Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Apologies if this has been raised a million times before. I use a Canon 5d 11 with a 17-40mm as my standard lens. Recently I've noticed colour fringing (chromatic aberration) on high contrast edges when scanning the image at 100%+. Its not really noticeable on prints but I know its there and it bugs me. I can remove it in PS but thats a drag for every shot. I am considering ditching the 17-40 and buying a 20mm, 35mm and 50mm primes instead, or maybe even a 24mm shift lens (landscapes are my thing). Am I likely to notice a difference?
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Consider the Zeiss Distagon 21 mm prime it's the one I'd like to have, as it's outstanding. With the Canon 17-40mm you can remove CA's in ACR or Lightroom very quickly and easily.
If your determined to look at everything at 100% then you are going to find visual flaws on pretty much all lenses , if it doesn't appear on print outs then why the issue ? the 17-40 is a perfect Landscapers lens and i used one for years until i got the 24-70 and found the extra width wasn't really needed ( for my style anyway ) , you may also find yourself forever swapping out lenses and with a lot more dust bunnies to deal with !
Why the issue? Well if I can see it, so can Alamy or whoever else I submit work to, so I don't want to waste time with extra processing which can be avoided. On large print outs (A3+) I can see it, although only because I look for it. Also I am a bit of a perfectionist! Dust bunnies are a consideration but the question still stands, am I likely to notice a difference?
you should use canons DPP better than photoshop for colour fringing (chromatic aberration) removal .
There are very quick and easy methods of removing this. If you don't want to use LR or DPP why not consider doing an action in PS? It wouldn't be my choice, but hey...
Ultimately - you have to happy with the quality of the work you produce, but remember sometimes good enough will do. As a perfectionist myself I know that my 'good enough' in other walks of life is better than the standard many set for themselves. In the last few years I aspire for perfectionism, but settle for good enough.
Might it be an idea to upgrade to another make of camera?
Quote: Might it be an idea to upgrade to another make of camera?
Why he will face the same issue. It is why Nikon pundit Thom Hogan recommends primes for the D800.
Quote: Might it be an idea to upgrade to another make of camera
LOL.... Yup! A 14-24 Nikon f/2.8 attached to any current Nikon body, Job done, No abnormalities what so ever.
On the other hand Canon do make a super fine 24-70mm MkII option, Apparently they are quite good....
That said you can get an adaptor to fit the above mentioned Nikon zoom to your Canon body, Its a very popular combo so I am lead to understand.
Quote: Canon do make a super fine 24-70mm MkII option
And at £2000 it's a no-brainer!
The Canon 16-35mm MKII could be another option. If you want tilt shift then get the cash out
I feel sorry for you, because you are slipping into the edge. Cutting edge will drive you insane. Stick with the lens you have. Don't worry about the chromatic aberration. Do not get into this technical stuff.
Yes, the Nikon 14-24mm lens is very good (better than any Canon lens made), but it will not solve your problem. Your problem is in your attitude. You are over-analyzing your photos. It's good to have good equipment . . . which you already do have. Shoot at f8 or f11, and be happy. Get a 24mm TS, if you must. They let you do things you could not with your 17-40, and eventually you might get a 17mm TS too. Crop. Shoot. Look at photos at 50% (but not at 100% . . . no good reason for that). The 24-105mm f4 L IS is a good lens too. I hope you have one, because that is a true all-around lens, and at f8 it performs incredibly well.
If you truly want stellar quality, you will find yourself wanting a 261 megapixel Red 617 Mysterium Monstro. Don't go there. It will hurt your pocket-book. Just go shoot. Spend the money on trekking and waiting for the light. You have SO much to learn. You already have very good equipment, capable of producing excellent prints at 24x36 inches or even larger. Be happy with what you have, or you will be sorry. You will spend years searching for the perfect combination of precision equipment, just to find that there is none, and that if you really want spectacular quality (a significant increase in quality from where you are), you will have to spend more than $10,000 on equipment. A Leica S2 system will set you back about the same amount as a new Hasselbld H5D system. Either one is not as portable or versatile as what you have, and the next generation (Canon 5 D Mk IV) will be a really great camera, I'm sure. Get lenses, if you insist. Then when that thing comes out next year or the year after, get that. And be happy. My 20x30 prints from my 12 megapixel 5 D and the same lens as you have (the 17-40mm f4 L) look spectacular. When was the last time you actually printed larger than that?
Nothing will cure the disease you are getting. Try not to let it take over your photographic life. Don't think about your equipment or image quality from your lenses so much. Don't push your lenses too hard. Stay in the middle of the range of apertures. Keep your ISO low (ISO 100 and ISO 200 are best). Keep your camera still when you carefully squeeze that shutter button. And go shoot!
If you want to eliminate CA as far as possible buy the Canon/Nikon 24mm & 35mm f/1.4 prime lenses; amazing quality almost no CA but also amazing prices; I also view at 100% for the stock libraries and content myself with removing CA in L/R or P/S in otherwise technically fine images.
Great advice from Scott, the problem being that supplying photo libraries completely removes any hope of sticking to 'real-world' processing. Instead you have to indulge in pre-emptive pixel-peeping, or else have the pictures returned to you for being technically inferior. No longer do you reside in a fanciful world where cameras produce completely noiseless pictures at high ISOs—everything is under the microscope.
Because there's so much redistribution of images going on, the technical requirements for libraries often filters directly down or across from the likes of Getty, or Corbis, so that in the end everyone's preparing their distinctly editorial photos as if they were going to make it onto a billboard.
Quote: Why the issue? Well if I can see it, so can Alamy or whoever else I submit work to, so I don't want to waste time with extra processing which can be avoided. On large print outs (A3+) I can see it, although only because I look for it. Also I am a bit of a perfectionist! Dust bunnies are a consideration but the question still stands, am I likely to notice a difference?
I wonder how many photos on Alamy were taken with the 17-40 - probably a large proportion of images taken with Canon gear because that is an absolute classic landscape lens. You are definitely being over-critical. I am not saying don't go for a better lens (prime or zoom), but be realistic.
Can you post and example of an image because it would be interesting to see the level of CA you are talking about.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar