Canon 40D + 17-85 IS lens

canon400d

I have looked on the website of Fredmiranda.com and I have looked at the reviewes of the Canon 17-85mm lens. It has brilliant reviews but having said that, I note that a number of people all say the same thing. Distortion at 17mm to 24mm beyond that perfect in every respect. A number of people say there is an easy way around this problem. I have tried this lens as it has been offered to me at a reasonable price. However, I have experienced the same problem of slight distortion between 17 - 24mm. I would appreciate it so much if you can advise me on how I can correct this problem. As you know I am still learning day by day and am I douing the right thing by getting this lens with the lens I have. I have an extra lens to add to my proifile which is a Canon 50mm/F1.8mm a cheap lens which gives me wonderful results. I read the reviews on this lens before I purchased it and I am sure you will all know are very favourable
Kind Regards
Bob

kdog

You're probably talking about barrel distortion. That's easily fixed if you have the right tools. In Photoshop CS2, you can do this. Filter->Distort->Lens Correction. Adjust the Remove Distortion slider until it looks right. Simple as that.

Cheers,
-joel

canon400d

kdog wrote:

You're probably talking about barrel distortion. That's easily fixed if you have the right tools. In Photoshop CS2, you can do this. Filter->Distort->Lens Correction. Adjust the Remove Distortion slider until it looks right. Simple as that.

Cheers,
-joel

Thanks ever so much for your reply. So I can only resolve this factor by going into Photoshop CS2. I will look into that right away.
Thanks again
Bob

kdog

Bob, CS2 is what I use, and I'm certain CS3 does lens correction as well. There are other programs that can do this kind of correction. PTLens in one.

Cheers,
-joel

claudermilk

PTLens was my first thought for an app to deal with this. Also Bibble does it (built off PTLens originally). The last I'm aware of is DxO--but you have to have the proper lens/body combo and proper modules installed for it, a great concept that falls flat on it's face in reality. PTLens is probably the best starting point.

TristanP

I'll throw in my vote for PTLens. Great stuff, easy to use, and works like a charm.

canon400d

Canon 40D + 17-85 IS lens
Following my previous thread regarding the distortion between 17 and 24 on the Canon 17-85mm lens. Well yesterday I went and bought the Canon 40D and the 17-85mm lens and I have taken shot after shot inside and outside at 17 and 24mm and I have not had a single bad photo. All are perfect and no distortion whatsoever. Do you think it is down to the camera at the end of the day as I was using the 400D. On the Fredmiranda website the reviews were all excellent apart from a large number who experienced this distortion. So I am just wondering if it is the camera. Albeit it is an expensive way to find out as I am a learner. But all I can say is the 40D is brilliant so I don't know what to do with the 400D as I have only had it three months.
Kind Regards
Bob

canon400d

kdog wrote:

Bob, CS2 is what I use, and I'm certain CS3 does lens correction as well. There are other programs that can do this kind of correction. PTLens in one.

Cheers,
-joel

Cheers Joe,
I went out yesterday and I bought the Canon 40D and the 17-85mm lens and I have done shot after shot both inside and outside and not one bit of distortion so I was wondering if it is the camera. I started another thread so I will probably get into trouble for not putting it on here. I didn't realise until I had posted it.
Thanks I am looking at PTLens
Bob

TristanP

I have a very hard time believing that simply changing to another 1.6 crop-sensor body would do anything about the wide end distortion of the 17-85. Are you shooting the exact same scenes in the same way?

sirsloop

shoot a brick wall straight on and see what it looks like...

canon400d

TristanP wrote:

I have a very hard time believing that simply changing to another 1.6 crop-sensor body would do anything about the wide end distortion of the 17-85. Are you shooting the exact same scenes in the same way?

I went to the same place and did the same thing. There is no way this lens is showing a distortion. I have tried it on my 400D and I do get the distortion at 17 to 24 so it must be the camera.
Cheers
Bob

canon400d

TristanP wrote:

I have a very hard time believing that simply changing to another 1.6 crop-sensor body would do anything about the wide end distortion of the 17-85. Are you shooting the exact same scenes in the same way?

I can assure you I am taking the same photos from the same stance as I did before. However, in all fairness I must put this new lens on my 400D and see what it does. At the moment the 17-85 lens is one brilliant lens and you will see from my profile I have quite a few,

Cheers
Bob

canon400d

TristanP wrote:

I have a very hard time believing that simply changing to another 1.6 crop-sensor body would do anything about the wide end distortion of the 17-85. Are you shooting the exact same scenes in the same way?

Yes I was standing at the same place and had the same cicumstances. I have shot inside and out using the 40D and there is no way I can get any distortion on this lens. In all fairness I must try it on my 400D but I just cannot understand why so many people are saying the same thing on the reviews and I experienced the same when I tried this lens on my 400D. all being the lens I am using now is brand new.
Cheers
Bob

claudermilk

In an everyday photo the barrel distortion won't be easily noticeable. When you get straight lines in the frame, particularly at the edges it becomes noticeable.

Here's a review with some telling test results: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm

This lens does appear to have significant barrel distortion--but nothing that PTLens cannot easily fix.

sirsloop

I think software fixes to problems like barrel distortion is not the answer. Yes I agree that in a lot of cases its not going to be noticable, but what happens when you go on a day trip to a city and take 500 photos of buildings. Are you going to edit all of the photos with this application to fix the dr seuss looking walls? Its the same for CA or sharpness... yeah you can fix that too but in the end you are going to end up touching thousands of photos. I'm sure people are thinking "I dont have $1000+ for a 24-70/2.8L".... but for the $450 that the 17-85 costs there are some great alternatives! This lens is sort of a sore subject with me I guess. Out of all of Canon lenses I've owned, I'd have to say that this one is the worst of the bunch. Really... I'd rather be using the kit lens!! At least I know its a $100 lens... not 450... or nearly the same price as a good used 17-40L!!

boulderNardo

Ok. Sorry about 'kinda' hijacking the thread, but it is kinda relevant.
I have a 17-55 2.8 (which I'm exchanging for a 24-70, no details here). I've taken plenty of pictures are 17mm, no barrel distortion WHATSOEVER.

Anyway, that's kinda offtopic, the point is, I don't have any barrel-distorted pictures to try the distortion-PP-fix. however, I'm wondering - IF barrel-distortion can so EASILY be fixed with PP, WHY is it that people base their super-wide-angle lens purchase on barrel-distortion properties of the lens?

I understand a need to reduce PP, but if, like I seem to understand, most photographers heavily PP their photos, why not deal with PP that way and buy the WIDEST lens possible?

Being rather new to the 'equipment' side of photography, I've been reluctant to buy the 10-22 Canon because of barrel-distortion (even small one), not knowing it can be fixed. I did not want to take photographs of Florence's beautiful Duomo, Basilica di San Lorenzo, or Uffizi, and obtain crazy distorted images.

Anyway. Just a harmless question, don't want to seem off-topic. I'm very interested to learn, as I love architecture and landscape photography.

IloveBoulderBErnardo

sirsloop

For an UWA, the 10-22 actually controls barrel distortion VERY well. The 17-85 is MUCH worse! Because of the severe angle, things at the edges of a 10mm shot can look a little distorted and things like walls angles are not correct. Lots of wide lenses do this, and the most elegant solution is a wide TSE prime lens.

claudermilk

Agreed, sirsloop. But then, that's why I don't own the 17-85, but spend the coin on the 24-70 (you can hardly see any change when a 24-70 image is run through PTLens).

Neither the 10-22 or my 12-24 has much barrel distortion at all. However, they do have the typical UWA stretching at the edges of the frame--nothing much can be done about that.