Is this amount of CA normal on a 17-35 AFS?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Nikam, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. Here is a shot I took last weekend of an abandoned house using my brand new 17-35. On the bright aluminum sheets on the roof, I noticed a bit of CA. I've shown a crop taken in Photoshop at 100% (does this give a 100% crop :?: :?: - I'm pretty new at this! :)  ).

    Is this amount of CA normal :?: :?: - (I just want to make sure my new lens meets the norm). I haven't invested in Nikon Capture yet but I may be tempted now since I understand that the new Version 4.3 has CA removal. There's not a lot there - just a tiny bit of blue on the bottom of the right hand panel and a tiny bit of red on the right side. On the original image a strip of about one to two at the most pixels is affected and I'm not sure if it would show in a print.

    44815128.

    Here is the crop:

    View attachment 10456
     
  2. GeneR

    GeneR Guest

    My 17-35 is CA free. Were you using a filter? If so, I'd try it without a filter and see if there is a difference.

    Gene
     
  3. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  4. I'm headed to the eye doctor to see if I need a new perscription, because I don't see a single problem with your samples :shock:.
     
  5. Paul,

    Looking at yours I would say its probably normal too Although it was not too bright a day, the aluminum roof was close to high end of the histogram. Thanks for replying. I'll maybe do a bit of testing as you've suggested. I think what I'm really looking for here is an excuse to buy NC. :)  :)  I gather the latest version has CA removal.

    Frank

    Funny you should mention it. I'm at work right now and on my LCD monitor here I can't see it either, but on my home monitor it does show up.

    I happened to pick that spot when I was sharpening at 100% and noticed it then, but its only a pixel or two - so I don't think its anything to get too excited about. As the lens is new to me, I thought I'd ask about it.

    Thanks, Dennis
     
  6. The lighting conditions that caused your lens to produce a little problem probably would have created a disaster for any other wide angle zoom. Click on this link, and scroll down to see Bjørn Rørslett's review of the 17-35.

    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-35ED
     
  7. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.