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

[neuroanatomist]

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]

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.

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]

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

Paul Wright

[neuroanatomist]

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

In my test, yes.

[thatcherk1]

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]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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]

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

On what camera ??
Full frame ?

[neuroanatomist]

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

On what camera ??
Full frame ?

Great point!!

From another of this person's posts:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.