Returned 17-55 IS 2.8 for 16-35L 2.8

For those who own this lens and like it, great! I wanted to keep it but after a day and a half of shooting and one sleepless night I just couldn't take it any more.

The thorn in my side was not sharpness (my copy was sharp), ca or flare... it was something I just did not focus on in the reviews. Vignetting.

At 2.8 the lens showed unacceptable vignetting throughout the zoom range (I would call it pronounced vignetting). I used ACR to correct it but it was never the way I really wanted it to be. This occured in a great percentage of my shots from 2.8, 3.5 and slightly at 4. To be fair, everything f4 and above was very good.

I used a super thin hoya pro1 digital uv filter. I don't think that was the problem. And if it was I wasn't going to keep the lens and shoot filterless. Also, the hood was not available so that worried me thinking things could possibly become worse with the hood.

I could not live with this so I returned it for the 16-35L 2.8. So far I am very pleased with the results, high image quality, no vignetting and 2.8 across the range.

Yes, I will have to buy the 24-70L. So be it. I'd rather pay the extra money and use two lenses then to live with something always being a thorn in my side.

This forum has been great. I wanted to share my experience so that it may help someone else not overlook this issue. And yes I tried the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It was a good lense for the money, but I have a perfection problem and need L's.

I should have just bought the 16-35L to begin with. Lesson learned.

Good choice. That'd be just dumb to pick up your camera everyday and wish there was another lens on it. $1200 is too much for a mistake. Enjoy the L's.

Enjoy that 16-35. It's a great lens.

Exactly! Thanks Ronald.

I just could not do it. I should have known better. A while back I bought the 50 1.8 and then returned it the next day for the 50 1.4.

Never again. After the 24-70L I go straight for the 70-200L 2.8 IS. No more mickey mouse business. 2.8 Lzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Thanks Dante, I have read many of the posts you and Ronald have made and many others. I realized I was just taking from the community and not giving so maybe someone will benefit from my mistake. Or... maybe not.

16-35L - No more sleepless nights. Priceless

I noticed the extreme vignetting in FStop's review as well. I imagine it's mostly because the lens is EF-S and is exposed completely on your 30d, similarly as an EF lens is exposed completely on a full frame body? I wonder if the 16-35 has comparable vignetting on a full frame? Any comments Mr. Dante? That's the #1 reason I like the 1.3 crop of the 1d, you get to use quite a bit of your lenses without seeing their bad qualities.

Avoid full frame, vignetting bites often and necessarily (speaking as a FF owner who lives with the disadvantages it brings because I love the power)

You made the right call either way, because there is no point living with equipment that you have to second-guess all the time. I have to trust my gear for whatever it does, or doesn't do, and I have returned lenses this way before.

Enjoy your 16-35L - it is one superb piece of glass too.

I noticed that you have the 10-22 as well. There seems to be quite an overlap in coverage with having both the 10-22 and a 16-35, especially if you plan on getting a 24-70. Are you getting the 15-35L b/c of the wider aperature?

Yes, that is why I purchased the 16-35L 2.8 and am selling the 17-40L. I needed 2.8 in this range for lower light and indoors with no flash. It is the primary lens I shoot with. The 10-22 is an extra I use occasionally and it is not essential but I do want to keep it.

The 16-35 was a gotta have and the 24-70 would be very useful. The 70-200 will finish things out.

In my view, an $1178.00 EF-S lens should not vignette at all at 2.8. I am surprised I have not read more complaints about this from new owners. Everyone has their own requirements, for me this was not acceptable. Still bugs me.

nice photos Tee Why - I was at the Getty Villa last week.

I feel that it is one of the compromises. On crop cameras, you are only using the center part of the glass when you mount EF lenses, cropping out the vignetting. However, with EF-S glass, there is no 'extra' glass that is unused, you are using the whole useable image area, so the vignetting is more visible.

Technically it is called light falloff.. it plagues a fair amount of lenses. I never really used to understand why The Digital Picture review site always commented on light falloff on FF/1.3X FOVCF cameras, until I started using FF.

If you go to full frame, it gets worse, in fact. 24-105 f/4L - blessed with the red ring AND a bad case of light falloff at 24mm on full frame. Crop camera users will not notice this (I did not on my 350D), but FF users will - it is quite obvious on my 5D. I chose to live with it because I can find a workaround, which involves using my 17-40 f/4L to cover 24mm when maximum quality is needed. Of course I would love to eliminate it if possible, but even Canon's own guys haven't found a way yet.

Still, I respect your requirements that you want NO vignetting, and you're on the right path. The 16-35 EF will essentially eliminate that in your specific application. I guess all of us have had to find our workarounds

I sometimes wonder if we aren't over anal-eyesing our gear a bit...

I shot 35mm film with crappy camera gear for years (I was poor I didn't seem to care about my gear so much) and even on film I had corner darkness issues, but I viewed it as an artifact of the lenses at the time, character if you will...

I have a buddy that shoots a 28-70L on a film body, now all of a sudden we see vignette reviews and comparo's on the 5D. Gasp- this lens is crap, what?

It's my belief lenses are better then they ever where. Maybe these photo sensors are just too sensitive or maybe we have un-realistic standards for our gear in this digital fix everything era. (I have to chuckle at fish eye correction filters, what?--why else would spend $500+ for a fisheye to fix it?)

Good wide angles have always been expensive and they've always had some degree of vignetting. Lenses keep getting wider and wider, and folks sometimes harp about the corner sharpness. We could always not use the lens at the limit I guess, right?

I sappose we could all use our f2.8 glass at f4 and use the lens a few mm from it's maximum width? I bet the 16-35L is better over the 20-35mm range then the old 20-35L right?

Maybe we just b**** about our gear too much in here and don't shoot enough

As for selling the 17-55 for the 16-35, I'd likely do just the same to get the L build, but I'm a shallow gear snob that can't take a picture worth crap too.

My 10-22mm isn't nearly as corner sharp as my 70-200mm, but I always assumed tis the nature of being a 10mm!, right?

Very good to know for full frame.

Lightstream wrote:
I guess all of us have had to find our workarounds

Exactly! I new the 16-35 was out there and finally came to terms that in my situation it was the solution. I am no expert just learning this stuff as I go. Thank you for your insight and responses.

Thanks for looking at my site, since we're on the topic of expensive lenses, my Getty Villa shots were all with a Sigma 15mm fisheye and a Tamron 28-75. he he he.

I like expensive lenses too but there is a diminishing rate of return. I am not a fan of the 50mm f1.8 b/c it feels like a toy, but find I'm liking it more and more as I used it more and get to see the results/images made with the lens.

Have fun, go out and shoot, LA is a great place to be a photog.

MrChad wrote:
I sometimes wonder if we aren't over anal-eyesing our gear a bit...

Good wide angles have always been expensive and they've always had some degree of vignetting. Lenses keep getting wider and wider, and folks sometimes harp about the corner sharpness. We could always not use the lens at the limit I guess, right?

I sappose we could all use our f2.8 glass at f4 and use the lens a few mm from it's maximum width? I bet the 16-35L is better over the 20-35mm range then the old 20-35L right?

Maybe we just b**** about our gear too much in here and don't shoot enough

As for selling the 17-55 for the 16-35, I'd likely do just the same to get the L build, but I'm a shallow gear snob that can't take a picture worth crap too.

Great points.

These things usually don't bother me so much. This situation became a big issue and crystalized. The 16-35 came through in precisely the right way.

You nailed the issue I was dealing with when you said "I suppose we could all use our f2.8 glass at f4 and use the lens a few mm from it's maximum width? "

I just could not do it. Keep in mind this is the primary lens I shoot with. I did not want to pay the cost of a 2.8 and have to use it at f/4 and turn it a few mm from it's maximum width on many of the shots I make.

Your words are right on. For the most part I am pretty flexible this was just one of those battles that had to be won. I am at peace now and will head your words. I totally agree with you.

Also, I am no expert. Obviously, I selected the wrong lens from the beginning trying to cut corners and get an all in one solution. We all have different priorities, this one became one of mine.

Those shots are great, you have so many images I haven't had time to go through all of them yet... but I will.

Can't go wrong on the 50 either way. See you around.


Thanks Again