Barrell distortion anyone?

[forno]

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/6404/img1819copyys0.jpg

[coldrain]

Well, if you think THAT is bad, be glad you don't have a Canon EF-S 17-85 IS, Nikon 18-70 DX or Nikon 18-200 DX VR. Those will show you the meaning of "barrel" :eek:

[forno]

I thought the 17-85IS was meant o be a pretty good lens

[cwphoto]

I thought the 17-85IS was meant o be a pretty good lens

Not around here. Either these guys have all been consistently unlucky with lemons or the lens is a bit of a dog.:confused:

Personally never tried it but I know my mother is going to want this lens over the 17-55 IS.:(

[ReF]

Not around here. Either these guys have all been consistently unlucky with lemons or the lens is a bit of a dog.:confused:

Personally never tried it but I know my mother is going to want this lens over the 17-55 IS.:(

would that 17-85 be available for you to try out from cps?

[cwphoto]

would that 17-85 be available for you to try out from cps?

I'm hoping so. That way my mum can try it and the new 17-55 IS before she settles on something.

As bad a rap as the lens has, the compelling thing for her will be IS. She ain't getting any younger and pixel-peeping at sharpness and what-not is really not her thing, plus the range would be more attractive for her (coming from a superzoom).

[coldrain]

EF 17-85 IS USM
Taken from photozone (other reviews show big barrel distortion too)
The lens broke a new record here - at 17mm it shows the most pronounced barrel distortions of all (supposedly) corrected lenses tested to date and that's by quite a margin. As you may observe in the sample shot below this is not only theory ...
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/dist17.jpg
Measured TV distortion -4.02% at 17mm

In comparison to the 18-55 kit lens at 18mm: TV distortion -2.37%

About the 18-70 Nikkor:
Low distortions were obviously not a design objective for the AF-S 18-70mm DX - at least at the 18mm setting where the lens produces very high barrel distortions (3.5%).

About the 18-200 VR Nikkor:
Extreme zooms tend to suffer from rather hefty distortions and the AF-S 18-200mm is no exception in this respect. In fact the amount of barrel distortions (4.1%) at 18mm broke a new negative record beating the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS by a fraction.

For comparison the Sigma 18-200 at 18mm: TV distortion -2.77%
And Tamron 18-200 at 18mm: TV distortion -3.6%

So... if you are a fan of barrel distortion, you can do a lot better than the Canon kitlens.
These figures make the Tokina 12-24 f4 with -1.21% and the Canon EF-S 10-22 with -1.24 rather impressive.

[cwphoto]

Hmmm, that's pretty bad.

Advice noted.

[DonSchap]

didn't come into play until Canon introduced the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm) lens. Then the term really became popular! LOL :rolleyes:

Oh sure, the 11-18mm or 12-24mm exhibit ghastly amounts of BD under 14mm, but that's to be expected. When you see it coming out of a 17-85mm lens... at 24mm... well, it is quite unnerving.

I gleaned this straight from Photozone.

"Distortions

The lens broke a new record here - at 17mm it shows the most pronounced barrel distortions of all (supposedly) corrected lenses tested to date and that's by quite a margin. As you may observe in the sample shot below this is not only theory ...

14848

Typical for all zoom lenses the barrel distortions change to pincushion distortions when zooming towards the long end of the zoom range. At about 24mm both forces even out technically though there're still some wavy-like distortions left here. At 50mm and 85mm the level of pincushion distortions remain relatively slight so for most of the zoom range the performance is actually pretty decent."

Remember, aperture is worth a thousand words... LOL :D


EDIT: GMTA... I must say. Sorry to echo you, "Coldrain" :o We've been at this too long, buddy! LMAO

[coldrain]

I'm hoping so. That way my mum can try it and the new 17-55 IS before she settles on something.

As bad a rap as the lens has, the compelling thing for her will be IS. She ain't getting any younger and pixel-peeping at sharpness and what-not is really not her thing, plus the range would be more attractive for her (coming from a superzoom).
Well, if you bump up the in camera saturation and contrast, I guess the 17-85 IS USM will do fine for snapshooting people that can use the IS. Are your parents going to mind barrel distortion like this? Will they even notice?
It does depend on what kind of photographers they are.

The 28-135 IS USM is a better lens (bit carp resolution wise at 28mm, more than decent at the long end), but I guess that starting at 45mm is not going to cut it? Unless you would pair it up with an EF-S 10-22 of course.

Canon, it is time for a 17-85 IS USM II! The 70-300 IS USM, old 28-135 IS USM and 70-300 IS USM show you know how to do it... and drop the price of IS inclusion already.:rolleyes: :eek:

[rawpaw18]

About the 18-70 Nikkor:

Quote:
Low distortions were obviously not a design objective for the AF-S 18-70mm DX - at least at the 18mm setting where the lens produces very high barrel distortions (3.5%).

Definitely not for architectural shooting, almost a fish eye view at 18mm.

[timmciglobal]

the 18-70 and 18-200 (like 17-85) have pretty high distortion.

Keep in mind the valted 17-55 F2.8 Is is 2% still. It's quite common on wide angels though obivously worse on the longer zoom cheaper lenses.

Tim

[forno]

I tried another sghot at lunch time to try and make it work in the composition of the pic, will upload later

[timmciglobal]

FYI. You can fix this kind of distortion in photoshop or usiong DXO optics.

Not perfectly but to a significant degree.

Tim