C200: Vignetting while using Canon 17-55 EF-S lens. Any solution?

L

Lkorver

Well-known member
I've been shooting more 4K lately and noticing that my Canon 17-55mm 2.8 lens is showing vignetting in the corners on the c200 and 300mk2. It's even worse if I disable the peripheral correction on the c300.

With the C200, I see they have an EF-S setting in the menu, but it's greyed out and I can figure out how to activate it. Would hate to have to stop using one of my favorite run-n-gun doc lenses!

EFS TEST.jpg
 
I believe this has been brought up before several times. The lens is not designed to cover a s35 sensor, which is slightly larger than APS-C. Does the option work when shooting in HD? It may be a limitation when shooting 4K, which may require 100% of the sensor as opposed to HD which may have room for cropping in slightly so that the active sensor area for HD then fits within the image circle of APS-C lenses. Also, does the lens and camera appear to be communicating, otherwise?
 
Thanks for the help, looks like the 17-55 is not long for this world...
Any clue what the "EF-S" setting is for in the c200 menu?
 
Hi Lkorver, I know how you feel--The 17-55 is so great otherwise.

To answer your question, The EF-S setting works when you're not shooting Raw Lite. It Subtly crops in to make it APS-C. It is grayed out when shooting CRL.

I use the EF-S setting with this lens a lot when I'm shooting 8-bit. And I still use the 17-55 when shooting Raw Lite if I know we are delivering 16:9 and will crop the corners--haven't been burned yet but YMMV.

The Sigma 17-50 2.8 with IS is a back-up option I go to when shooting CRL and delivering 17:9. It has functional but LOUD AF (chittering all the time) and the manual focus throw is minuscule (45 degrees?) but it covers the s-35 frame and looks pretty decent if you can live with how it handles. I barely can and so I go back to the Canon as soon as I'm able.
 
In my experience, two things make vignetting worse with this lens: using IS and using a lens hood.

Though honestly, that pic you posted isn't really that bad. I use the lens all the time and just ignore vignetting if it occurs in certain situations. No one has ever commented on it to me.
 
I have the EF S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 STM IS and the EF S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 18-135mm vignettes even worse, esepcailly when shooting CRL.
We shot a lot with the 18-135mm last year simply because it had the focal range needed for particular shoots. We just enlarge and crop in perhaps
5% and it looks fine. Keep in mind when shooting CRL which is 17:9, you are always going to have to crop in about 5-6% anyway for a 16:9 UHD master, which is what
our docu series will be finished at.

I specifically bought the EF 24-104mm f/4.0 IS II to mitigate this in most shooting situations and it does, plus it is much better built and sharper
than the EF S 17-55mm. I miss the 17mm focal length though when using the 24-105mm, I am a wide angle shooter, I tend to like wide angle FOV more than most
DPs so I may end up obtaining the EF 16-35mm. I'd like the f/2.8 version but at twice the cost, will probably eventually end up with the f/4.0 version. When using the
EF S compensation setting in the C200 when shooting XF-AVC, it helps, but doesn't mitigate the vignetting all of the way, you still see it.

This will sound dumb but my solution right now is to switch cameras when I need to shoot wide, using the Fujfilm XT-3 shooting F-Log with the
XF16mm f/1.4 WR as I am totally in love with what a great lens it is, it definitely has some interesting mojo, most still lenses on
video cameras seem not to but this one does. The XT-3 looks different than the C200, but I like it's look too. F-Log is easy to work
with and honestly, it's a lot more work to tweak and CC CRL to get it to how I like it to look than the F-Log. Wish I was a better colorist.
 
I hated the EF 24-105 first generation so much, it was the only Canon L lens I ever unloaded. Well built but not fast, the zoom would extend whenever it was pointed down, barrel distortion at 24mm was terrible, soft in the corners (on FF body). The EFS 17-55 is worlds better than that lens excepting the lack of sealing. In summary, cheaper, faster, wider, extremely sharp on P6K, excellent stabilization too. Link is for 6K frame grab. Another wide gem is the EFS 10-18 IS, slow but stabilized, very sharp and a mere $249. The EF 17-40L is the least expensive from the Canon L series, I own this lens too but except for sealing doesn't hold any advantage over the EFS 17-55 for S-35. I have Sigma too, fast and sharp wide open but (mine at least) don't focus as well on Canon bodies, tendency toward back-focus. Sigma said they were willing to fix this if I sent in lens with Canon body but I never did. I manual focus exclusively for video.

The Pocket 6K is a nice bridge between the EF and EFS lens ecosystem; the image circle a smidge smaller than APS-C vignetting not a concern.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NS7jO-LJACK7tD2CCBZx9-OAmBX0a7JY
 
Tom Roper said:
I hated the EF 24-105 first generation so much, it was the only Canon L lens I ever unloaded. Well built but not fast, the zoom would extend whenever it was pointed down, barrel distortion at 24mm was terrible, soft in the corners (on FF body). The EFS 17-55 is worlds better than that lens excepting the lack of sealing. In summary, cheaper, faster, wider, extremely sharp on P6K, excellent stabilization too. Link is for 6K frame grab. Another wide gem is the EFS 10-18 IS, slow but stabilized, very sharp and a mere $249. The EF 17-40L is the least expensive from the Canon L series, I own this lens too but except for sealing doesn't hold any advantage over the EFS 17-55 for S-35. I have Sigma too, fast and sharp wide open but (mine at least) don't focus as well on Canon bodies, tendency toward back-focus. Sigma said they were willing to fix this if I sent in lens with Canon body but I never did. I manual focus exclusively for video.

The Pocket 6K is a nice bridge between the EF and EFS lens ecosystem; the image circle a smidge smaller than APS-C vignetting not a concern.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NS7jO-LJACK7tD2CCBZx9-OAmBX0a7JY
Click to expand...

FWIW, I totally agree, I used the original EF 24-105mm f/4.0 way back when we are all shooting with and excited about the 5D MKII. It was a lousy lens. But the MKII version is much better, they basically fixed all of the suck-ness from the MKI version. It's not my favorite EF lens,
that would be my EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but the second generation 24-15mm is leaps better quality build and picture over the EF S 17-55 f/2.8.
 
puredrifting said:
but the second generation 24-15mm is leaps better quality build and picture over the EF S 17-55 f/2.8.
Click to expand...

Better build but has not leaped IMO, still the excessive barrel distortion, not as sharp as Gen I according to DXOMARK. Unless your camera too is weather sealed I don't see the point.
 
As soon as I discovered issues using my 17-55 on the C200 I switched to my 16-35 f/4 IS out of necessity and it’s a pretty good option. It’s a better, sharper lens with better autofocus and I believe the stabilization is better too. I pretty much only use it in lower budget doc situations now though. If there’s budget I rent the 18-80, and if it’s not super run and gun I usually try to shoot everything on my 35mm f/2 IS.

A long time ago I realized that almost every time I found a frame I really liked on the 17-55 I was zoomed to 35mm. If you’re not having to do any following or any walk and talks you can get a surprising amount of interestingly framed coverage with just a 35mm lens and your legs. The focal length is just long enough to give your audience a singular focus but wide enough to always include environmental context. Anything wider starts to look like the news and anything longer starts to turn into an isolated portrait of one person/object.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top