 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2007Canon 24-105 f/4 L on 1.6 crop cameras and lens hood, filters
I just bought one of these Canon 24-105 f/4 L lenses for my 30D. It's a great, sharp lens. However. It comes with a nice petal lens hood. BUT ... this clearly is a hood for full frame cameras. Are there hoods for it specially for the 1.6 crop cameras? They could be somewhat more effective since they need cover a smaller field. And that brings up filters. I was all ready to order up a 77mm filter when I thought ... why not try a 58mm filter? So I did, just holding it in front of the lens looking through the viewfinder. I saw no vignetting at all. Of course, this is not a good test since the viewfinder may not use the whole field or the whole aperture. I will experiment with a proper stepdown setup and 55 and 52 mm filter. But ... does anybody have any experience in this? A stepdown ring or two is a lot cheaper than a 77 mm polarizer, and will of course also reduce flare. Doug McDonald > I just bought one of these Canon 24-105 f/4 L lenses for my 30D. > It's a great, sharp lens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the 1.6 crop cameras? They could be somewhat more effective since > they need cover a smaller field. Yes that has occurred to me. I've never heard of 'digital lens shades' though. > And that brings up filters. I was all ready to order up a 77mm filter > when I thought ... why not try a 58mm filter? So I did, just holding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have any experience in this? A stepdown ring or two is a lot cheaper than > a 77 mm polarizer, and will of course also reduce flare. Ha, well there's your lens shade in the step-down ring. $Doug McDonald wrote: $> However. It comes with a nice petal lens hood. BUT ... this clearly $> is a hood for full frame cameras. Are there hoods for it specially $> for the 1.6 crop cameras? They could be somewhat more effective since $> they need cover a smaller field. $ $Yes that has occurred to me. I've never heard of 'digital lens shades' $though. Canon has one official lens hood per lens. If it's a full-frame lens, then it's a lens hood designed for that lens' angle of view on a full-frame body. If it's an EF-S (1.6-crop only) lens, then it's a lens hood designed for that lens' angle of view on a 1.6-crop body. So there's no official solution if you want a narrower lens hood to use a full-frame lens on a cropped-sensor body. That said, there are a number of known substitutions for this sort of thing; in fact, the 24-105's hood is one of the well-known alternate hoods for the widely-used 17-40 on a 1.6-crop body. I know, that doesn't help you. The table at http://www.burren.cx/photo/alternate_hoods.html lists an alternative hood for the 24-105, but it's likely only a bit better than the stock hood on a 1.6-crop body, as it's for a 28mm-equivalent field of view. (It's the hood for the 17-55, but as that's an EF-S lens, the hood is designed for a 1.6-crop body.)  SignatureStephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca> >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ >I just bought one of these Canon 24-105 f/4 L lenses for my 30D. >It's a great, sharp lens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >for the 1.6 crop cameras? They could be somewhat more effective since >they need cover a smaller field. Get one of the collapsible rubber lens hoods. The right ones can be set into two and more positions making them more effective for both the short and long settings of your zoom. I have the Hoya 77mm and find it very useful with my 17-55mm/2.8. >And that brings up filters. I was all ready to order up a 77mm filter >when I thought ... why not try a 58mm filter? So I did, just holding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have any experience in this? A stepdown ring or two is a lot cheaper than >a 77 mm polarizer, and will of course also reduce flare. I don't have this lens, but I would find it hard to believe that Canon would put such large front elements on this lens and then not make use of that vitreous real estate. So almost for sure you will need to spend big money on 77mm filters... just my guess. KS > I don't have this lens, but I would find it hard to believe that Canon > would put such large front elements on this lens and then not make use > of that vitreous real estate. But that would be on a full-frame camera. My 30D is seriously cropped, and hence at wide angle it does not use anywhere near the full lens front. someone else wrote: "You can pay for the lens but you cheap out on the filter??? I have ONE 77mm polariser which fits many of my lenses with the same threads. I have a step down ring from 77mm to 67mm to use it on my 70-200 f4 which has a smaller diameter." I'm not trying to cheap out. I'll buy a first rate 58 mm filter. If it does not vignette, so be it. It seems to not be vignetting at all. And, as noted, the step down ring will reduce flare. Doug McDonald >> I don't have this lens, but I would find it hard to believe that Canon >> would put such large front elements on this lens and then not make use >> of that vitreous real estate. > >But that would be on a full-frame camera. My 30D is seriously cropped, >and hence at wide angle it does not use anywhere near the full lens front. Yes, good point. And yes, a step-down would work like a kind of lens shade and reduce flare. KS $King Sardon wrote: $> I don't have this lens, but I would find it hard to believe that Canon $> would put such large front elements on this lens and then not make use $> of that vitreous real estate. $ $But that would be on a full-frame camera. My 30D is seriously cropped, $and hence at wide angle it does not use anywhere near the full lens front. This is not necessarily the case. Light rays don't take a straight path through the lens, and it's not true that light rays passing through the middle of the front element strike only the middle of the film/sensor or that light rays passing through the outer edges of the front element strike only the outer edges of the film/sensor. It is likely that the use of a substantially smaller filter will cause some vignetting even on a 1.6-crop body. You'd have to test it at a variety of apertures and focal lengths (since the effect will vary with both of these settings) to find out if it's enough to be a concern to you. SignatureStephen M. Dunn <stephen@stevedunn.ca> >>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ > I just bought one of these Canon 24-105 f/4 L lenses for my 30D. > It's a great, sharp lens. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Doug McDonald The step down ring will vignette at wide apertures, but you might get away with it at smaller apertures, say f/8 or f/11, and the long end of the zoom. You probably won't at f4 or at the short end. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com You can pay for the lens but you cheap out on the filter??? I have ONE 77mm polariser which fits many of my lenses with the same threads. I have a step down ring from 77mm to 67mm to use it on my 70-200 f4 which has a smaller diameter. Jean > I just bought one of these Canon 24-105 f/4 L lenses for my 30D. > It's a great, sharp lens. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Doug McDonald > I just bought one of these Canon 24-105 f/4 L lenses for my 30D. > It's a great, sharp lens. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Doug McDonald Is there any sharpness difference at f4 and f8? I have the cheaper 24-205 non L and it is only good at 5.6 and above. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.