# 70-200mm 2.8 IS mkii vignetting in the corner problem. Can someone help me?



## thatcherk1 (Apr 3, 2012)

Hello all,

I have a 5D mkII and mkIII and a 70-200 2.8IS mkII.
I noticed recently that it seems to have some extra vignetting in the corners at certain focal lengths (seeminly beyond typical vignetting on FF camera). 70mm seems normal, 100mm seems the worst where the vignette has the sharpest edge. 135mm and 200mm it's apparent, but the fade is softer, still bad though in my opinion. I find that putting on filters makes it worse. I put on a thin, normal sized clear 77mm filter on and the vignette intensifies. I've never had one clear filter add vignetting of any kind, especially when zooming in.

I can't find any samples of from my old mark I where there is this problem. And I've rented 3 different copies of the mark II (3 different serial numbers) where I've also not seen the problem.

I have sent this lens to Canon 3 times in the past month. Each time I get it back, they tell me that it's normal vignetting and the lens is up to spec. It's currently still at Canon and I'm battling it out with the engineer trying to convince him there really is a problem with this copy.

I use this lens primarily for landscape work, where I have to mess with contrast in a hazy city. Adding contrast obviously magnifies the problem. But like I said, I've never encountered the problem on 3 other copies of the lens, nor my old mark I under boosted contrast situations.

When I apply lens vignette correction in both LR3 and LR4 I get this weird halo effect where the lense's natural vignetting seems to be taken out, but this extra vignetting remains. When I spit out .jpgs from my 5DIII I don't get the halo effect quite as much, but the corners are still clearly vignetting.
I understand that software lens correction both by Adobe and Canon are not perfect, but on every other 70-200, or any other lens I've used I get much much better results than I am with this lens.

I sent in to Canon a series of tests from this lens on my 5DIII with different focal lengths, both with and without the clear filter. All tests were done at f5.6 where vignetting should be fairly mellow to begin with, and it's the stop I shoot at the most. I also put focus at infinite where the problem seemed worse, and where I typically use my lens.

MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU:

BELOW are the two .jpgs of the lens at 100mm f5.6 focus:infinite on 5Diii with in-camera vignette removal applied, one with a clear filter, one without. Picture Style is standard with contrast bumped to max.
Does this seem typical for most of you? Do you experience this kind of vignetting even after in-camera removal?
Am I crazy and these images are just fine? BELOW are also links to the RAW files for these .jpgs where you can see them without vignette removal and with contrast at Adobe's standard.

ALSO, would anyone be willing to replicate my tests with their own 5D, either markII or markIII and their 70-200 2.8IS mkII? If so, here was my setup:
-Tripod shooting large, white posterboard with direct sunlight.
-100mm, f5.6, focus:infinite, evaluative meetering with no compensation (so the white posterboard turned out grey)
-Can you do a test with and without a standard clear or UV filter.
-Feel free to do 70mm, 135mm, and 200mm as well.
-And can you email the RAW results:
[email protected]

I'm not typically super critical of my gear. I only am making a stink to canon and now here because I saw the bad results in some of my recent landscapes. I don't want to have to carefully add a grad in Lightroom every time the problem shows up in a real photograph.

And as a side note, I haven't shot with a crop camera for a while. So I'm not comparing to what it looks like compared to a crop frame camera, where there is less vignetting overall.

And please don't tell me that I need to stop obsessing with my gear and should just go outside and shoot. This is a problem that has come up in real situations, and I'm trying to remedy the problem with Canon, or get convinced by some of you who can do the test yourselves and show me that I'm out of my mind and there is no problem.


5DIII/100mm/f5.6/focus:infinity/Standard Picture Style with contrast up all the way/in-camera vign. removal turned on
WITH FILTER:






5DIII/100mm/f5.6/focus:infinity/Standard Picture Style with contrast up all the way/in-camera vign. removal turned on
WITHOUT FILTER:





RAW VERSIONS---
WITH FILTER:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2077993/70200vignette/TKA_0085.dng

WITHOUT FILTER:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2077993/70200vignette/TKA_0086.dng

Thanks,
Thatcher
[email protected]
thatcherkelley.com


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 4, 2012)

What UV filter are you using? The non filter one looks quite normal IMO.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Apr 5, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> What UV filter are you using? The non filter one looks quite normal IMO.



The UV is a hoya, but I encountered this problem on all of my filters from heliopan to hoya to tiffen and beyond. Clear, UV, pola, ND, they all do it. As stated in my first post, the filter is standard size.

The non-filter jpg looks normal if it hadn't been corrected yet, but on all my other lenses, when in camera, or adobe lens correction is applied it gets rid of all of the vignetting, from corner to corner.


----------



## Alker (Apr 5, 2012)

Use a B+W slim filter !!!


----------



## tomscott (Apr 5, 2012)

Alker said:


> Use a B+W slim filter !!!



Nailed it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

tomscott said:


> Alker said:
> 
> 
> > Use a B+W slim filter !!!
> ...



I don't think so. A regular filter shouldn't introduce any additional vignetting to the 70-200 II (but I haven't checked, personally).


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 5, 2012)

I had this problem with my second 70-200/2.8 IS Mk I. I sent it back to Canon three times as well. The last time they actually charged me to fix the problem, telling me the warranty had run out and the previously time they worked on it was a "courtesy repair".
The lens was from the end of the production run, probably made just before the II came out. (I don't have the date code in front of me at the moment.) But, based on my experiences, I would have expected one of the very first things they would have improved was the falloff in the corners, especially with the emergence of the new full frame sensors. I bought this lens after I got my 1DS Mk3, so I suppose I got extra-critical, but when I put it on my earlier versions I could see the same problem, too.
And, yes, things seemed to be the worst at about 100mm Surprisingly, the images taken around 70mm seemed to have the least vignetting, those at the long end were somewhere in between.
I suspected I received a bad copy, but Canon insisted it was within specs. It seems like they've you told you the same. What I'm wondering is if anyone else has had this issue.
The awful part is that I just ordered a new 70-200/2.8 Mk II. I'll put it through some tests in the next few days and report back on here.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 5, 2012)

That certainly is not normal.

You might check the orientation of the hood, if its attached.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 5, 2012)

stick the uv filter in your bag and bring it out when you believe there could be a chance of damage as in kids or drunks or salt water and sand.


----------



## Alker (Apr 5, 2012)

Checked today with three different 70-200 II users.
There is always some kind of vignetting.
Depending on the focal lenght/aperture and abcourse on a FF.

Check www.photozone.de or www.the-digital-picture.com and see the vignetting results.
I have simiulair vignetting and don't think my 70-200 II and my friends are all faulty.

My friends use it with aircraft photography.
Mostly with blue skies this is more visible.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2012)

Alker said:


> Checked today with three different 70-200 II users.
> There is always some kind of vignetting.



Yes, there is some vignetting natively, as there is with almost every lens.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 7, 2012)

Seems your filter might be an issue.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Apr 7, 2012)

Thanks everyone so far for the thoughts and advice.

I'm pretty sure the filter is not the problem. I've used about 10 different clear, UV, ND, pola filters from B+W, Hoya, Heliopan, etc. and all of them give the same results. I also have used all of these filters on my 16-35, 17-55, 24-70, 70-200mk1, 24mm, 85mm with no added vignetting.

As for only using a filter when necessary, the problem is that I shoot out the window of an airplane on a regular basis and need protection. I also use ND and Pola for my landscapes all the time. And to those who think I should use 4x4 filters, I climb mountains. I prefer not to take the added weight when simple 77mm filters aught to work perfectly.

When it comes down to it though the issue is that this lens should not be doing this. And it's under warranty. So whether or not there's a workaround with larger filters, thinner filters, don't use filters, what I'm trying to do is get opinions from others to see if this is a common occurrence. And to see if anyone can send me samples with this lens/camera combination where it isn't a problem.

Still haven't gotten any samples. Anyone out there up for testing their gear and sending me the samples?


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 7, 2012)

I would encourage you to compare to the vignetting measurements made at the-digital-picture.com.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Apr 7, 2012)

epsiloneri said:


> I would encourage you to compare to the vignetting measurements made at the-digital-picture.com.



I don't think that the-digital-picture.com does a comparison with and without a filter revealing any added vignetting caused by a filter.

Also, another thing that is frustrating is that when I apply vignette correction from the lens profiles either in-camera, or in Lightroom, the vignetting is completely removed. Sometimes it even appears over-corrected. None of my lenses have ever shown any noticable vignetting after applying adobe's or canon's profiles to the lenses, with exception to this lens. And it's surprising to me that both the Canon and Adobe fails to correct this. That leads me to believe that there is a problem with this lens and that it's not the norm. If it was the norm, then Canon and Adobe would have accounted for this corner vignetting in their profile-creation.

And I know that worst case scenario I can create my own profile for the lens. However like I said, right now I'm trying to get info from others who own and use this lens to see if I can get samples where this problem is not happening.

epsiloneri, do you by chance have this lens and would be willing to shoot a couple tests for me?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> epsiloneri, do you by chance have this lens and would be willing to shoot a couple tests for me?



Don't know if he does, but I do. I duplicated your settings, except for the camera. 5DII, 70-200 II @ 100mm f/5.6, infinity focus, no PIC. 

Top image is no filter, bottom is with a B+W F-Pro MRC UV (5mm thick). There is definitely some additional vignetting with the filter, but note that for this example I made it as evident as possible by pushing brightness and contrast to +100 in CS5. Without those exaggerations, it was not nearly as evident. So, what you're seeing may very well be a property of this lens. Personally, I will switch to an XS-Pro mount for the UV filter on my 70-200 II (fortunately, I've got a spare).

Hope that helps...


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 8, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> I don't think that the-digital-picture.com does a comparison with and without a filter revealing any added vignetting caused by a filter.


No, but they have quantified how much the lens vignettes without filter, which you could use to determine if your lens vignettes abnormally (that would explain the calibration failures by software). A filter shouldn't have that significant effect for a tele.



thatcherk1 said:


> epsiloneri, do you by chance have this lens and would be willing to shoot a couple tests for me?


I do have it, but am right now on vacation so can't provide the samples for you for a couple of days. Luckily, we have neuroanatomist


----------



## pwp (Apr 8, 2012)

Is the hood on correctly?
Is it the correct hood for the lens?

Paul Wright


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2012)

pwp said:


> Is the hood on correctly?
> Is it the correct hood for the lens?



In my test, yes.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Apr 8, 2012)

Yes my hood is on correctly...well the hood wasn't on. Same difference.

Interesting that both of our lenses seem to produce the same vignetting with and without a filter. I'm curious if all copies of this lens are like this or if it's just some. If all are like this, then I'll just have to live with the problem, do my own lens profile, maybe do one with and without a filter. And when possible, use 4x4 filters.

However if it seems only a handful are like this, then I can try and demand to canon to send me a replacement. And hopefully they'll listen, because it appears to me to be pretty bad that a $2400 long zoom lens would vignette with a single filter on.


----------



## mdm041 (Apr 8, 2012)

I don't have this issue with mine. Just checked to make sure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2012)

mdm041 said:


> I don't have this issue with mine. Just checked to make sure.



Would you mind posting some sample images? I didn't think I had the issue either, until I looked - and it really wasn't evident without pushing the brightness/contrast (and disabling the vignetting correction - DxO seems to correct it completely).

Thanks!


----------



## altenae (Apr 8, 2012)

mdm041 said:


> I don't have this issue with mine. Just checked to make sure.



On what camera ??
Full frame ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2012)

altenae said:


> mdm041 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have this issue with mine. Just checked to make sure.
> ...



Great point!!

From another of this person's posts:



mdm041 said:


> I really like my 16-35 and hope to one day match it to a FF. Even on my 7d it feels wide IMHO.



mdm041, never mind about posting images. Your tests don't clarify this issue because your smaller APS-C sensor effectively 'crops away' the area where we're seeing vignetting.


----------



## shizam1 (Apr 8, 2012)

I have quite a bit of vignetting on my lens as well, more than the mark I. I just live with it, for the shots I do, it usually adds character


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 8, 2012)

shizam1 said:


> I have quite a bit of vignetting on my lens as well, more than the mark I. I just live with it, for the shots I do, it usually adds character


I decided to rid myself of the Mk I because of this very problem. If the II is worse, as you seem to have observed, then it becomes a major issue with me. I shoot mostly scenes where there's a lot of sky and the falloff would be noticable. 
It seems we pay a good premium for full-frame bodies and once again on the lenses for it. I'm specifically talking about L glass here and not the ones we know are somewhat weaker at the corners, so shouldn't we expect good coverage all the way out to their far edges, especially when we've upgraded to the new and "improved" II versions?
As for adding character, I'm afraid I'm already enough of one. There's no need my pictures to build on that!


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 8, 2012)

i have vignetting on my 5dmk2 on my 60d zilch there will be vignetting on full frame i do use a filter in the rain or near salt water/sand but apart from that REMOVE THE FILTER DO NOT PUT CHEAP GLASS IN FRONT OF SUCH A BEAUTIFUL L LENS.


----------



## thatcherk1 (Apr 8, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> i have vignetting on my 5dmk2 on my 60d zilch there will be vignetting on full frame i do use a filter in the rain or near salt water/sand but apart from that REMOVE THE FILTER DO NOT PUT CHEAP GLASS IN FRONT OF SUCH A BEAUTIFUL L LENS.



bornshooter,
You must shoot a different kind of subject that I do. I don't have the luxury of shooting without filters while producing the images that I do. 75% of my photography involves filters of some kind, whether it's a UV/Clear when shooting out the window of an airplane, long exposures with ND to smooth water out, polarizer to add contrast to natural light. I shoot landscapes that get blown up big. The nature of my photography demands filtration. Do you know that not everyone shoots the same kind of subjects that you do, that for you it's easy to say "don't shoot with filters unless necessary". Then there are others like myself who find it necessary to use filters in most situations.

Do you also know that tiffen and schneider glass is of the same optical grade that your precious L lens is made out of? So it's not an issue of "cheap glass". Cheap glass also has nothing to do with this vignetting problem. It's the rim mount that is causing it. Clear glass doesn't make lenses vignette. Do you know why? It's clear!

And to head off those who want to scream "lee" or "cokin". I understand. I use a lee system whenever possible. But it's not always possible with what I shoot.

And the bottom line of this thread is that Canon should not be making $2400 long zoom lenses that accept threaded filters, but cause additional vignetting, especially since the old version of the lens didn't.


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 8, 2012)

thatcherk1 said:


> And the bottom line of this thread is that Canon should not be making $2400 long zoom lenses that accept threaded filters, but cause additional vignetting, especially since the old version of the lens didn't.


I wholeheartedly agree, although my last copy of the older version had this same problem, too (hence my reason for finally parting with it).
What I found, though, was that it didn't matter whether a filter was on there or not. And, the lens hood only affected it when it wasn't aligned right (I'd done that a few times, but usually quickly caught it in the viewfinder before shooting anything critical).
The point is that, for the upper-end market of professionals and demanding amateurs the lens is intended to reach, falloff like this is simply not acceptable!


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 8, 2012)

jhpeterson said:


> thatcherk1 said:
> 
> 
> > And the bottom line of this thread is that Canon should not be making $2400 long zoom lenses that accept threaded filters, but cause additional vignetting, especially since the old version of the lens didn't.
> ...



I don't understand. How can a filter cause additional vignetting if it's _not_ mounted on the lens?



jhpeterson said:


> And, the lens hood only affected it when it wasn't aligned right



That's good, because it means the lens hood is doing its job well when correctly mounted.


----------



## jhpeterson (Apr 8, 2012)

epsiloneri said:


> I don't understand. How can a filter cause additional vignetting if it's _not_ mounted on the lens?


What I meant to say was that it didn't matter whether or not I used a filter, I still had the problem with vignetting. Sorry if I didn't make myself more clear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

jhpeterson said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand. How can a filter cause additional vignetting if it's _not_ mounted on the lens?
> ...



Yes, the bare lens has optical vignetting. So does the >$11K 400/2.8 II - in fact, that lens has more than the 70-200 II. But that's not the issue were discussing here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

I would like to make one additional observation. In the updates to several f/2.8 zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 IS), Canon has improved the optical quality, in particular they have reduced optical vignetting of the lens by 1/3 to 1/2 stop. For the UWA and standard zoom lenses, they also increased the filter diameter from 77mm to 82mm, whereas they left the 70-200 II at 77mm. Granted, a telezoom lens is a different design, but still it's possible that a consequence of not increasing the filter diameter is an increase in vignetting when a filter is mounted.


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 9, 2012)

This is bad. I'm afraid nothing can be done. It is ruined. Please send the worthless lens (with useless tripod mount and the now moot zipper case) to my house for disposal. I will cover your shipping.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 9, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> This is bad. I'm afraid nothing can be done. It is ruined. Please send the worthless lens (with useless tripod mount and the now moot zipper case) to my house for disposal. I will cover your shipping.


i like your thinking lol


----------

