Is this chromatic aberration due to a faulty lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by valdore, Apr 29, 2009.

  1. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #1
    I rented a Canon 16-35 L f/2.8 ultra-wide angle lens at the rate of $40 per day. Can some of you verify for me that this is too damn much chromatic aberration lining the side of the skyscraper for such an advanced lens?

    I'm thinking some prior renter of this lens was a dope and played frisbee with it or something. I have to return the thing tomorrow morning and pay up, and I'm trying to figure out if there's something to this or not. It also vignettes excessively in the upper right and left corners, even on my full frame 5D.

    Advice appreciated.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. valdore thread starter macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #2
    Also worth noting, there was a UV Haze filter attached to the lens that I never removed when taking shots with it, but surely that wouldn't cause vignetting and chromatic aberration would it?
     
  3. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #3
  4. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #4
    the original 16-35 wasn't a very good lens. this is one of the reasons why. if this was actually the 16-35 II...then either it's a bad (or abused) copy, or that was a pretty high contrast edge. also keep in mind that ultrawides have trouble with CA in general.

    just in case, you didn't know, all lenses vignette more on 35mm sensors than APS-C ones.

    a UV filter may have made the CA even worse. maybe vignetting as well? i'm not that familiar with ultra-wides.
     
  5. anubis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    #5
    Wow, that's bad. CA shouldn't be more than 2 pixels in width max. That thing's definitely a bad copy. This is according to photozone.de tests

    This statement doesn't make any sense... we would expect a higher degree of vignetting on a full frame sensor compared to crop, because full frame goes much closer to the edge of the lens image circle
     
  6. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
  7. valdore thread starter macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #7
    I had figured since I have no vignetting problem when I put my own 15 mm Canon fisheye lens on the 5D that there would certainly not be a vignetting problem when we're talking about a 16 mm minimum focal length. Doesn't something seem to be awry here? And why is it vignetting at the top but not the bottom?

    And I just looked, it is indeed the original version, not the II. And that sucks. I like my 17-40 f/4.0 a lot better and it's half the bloody price, but unfortunately I have to send it in to Canon for a repair.
     
  8. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #8
    Do take a couple of shots without the filter, just in case it is the filter encroaching. I'm unfamiliar with the lens so can't comment on the CA.
     
  9. valdore thread starter macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #9
    I will. Although I just returned the lens for my allotted rental period, I'm checking it out again for the weekend. I'll try that.

    The conversation I had at the lens rental place indicated there's quite a bit of stuff I'm unaware of concerning lens construction. I guess I know apertures and that's it.
     
  10. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #10
    first of all, fisheyes are a little different from regular lenses... wide-angles in general have more trouble with CA and vignetting than telephotos. dunno about vignetting at the top only. did you take a picture of just the sky or a blank wall or something? 'cause vignetting won't always be apparent in all the corners, if at all.

    yeah, the 16-35 II is lots better than the original, and better than the 17-40 as well.
     
  11. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #11
    Vignetting, yes. That is likely. Unless it was a very thin filter designed for wide angle lenses. But this would not be the cause of any CA.

    Chromatic aberration is something all lenses have. Some control it better but hey all have same
     
  12. joelypolly macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    Melbourne & Shanghai
    #12
    lens could have been dropped

    The lens being a rental might not have been well looked after or dropped. A dropped lens could cause one of the elements to shift. Even a small shift will cause worse CA/image quality especially around edges.

    You can't really tell just by looking at the lens and might have to send to Canon to confirm.
     
  13. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #13
    Wow...

    That's what I was thinking. Bring a sample to the store with you and let them try it out on one of their cameras.

    Someone might have dropped the lens and conveniently "forgot" to tell them.

    Make sure you mention it to them as they might blame you if there's a problem.
     
  14. bobert83 macrumors newbie

    bobert83

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007

Share This Page