Hello all.

I noted in a different thread that people are planning to use the excellent EF-S 17-55 f2.8 lens with the C300. I called Canon support yesterday, though, and was told that the 17-55 would vignette, as would my less-useful-for-video EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 lens.

Does anyone have any hands-on experience with either of these lenses on the C300? If so, would you please share it with me? I'm trying to determine my budget for buying the thing (including lenses and peripherals).

Many thanks!

I have both of those lenses as well -- but I do not have a C300 in hand. So, count me in as also interested in this topic.

Vignetting is not a problem with the 17-55. I have peripheral illumination turned on of course and it looks great all the way through the zoom range. But I do prefer the 24-105. That's my main workhorse and I use the 17-55 if I need a little more light or a wider shot. But overall I'm happy with the 17-55 on the C300.

The 17-55 is a lightweight and great all-around, fast zoom for handheld work. I wish there would be a bit more travel range on the focus ring but basically, this is a must have wide zoom for every C300 user who is looking a good compromise between price, versatility and quality.

Thank you Graham. It's great to know that my lovely EF-S 17-55 will work, after all. And I agree, Thierry, that this lens will serve me well, as it has in the past. Also, thanks to you, Graham, for suggesting the 24-105mm lens. I had my eye on the 24-70mm f2.8 because of the speed, and because I have everything above 70mm covered, but now that I think about it, an f4 lens with a longer zoom range may be just the ticket if I have the 17-55 for that extra stop or wider angle in case I need it.

I'm selling my 24-70 because I just don't use it anymore. Having IS for handheld work is great so I definitely prefer the 24-105. And with the C300's crazy ISO ability, f/4 is not a problem even in low light situations.

I wish they would do an L quality version of the 17-55 but from what I understand Canon doesn't do L glass for EF-S lenses. Too bad because I'd love to have a longer throw on the focus ring like Thierry said, smoother zoom travel, and a more rugged body.

What about the Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Canon on the C300?

I wish they would do an L quality version of the 17-55 but from what I understand Canon doesn't do L glass for EF-S lenses.

The EF-S 17-55mm IS has a secret which I'm happy to share with you. The secret is that this
lens, for all practical purposes, is just as good as any L-series lens... in fact, as far as optical
quality is concerned, it's even better than some L-series lenses. The only thing that keeps it
from having a red ring and that L designation is its incompatibility with a 1D series body (by
virtue of its short backfocus, hence the EF-S nomenclature).

Basically, there won't be an an "L quality version" of the 17-55 IS because it's already built to
L-quality standards. The better question is, will Canon ever add IS to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 or
the EF 17-40mm f/4, but I don't think that's likely either.

Not exactly the lenses y'all are talking about, but today I decided to pull out an EFS that I haven't touched in three years, the efs 18-55. I slapped it on the c300 and gave it a whirl. Kept it at a 5.6 to be able to zoom through the range without having to adjust the iris, so the ISO is at 1400. Here's the sample:

efs_18-55_test on Vimeo

I'd like to see the $100 EF 50mm f/1.8 on a C300... heh.

Ok. But for the record, I paid $75 for my Plastic Fantastic:

Plastic Fantastic on Vimeo

The EF-S 17-55mm IS has a secret which I'm happy to share with you. The secret is that this
lens, for all practical purposes, is just as good as any L-series lens... in fact, as far as optical
quality is concerned, it's even better than some L-series lenses. The only thing that keeps it
from having a red ring and that L designation is its incompatibility with a 1D series body (by
virtue of its short backfocus, hence the EF-S nomenclature).

Basically, there won't be an an "L quality version" of the 17-55 IS because it's already built to
L-quality standards. The better question is, will Canon ever add IS to the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 or
the EF 17-40mm f/4, but I don't think that's likely either.

Yup. I've heard that too. Which is why it's in my Amazon queue waiting for a spare grand to appear in my checking account. ;)

I'd like to see the $100 EF 50mm f/1.8 on a C300... heh.

Ha! That little guy sat on my 7D for a very long time 'til I bought it's more expensive brother.

The EF-S 17-55mm IS has a secret which I'm happy to share with you. The secret is that this
lens, for all practical purposes, is just as good as any L-series lens... in fact, as far as optical
quality is concerned, it's even better than some L-series lenses. The only thing that keeps it
from having a red ring and that L designation is its incompatibility with a 1D series body (by
virtue of its short backfocus, hence the EF-S nomenclature).

I hear you on the optical quality but I have to disagree with you that the only thing keeping it from being L series is its EF-S designation. It is definitely not built like an L lens. It's plasticy, lightweight, focus ring is fiddly and has a very short throw, and the zoom ring is not nearly as buttery smooth as the 24-70, 24-105, 16-35, 70-200. But again, I agree with the bit on optical quality. It is a great lens and my complaints about it are definitely not enough to stop me from using it. I have used it a lot and I will continue to do so. But I would happily pay several hundred dollars more for an L quality build. And yes, I understand this probably isn't going to happen.

It's plasticy, lightweight...

Ah so... however, it certainly isn't as plasticy and lightweight as the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, and that's an L-series lens.

And talk about a fiddly focus ring, the "fly by wire" focus ring on the EF 85mm F/1.2L II gives some people fits. So there!

I don't have much experience with either of those so I'll just take your word for it. Just sayin, I just want my 17-55 to feel as good as my other zooms.

I've only handled them at trade shows... and I'd love to own both of 'em.

Certainly it doesn't have the build/feel of the 24-70...but it also doesn't have the weight. It does seem a bit more susceptible to flare, but that may be due to the fact it doesn't ship with a lens hood, and I haven't gotten one yet. Sharpness is excellent. CA is virtually nonexistent at most f-stops. It does darken in the corners substantially at 17mm wide open, but as someone else noticed...the PIC should take care of that. Best hand all around lens for hand held work...I'm very happy with it. It would be nice to have a longer throw to the focus, (but in my mind that's mostly for use with a follow focus...)

B

I think I might just have a bad copy then. I feel like mine diffuses the light too much, has poor sharpness, and the zoom ring has a tug in it when going from 55mm to 17mm, happens at about 28mm. I'm thinking I should trade it in for a new one.

ive had my 17-55 for about 6 months or so, and i do love its IS and zoom range, but it definitely feels a little cheaper than my other zooms, and already has a few dust specs inside it, and i always keep it in a bag inside my camera case. None of my other zooms have that issue: tokina 11-16, canon 16-35L ,28-70L 2.8 and 70-200L 2.8 II, all with no dust.

That said, at this point I have two kits i go out with with the c300...the big kit, that one has all the primes and all the zooms, and the little run-and-gun kit, and that one is just camera, 17-55 and 70-200

Canon graciously let me borrow a C300 w/EF-S 17-55 lens a couple weeks back to test out for my NBC work. I unfortunately didn't get to play much with it as I was traveling for productions, but I did get some quick sots out of the system.

I'll try to post them later. I shot with some ISO ranges, as well as with C-Log.

My overall impression was the EF-S 17-55 lens is an awesome "run and gun" lens for the C300.

My only complaint with the 17-55 is how the zoom and focus rings are opposite from all the L lenses I have. For "run n gun" takes a little getting used too.

Currently shooting in Asia - we were on the Great Wall out of Beijing yesterday - lots of wind and cold. Traveling in same group with the legendary SI/Life photographer Neil Leifer and his long-time assistant Dan - but that's another story. A thrill to be around one of the greats.

My go-to kit for run & gun here has been the 17-55mm and 70-200mm 2.8 IS II. The 17-55 has been great, but wish it had a sturdier feel to it. Focus ring very lightweight action, and the lens doesn't have that "brick-like" feel to it that the 70-200 has. I've noticed a little vignetting @17mm at times - I see it in the XF utility window but not on my FCP7 browser.

Here's hoping that Canon or someone else steps up and creates an even better solution for this range. At the moment, the 17-55mm is the best option.

Seeing more of the vignetting at 17mm. When the IS is on and your running around, seems like as it compensates, you see more of the edges. My big reasons for buying the 17-55 was the IS and the wide range. It will do for now.

I've been using the 17-55 on the C300 for a week now. It's a great lens but it does suffer from hard vignetting on the left and right sides when fully wide and visibly dark corners right out to 28mm. These are not the natural drop off vignettes that peripheral illumination will correct, they are fairly hard and remain even with that feature enabled. The IS makes them more apparent as you can see them flickering in the extreme corners and on both sides when fully wide.

[Edit]

After looking in to this a bit more it appears that the edge darkening is actually caused by the official Canon lens hood for the 17-55. Quite a relief really but rather annoying as you have to buy the lens hood separately and it's a crazy price for a small flimsy plastic part. If you're shooting video give that one a miss. Enabling peripheral illumination does also help to remove most of the darkened corners with the lens hood removed too so I take all that back.

I posted some examples on my blog: http://www.pauljoy.com/2012/04/canon-efs-17-55-causing-vignetting-on-the-c300/

I think I might just have a bad copy then. I feel like mine diffuses the light too much, has poor sharpness, and the zoom ring has a tug in it when going from 55mm to 17mm, happens at about 28mm. I'm thinking I should trade it in for a new one.

Hi Graham, mine also has the tug in the middle of the zoom range, did you try any others?

I just bought a new one and it's better. Still not L smooth, but better then my first copy. Going to sell that one.

I have a question for you Graham. With your new, better built copy of the Canon 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM EF-S are you still getting the hard corner vignetting that Paul mentioned above when fully zoomed out (with darker corners all the way up to 28mm) or is it less of an issue with the tighter tolerances that this new one might have?

This lens (I have a very good copy on my 7D) seems to be an excellent walk-about lens for the C300 (from what I've read) with its 1.53x or so sensor crop factor (from memory), i.e. similar to the 7D's 1.6x. I'm curious to know of any limitations (apart from the plastic, non L build quality which I already know about). The one I have is razor sharp and the IS is terrifically effective and very quiet. I also have an excellent Canon 10-22mm F3.5 USM EF-S, which I understand does not vignette on the C300.

Just trying to work out what will work well on the C300 that's in my current lens collection!

Andy, if I read Paul's blog & post correctly he is not seeing any vignetting with the lens hood removed.

I always use the Canon hood with the 17-55. I have not had any vignetting problems at all. I am shooting with peripheral illumination on of course. But either way, the hood doesn't seem to make a difference.

That's interesting Graham, maybe the extra sensor width is just revealing build tolerances in the production of these lenses that wouldn't normally appear on a 1.6 crop. I can only imagine mine goes a little bit wider if it reveals the edges of the sun hood and yours doesn't.

I'll pop into warehouse express in the week and see if I can try another one.

Paul

This makes me feel even better that I bought a cheap Chinese knock-off lens hood for my Canon 17-55mm! It's a Marumi EW-83J that has a printed code implying it's specifically made for that lens. [It may or may not be exactly the same shape as a Canon one, I don't know].

If I ever save enough to get a C300 (and it also gives me any issues on vignetting with my 17-55mm) I'll think nothing of carefully "easing it out" with half-round and rats-tail files at the critical points. File work will be done off-camera of course ;-)

Incidentally, the (genuine) Canon EW-83E hood I have for my Canon 10-22mm has (of course) a much wider spread so that would work just fine - but at the risk of letting a little too much stray light near the front lens element. It's got that lovely light absorbing felt on the inside face which the cheaper Marumi types lack - as indeed do all the other genuine Canon hoods for my longer Canon glass.

I bet Canon make a hood that's somewhere between the two (in shading area and shape) that might work just fine - if some copies of the 17-55mm take it a little too close to the limit like Paul's seems to.

I own the 17-55 and also several L lenses. I agree with the praise for its optical quality but it needs to be said that mechanically it is not L quality build. Depending on the shooting conditions, this could be a factor.

I should clarify that it is the sealing that is my issue with the 17-55, rather than "metal versus plastic" issues. I love my 17-55 from an optical point of view, but I have had to send it to Canon twice for problems with dust getting into the interior of the lens.

My C300 arrived yesterday so I can confirm that with my EF-S 17-55 there is no vignetting with or without the lens hood. It is the proper Canon model for this lens which as it is currently the one & only EF-S lens I own I was surprised at the time of purchase to discover that I had to pay nearly another £30 for a cheap plastic moulding that must cost all of 10p to manufacture especially as the 17-55mm at around £800 costs as much as some 'L' lenses

That's good to know Nigel, I'm going to nip up to wex this afternoon and see if I can get mine replaced.

Regards

Paul.

That's good to know Nigel, I'm going to nip up to wex this afternoon and see if I can get mine replaced.

Regards

Paul.I'll probably be popping there this afternoon too as I need to pick up a couple of things before the weekend. I have only just realised that you are based not to far away from me (I actually live in Belaugh which is a little village the Norwich side of Wroxham). We should meet up & form a Norfolk C300 owners club:-) I'll mail you my contact details.

The vignetting seems to only be an issue when using the lens hood. I've seen some amazing screen grabs. the 17-55 is great and I to wish they would build an L-version, something like 16-60, one with the weather-proofing and such to the standards of the C300.

I went in to wex and tried another 17-55 today, it was exactly the same, slight vignetting in the corners even without the lens hood. I also tried the two main L series wide zooms and while they had nice images and didn't vignette I missed the IS a lot, enough to make me stick with the 17-55.

There's more info on my blog Canon EFS 17-55 causing vignetting on the C300 | Paul Joy – Freelance Filmmaker (http://www.pauljoy.com/2012/04/canon-efs-17-55-causing-vignetting-on-the-c300/)

Here's a quick video showing results from the three lenses, in the 17-55 part you can see the vignette moving in the top right corner of the shot.

Wide zoom tests on Canon C300 on Vimeo

Just wanted to join in the thread and report that I've not experienced any vignetting with the 17-55F 2.8 myself.

This is regardless of Peripheral Illumination Correction being turned on or off.

And no vignetting with a wider lens, the Sigma 10-20mm. Incidentially is Peripheral Illumination not available for 3rd party lenses?.

I wondered if Paul was a bit more critical & that I hadn't examined my clips so thoroughly but I just quickly shot a white wall at 17mm & examined the image really carefully & cannot see any evidence of vignetting.

I have to wonder if it might be a problem with Paul's camera. This must be a common lens to use on the C300 & I have seen no other reports.

An unlikely (but possible?) cause could be if the hood is installed with a 90 degree twist. I haven't done that, but I've made other boneheaded moves with video at times. :)

I wondered if Paul was a bit more critical & that I hadn't examined my clips so thoroughly but I just quickly shot a white wall at 17mm & examined the image really carefully & cannot see any evidence of vignetting.

I have to wonder if it might be a problem with Paul's camera. This must be a common lens to use on the C300 & I have seen no other reports.

Could well be the camera, although I've heard from two other C300 owners that see the same results so it's not just mine.