Canon 350D and chromatic aberation

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
19 answers Last reply
More about canon 350d chromatic aberation
  1. 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>
  2. 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
  3. 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
    >
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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)
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Cameras Canon