- Status
mdm041 said:
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!
Upvote
0
altenae said:
Great point!!
From another of this person's posts:
mdm041 said:
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.
Upvote
0
S
shizam1
Guest
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 
Upvote
0
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.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
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!
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
T
thatcherk1
Guest
bornshooter said:
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.
Upvote
0
I wholeheartedly agree, although my last copy of the older version had this same problem, too (hence my reason for finally parting with it).thatcherk1 said:
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!
Upvote
0
jhpeterson said:
I don't understand. How can a filter cause additional vignetting if it's not mounted on the lens?
jhpeterson said:
That's good, because it means the lens hood is doing its job well when correctly mounted.
Upvote
0
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.epsiloneri said:
Upvote
0
jhpeterson said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
i like your thinking lolScottyP 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.
Upvote
0
- Status
