canon lens I have used. In situations where I expected it to completely fail it was dead on. That might be a happy thing for you or you may not care at all. My advice would be to rent or borrow one and scope it out - see if it works for you and or what you would need to make it work for your shooting style. The only draw back for me in terms of it being a great go to doc lens is the 4.0-4.4 stop.
Click to expand...

I will add that unless you are counterbalancing with a brick at the back, the 18-80 T4.4 will make a C200 front heavy. C300 MKII not quite as much. And the lens power cable thing, even with the Zacuto 90 degree cable is a PITA
 
When I say shoulder rig with 18-80, to me that implies a v lock or AB battery for counterbalance. I should have made that clear. A shoulder rig with the 18-80 but without a counterbalancing battery would still be pretty out of whack balance and postion wise with either the 200 or 300.
 
Im afraid Im not into shoulder rigging at all, gets too big. But yeah got to try it out anyway, haven't found any for rent where I live, but will check again. Thanks.
 
Vino said:
Im afraid Im not into shoulder rigging at all, gets too big. But yeah got to try it out anyway, haven't found any for rent where I live, but will check again. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I wasn't into shoulder rigs for a few years after I got my first 300 in 2012. I sorta sucked it up and put together a rig last year and will say that there is a time and place for rigs. I use mine maybe 50% of the time as a rig, but I'm happy I can peel off that rig layer in a few seconds and be shooting in very stripped down mode if I have to get in car or other confined space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top