# RF 70-200 f/2.8 vignetting?



## Dockland (Apr 3, 2021)

Read a review somewhere that i can't find again. But it stated that the vignetting on the RF 70-200 f/2.8 is over 2 stops @200mm @f/2.8 
Is it worse than my EF 70-200 f/2.8 III?

Oh, found the review. https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1080-canonrf70200f28?start=1


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 4, 2021)

Seems Canon's new lenses have higher vignetting. The RF 15-35mm and EF 16-35mm f/2.8 mkIII have >4.5 stops of vigetting wide open on the wide end.

With today's sensors and post processing its less of a problem than it was, say, in film days, but still...


----------



## Dockland (Apr 4, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> Seems Canon's new lenses have higher vignetting. The RF 15-35mm and EF 16-35mm f/2.8 mkIII have >4.5 stops of vigetting wide open on the wide end.
> 
> With today's sensors and post processing its less of a problem than it was, say, in film days, but still...



I'll compare my EF 16-35 f/2.8 III with my EF 15-35 today, never noticed it, but have image optimization in camera turned on.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 4, 2021)

Try this comparison at TDP.


----------



## Dockland (Apr 4, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> Try this comparison at TDP.



Thanks, how do I change to the same camera model for each lens?


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 4, 2021)

Dockland said:


> Thanks, how do I change to the same camera model for each lens?


If you can’t change then Brian did not do several measurements


----------



## Viggo (Apr 4, 2021)

Just remember that over at TDP they find the focusing distance where the vignetting is the absolute worst. Like it almost kept me from buying the RF50L with its ridiculous vignetting, but I learned it was at infinity and MUCH less at say 2-5 meters where I usually shoot.

I think the RF lenses in general have at least twice the darkening of corners relative to EF lenses, and it’s a bummer.

but, in normal conditions I shoot all lenses mostly wide open and it has not been a concern at all. Even at very high ISO’s ..


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 4, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Just remember that over at TDP they find the focusing distance where the vignetting is the absolute worst. Like it almost kept me from buying the RF50L with its ridiculous vignetting, but I learned it was at infinity and MUCH less at say 2-5 meters where I usually shoot.


I didn't know vignetting depended on focusing distance. Learned something new today.

Still, in the case of ultra wide zoom, seems to me focusing to infinity is a reasonable scenario, in contrast to lenses used for portraits (normal to short tele).


----------



## Viggo (Apr 4, 2021)

Antono Refa said:


> I didn't know vignetting depended on focusing distance. Learned something new today.
> 
> Still, in the case of ultra wide zoom, seems to me focusing to infinity is a reasonable scenario, in contrast to lenses used for portraits (normal to short tele).


 Absolutely , I had to try the 15-35 myself to see what it looked like, and it is quite severe if you compare a 2.8 shot to an f8 one , but it cleared up nicely without introducing too much noise. And although you shoot a 15-35 often at Infinity you also often shoot it stopped down to where the vignetting is a much smaller issue, if any. So mounted to the R5 and R6 with their great sensors this is a less problem than it would’ve been using the 1dx..


----------



## Dockland (Apr 4, 2021)

Viggo said:


> Absolutely , I had to try the 15-35 myself to see what it looked like, and it is quite severe if you compare a 2.8 shot to an f8 one , but it cleared up nicely without introducing too much noise. And although you shoot a 15-35 often at Infinity you also often shoot it stopped down to where the vignetting is a much smaller issue, if any. So mounted to the R5 and R6 with their great sensors this is a less problem than it would’ve been using the 1dx..


That's exactly the results of todays shooting session. I had it @f/7.1 and focus distance far far away. No issue irl.


----------

