Canon 350D and chromatic aberation

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello

I saw the new Canon at Focus in Birmingham on Sunday.
Very neat camera and light. I came home and had a more detailed look at
the images on DPReview. I hope the preview camera is not a production
one. The image of the watch has dreadful green/magenta fringing,which
cannot be got rid of. Is this a lens fault or the result of a weak
antialiasing. It is somewhat reminicent of the fringing from a Sigma.

Is there a better lens than the one bundled with the camera and which is
it?

Mike Engles

http/www.btinternet.com/~mike.engles/mike/Canon350.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Engles wrote:
> I saw the new Canon at Focus in Birmingham on Sunday.
> Very neat camera and light. I came home and had a more detailed look at
> the images on DPReview. I hope the preview camera is not a production
> one. The image of the watch has dreadful green/magenta fringing,which
> cannot be got rid of. Is this a lens fault or the result of a weak
> antialiasing. It is somewhat reminicent of the fringing from a Sigma.

There was thread on this exact topic started on the 23rd by, er, yourself.
Perhaps you didn't like the answers you got the first time you asked the
question?

--
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
http/www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http/www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Derek Fountain wrote:
>
> Mike Engles wrote:
> > I saw the new Canon at Focus in Birmingham on Sunday.
> > Very neat camera and light. I came home and had a more detailed look at
> > the images on DPReview. I hope the preview camera is not a production
> > one. The image of the watch has dreadful green/magenta fringing,which
> > cannot be got rid of. Is this a lens fault or the result of a weak
> > antialiasing. It is somewhat reminicent of the fringing from a Sigma.
>
> There was thread on this exact topic started on the 23rd by, er, yourself.
> Perhaps you didn't like the answers you got the first time you asked the
> question?
>
> --
> The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
> http/www.derekfountain.org : <a
> href="http/www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>


Hello

That fringing was red/blue, this is magenta/green.
The answers were not were informative.
One of the answers mentioned that it was the lens.
I am asking, if it was the lens, is there a better lens, or is is weak
antialiasing?

Mike Engles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Engles <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:42230F99.61D5@btinternet.com:

> Derek Fountain wrote:
>>
>> Mike Engles wrote:
>> > I saw the new Canon at Focus in Birmingham on Sunday.
>> > Very neat camera and light. I came home and had a more detailed
>> > look at the images on DPReview. I hope the preview camera is not a
>> > production one. The image of the watch has dreadful green/magenta
>> > fringing,which cannot be got rid of. Is this a lens fault or the
>> > result of a weak antialiasing. It is somewhat reminicent of the
>> > fringing from a Sigma.
>>
>> There was thread on this exact topic started on the 23rd by, er,
>> yourself. Perhaps you didn't like the answers you got the first time
>> you asked the question?
>>
>> --
>> The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at
>> http/www.derekfountain.org : <a
>> href="http/www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>
>
>
> Hello
>
> That fringing was red/blue, this is magenta/green.
> The answers were not were informative.

Since the camera is not widely available for testing, what tbhe hell did
you expect?

> One of the answers mentioned that it was the lens.
> I am asking, if it was the lens, is there a better lens, or is is weak
> antialiasing?
>
> Mike Engles
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Engles" <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:42230A01.1D6A@btinternet.com...
> Hello
>
> I saw the new Canon at Focus in Birmingham on Sunday.
> Very neat camera and light. I came home and had a more detailed look at
> the images on DPReview. I hope the preview camera is not a production
> one. The image of the watch has dreadful green/magenta fringing,which
> cannot be got rid of. Is this a lens fault or the result of a weak
> antialiasing. It is somewhat reminicent of the fringing from a Sigma.

If that's the first image in the gallery that you are referring to, it _is_
a Sigma! (At least it says it's the 50mm Sigma macro lens.) Good call!

I think you are overstating the problems, though. I could only find two
areas that looked like a CA problem, and that was with my nose on the screen
at 100%. That's an ISO 1600 shot with nasty blown highlights. It would be
nice if there was a bit more in focus, though.

> Is there a better lens than the one bundled with the camera and which is
> it?

The 17-55 kit lens is pretty much the worst lens Canon makes, but for
US$100, it's a pretty good deal.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
news:95OdnVWYr8MjxL7fRVn-2Q@golden.net...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> >> Is there a better lens than the one bundled with the camera and
which is
> >> it?
> >
> >The 17-55 kit lens is pretty much the worst lens Canon makes, but
for
> >US$100, it's a pretty good deal.
>
> Actually, it's not the worst lense from Canon, and in fact it's
actually
> pretty good - well worth the cost.
>
> Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto
zooms
> at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.

This is true. When I was buying my Canon film body, about 11 years ago,
I was warned about the EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 and the EF 75-300mm
f/4-5.6 and was advised to get the EF 100-300mm f/4.5/5.6 and the EF
28-105mm f/3.5-4.5, since these were the higher end of the consumer
level lenses. The 28-80 plus 75-300 were basically the junky way to
achieve coverage from 28mm to 300mm, while the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 ,
and EF 100-300mm f/4.5/5.6 , were the better (and more expensive) way!

Personally, I wish that Canon would divide their lenses into three
categories, entry level, mid-range, and professional (rather than not
distinguish between the entry-level and mid-range).

The 17-55 kit lens isn't bad, it's basically a mid-quality
consumer-level lens, while the 28-80 and 75-300 are on the low-end of
Canon's consumer level lenses.

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> Is there a better lens than the one bundled with the camera and which is
>> it?
>
>The 17-55 kit lens is pretty much the worst lens Canon makes, but for
>US$100, it's a pretty good deal.

Actually, it's not the worst lense from Canon, and in fact it's actually
pretty good - well worth the cost.

Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto zooms
at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.

 

[Scott]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto
> zooms at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.

I have the 75-300 lens. What do suggest instead? (for a similar price
obviously)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I have the 75-300 lens. What do suggest instead? (for a similar price
> obviously)

Good point. Here is a shot taken with that lens at full zoom and hand held:
http/home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1046.jpg

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:1sJUd.526$CQ2.181@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto
>> zooms at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.
>
> I have the 75-300 lens. What do suggest instead? (for a similar price
> obviously)
>
>

The 100-300 USM is a little better optically, has true USM, rather than
micromotor USM, thus it also has a not rotating front element, faster,
quieter focus and full time manual focusing.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

scott wrote:

>> Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto
>> zooms at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.
>
>I have the 75-300 lens. What do suggest instead? (for a similar price
>obviously)

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but if cost is a major factor, you shouldn't
be using SLR systems. SLR was designed with functionality and
performance foremost, with cost being secondary.

I know a lot of people like SLR systems and use cheap glass. There are
lots of lenses that cost $100-300, but there are lots more that cost
hundreds or thousands. It's not cheap to develop and build a high
quality lense.

You generally do get what you pay for, so if you expect good performance
out of a $200 lense, you may be expecting too much.

There are exceptions to the rule, and sometimes we get some goodies like
the 18-55 or 28-105 which perform fairly good, especially for the price.
But you can't expect that from every inexpensive lense.

For alternatives, you may want to look at third-party lense companies,
like Sigma, Tamron, etc. You can find some decent glass, but the
trade-off is AF speed may be slow, build quality mediocre, etc. It all
depends what you want, and how much you're willing to spend.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <42230A01.1D6A@btinternet.com>,
Mike Engles <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote:

>Hello

>I saw the new Canon at Focus in Birmingham on Sunday.
>Very neat camera and light. I came home and had a more detailed look at
>the images on DPReview. I hope the preview camera is not a production
>one. The image of the watch has dreadful green/magenta fringing,which
>cannot be got rid of. Is this a lens fault or the result of a weak
>antialiasing. It is somewhat reminicent of the fringing from a Sigma.

>Is there a better lens than the one bundled with the camera and which is
>it?

It could simply be the RAW conversion. Is the abberation image-centric
or directional?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>>> Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto
>>> zooms at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.
>>
>> I have the 75-300 lens. What do suggest instead? (for similar price)
>
> The 100-300 USM is a little better optically, has true USM, rather than
> micromotor USM, thus it also has a not rotating front element, faster,
> quieter focus and full time manual focusing.

I don't own either of these lenses, and agree NRFE and FTM are useful,
but according to Photodo.com MTF testing:

the 75-300 is better at 75 than the 100-300 is at 100
the 75-300 is better at 135 than the 100-300 is at 100
the 75-300 is *significantly* better at 185 than the 100-300
they are about the same at 300mm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"scott" <spam@spam.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1sJUd.526$CQ2.181@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> > Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto
> > zooms at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.
>
> I have the 75-300 lens. What do suggest instead? (for a similar price
> obviously)
>
>

Just in case it helps...
http/www.pbase.com/argylemonkey/lens_comp

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <42230A01.1D6A@btinternet.com>,
> Mike Engles <mike.sengles@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello
>
> >I saw the new Canon at Focus in Birmingham on Sunday.
> >Very neat camera and light. I came home and had a more detailed look at
> >the images on DPReview. I hope the preview camera is not a production
> >one. The image of the watch has dreadful green/magenta fringing,which
> >cannot be got rid of. Is this a lens fault or the result of a weak
> >antialiasing. It is somewhat reminicent of the fringing from a Sigma.
>
> >Is there a better lens than the one bundled with the camera and which is
> >it?
>
> It could simply be the RAW conversion. Is the abberation image-centric
> or directional?
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


Hello

I am not sure what you mean.
It is all over the image, where what should be neutral grey is a
greenish/magenta smearing, with more obvious fringing on the sharp
edges. It is the first image on the Canon 350D Dpreview preview.
Very obvious at 100%.


Mike Engles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:4224aae7@news.meer.net...
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Take a look at the 28-80, now that's a bad lense. Or the telephoto
>>>> zooms at 75-300 and 55-200...ugh.
>>>
>>> I have the 75-300 lens. What do suggest instead? (for similar price)
>>
>> The 100-300 USM is a little better optically, has true USM, rather than
>> micromotor USM, thus it also has a not rotating front element, faster,
>> quieter focus and full time manual focusing.
>
> I don't own either of these lenses, and agree NRFE and FTM are useful,
> but according to Photodo.com MTF testing:
>
> the 75-300 is better at 75 than the 100-300 is at 100
> the 75-300 is better at 135 than the 100-300 is at 100
> the 75-300 is *significantly* better at 185 than the 100-300
> they are about the same at 300mm
>
I saw the Photodo tests before I bought the lens for my wife (after the
Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 debacle, I wanted to be careful) but read other tests
that said otherwise, but not by a significant margin. So, we rented a
75-300 IS (supposedly the same optics as the non IS) and borrowed a used
100-300 and tested them ourselves, brick walls, railroad tracks, things like
that. H preferred the look of the 100-300, seemed to be sharper, better
contrast and nicer color. The difference may have been exacerbated by the
mileage on the rental lens, but we decided on the 100-300. NRFE ( I like
that acronym) and FTM decided the issue.

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

An addendum, we bought the 100-300 we borrowed, no sense in tempting fate
and buying a lens we hadn't tried... <G>

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Y_bVd.43572$xt.10152@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> An addendum, we bought the 100-300 we borrowed, no sense in tempting fate
> and buying a lens we hadn't tried... <G>
>
>
I think that was the most important part of your purchase decision. I
have never really been very happy with the contrast and detail with my
100-300 and I would guess that there is a fairly wide range of
performance with such a consumer lens.

PS. I'm also irritated by the way the lens flops out to its long
position, even though it is a two ring lens.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9052469271cdf989842@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <Y_bVd.43572$xt.10152@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> says...
>> An addendum, we bought the 100-300 we borrowed, no sense in tempting fate
>> and buying a lens we hadn't tried... <G>
>>
>>
> I think that was the most important part of your purchase decision. I
> have never really been very happy with the contrast and detail with my
> 100-300 and I would guess that there is a fairly wide range of
> performance with such a consumer lens.
>
> PS. I'm also irritated by the way the lens flops out to its long
> position, even though it is a two ring lens.

That could be indicative of a problem that influences your opinion of its
optical performance. Ours does not creep at all. Possibly the looseness of
the barrel affects the alignment of the elements?

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <zWiVd.43594$xt.20138@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> "Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c9052469271cdf989842@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > In article <Y_bVd.43572$xt.10152@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
> > says...
> >> An addendum, we bought the 100-300 we borrowed, no sense in tempting fate
> >> and buying a lens we hadn't tried... <G>
> >>
> >>
> > I think that was the most important part of your purchase decision. I
> > have never really been very happy with the contrast and detail with my
> > 100-300 and I would guess that there is a fairly wide range of
> > performance with such a consumer lens.
> >
> > PS. I'm also irritated by the way the lens flops out to its long
> > position, even though it is a two ring lens.
>
> That could be indicative of a problem that influences your opinion of its
> optical performance. Ours does not creep at all. Possibly the looseness of
> the barrel affects the alignment of the elements?
>
Maybe. I bought new from the local camera shop at full price, but I did
not have the ability to cherry pick. It was floppy from new and I think
I have heard others complain of this too. According to Canon's own MTF
charts, you would not expect much contrast from that lens even at f8,
especially at the long end. I do really like the handling of the lens
(apart from its floppiness) but I wish I had spent more for a 70-200 f4L.
I'm waiting till they make an IS version of that.