| |
Colin D wrote:
>
> s wrote:
>> I currently have a 17-85 (for my 300D) and use it most of the time. It's
>> a convenient lens (IS, modest zoom range) but image quality is starting
>> to bug me. Vignetting and distortion are very obvious at the wide end
>> and if you use a polariser + UV filter at the same time, the vignetting
>> gets worse (the corners of the image are black!). At the long end it's fine.
>>
>> So what are the alternatives ? A 17-40 would be nice, but the zoom range
>> is a bit short, and it doesn't have IS (which is proving to be useful).
>> The 17-55 IS is out of my budget.
>>
>> Alternative might be a 10-22 + 24-something or 28-something lens. For a
>> while i only had a 28-105 on the 300d and found that it wasn't often
>> wide enough to take everything in.
>>
>> Any suggestions ? What do you guys use to cover the wide-end ?
>
> Stay with the lens and buy DxO Optics, a program that automatically
> corrects for vignetting, barrel/pincushion, Ca, and purple fringing all
> in one pass.
> Not cheap, but very good.
At $149 US it's not cheap, but still much cheaper than a lens! I think
i'll seriously consider that it i can't find a lens ..
Are there other packages that include lens-correction ?
>
> Most zoom lenses have this sort of distortion to some degree, and most
> w/a lenses don't like two filters stacked on the front. An L-quality
I was thinking that something like a 17-40 with it's larger image circle
might not suffer when stacking filters on an APS-C sized sensor camera.
> lens will be better, but you will sacrifice zoom range, and the price
> difference will buy DxO for you with some left over.
>
> http://www.dxo.com/en/photo/home/default.php
>
> Colin D.
|
|