chromatic aberration

[toliknik]

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink,
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink,
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...eat=directlink
Hi everybody.
I have a favour to ask you.
I got canon 24-70 2.8 recently and my concern is about chromatic aberration.
Could you please check out few photos and say if its normal for L lens.
I really appreciate your time.

ISO: 100
Exposure: 1/400 sec
Aperture: 2.8
Focal Length: 70mm

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by toliknik

Hi everybody.
I have a favour to ask you.
I got canon 24-70 2.8 recently and my concern is about chromatic aberration.
Could you please check out few photos and say if its normal for L lens.
I really appreciate your time.

ISO: 100
Exposure: 1/400 sec
Aperture: 2.8
Focal Length: 70mm

where are the pictures?...and have you looked at reviews of that lens?... that'll pretty much tell the tale

[toliknik]

Originally Posted by autofocus

where are the pictures?...and have you looked at reviews of that lens?... that'll pretty much tell the tale

I just added picasa links

[RLucas]

I am not really seeing a lot of CA in the examples you linked to. The first shot is out of focus, the second shot the only thing I notice is the blue band across the horizon, but I see that quite often with OOF areas in the distance. I can't find anything really wrong with the third image at all.

[ElCapitan]

I agree with the post above. I have that same lens, and while CA can occur, I have only really noticed it when highly zoomed in, or in other rare instances where PP easily gets rid of it. What sort of post are you doing? Are you shooting RAW. LR3 has a great feature for lens calibration that can remove lens distortion, CA, and vignetting. Even without this though, it is very easy to remove CA if you shoot in RAW.

[toliknik]

Originally Posted by ElCapitan

I agree with the post above. I have that same lens, and while CA can occur, I have only really noticed it when highly zoomed in, or in other rare instances where PP easily gets rid of it. What sort of post are you doing? Are you shooting RAW. LR3 has a great feature for lens calibration that can remove lens distortion, CA, and vignetting. Even without this though, it is very easy to remove CA if you shoot in RAW.

I know, LR3 is grate. I was just thinking if I should return this lens or keep it.
There's no better zoom lens in this range

[RLucas]

There will be a certain amount of CA in just about every lens out there. Some are worse than others. It will usually show up in high contrast scenes, or when shooting in to the light source.

[toliknik]

Originally Posted by RLucas

There will be a certain amount of CA in just about every lens out there. Some are worse than others. It will usually show up in high contrast scenes, or when shooting in to the light source.

Thank you RLucas.
There's nothing perfect in this world.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by RLucas

There will be a certain amount of CA in just about every lens out there. Some are worse than others. It will usually show up in high contrast scenes, or when shooting in to the light source.

Agree with Luke here. All lenses will have some degree of CA, particularly zoom lenses. And there are those times that you can get a bad example of what should be a very good lens. Considering the cost of this lens, and the company making it, you would think this is rare though. Since first reading your post here, I've read a few blogs on this issue, and it appears to be not an uncommon complaint on this lens. However, most of the test data comes in saying that CA is well within the acceptable range on their test lenses. I guess it's real easy to expect perfection when you spend $1200+ for a piece of equipment...unfortunately, sometimes you have settle for perfection being slightly less than perfect.

[ElCapitan]

In my opinion, do not get rid of that lens. I've been using it for a year, and could not be happier with it. The build quality is fantastic. Truly a solid lens. I almost died a few weeks ago when my 24-70 fell about 2-3 feet off a table onto a gym floor. Luckily, I had the lens hood inverted on the lens itself which acted as a buffer, but the lens itself is built tough. One of the main reason I scoff at people who complain about its weight. In my eyes, it's a sign of a solid lens. Feels good in he hands as well.

As for the CA, in certain conditions, it is going to happen. However, I have never taken an image that I would throw away based on CA. The only time I notice it is in extremely high contrast situations, and tree limbs against a very bright and overcast sky. Again, if you shoot RAW, and if you have LR3 or the latest PS CS (though earlier ones might have it as well), you should be able to get rid of most, if not all, the CA.

Mentioned above, but it is easy to want your expensive equipment to be perfect and have no flaws. True, L lenses should be of great quality, but sometimes it requires a little post to get the most out of the lens.

EDIT: Here are some examples of CA and getting rid of it in LR3. I forgot to add sharpening, but the main point is to show how easy it can be to get rid of CA.

The first image is straight out of the camera. The second image is using the Develop module in LR3 to adjust for lens distortion/CA/vignetting. I cropped the image, so I didn't mess with the distortion, but let LR3 use its default setting for CA on the 24-70. The third image involved adjusting saturation on the blues. Because the CA visibale was blue, I just lowered the blue saturation to remove any CA the lens calibration missed. Since I didn't have any blues I cared about in the photo, that was all I needed to do. If there are blues you need in the photo, the same thing can be done in PS and then targeted (layer masking), so you only effect the blues you want to.