Chromatic Aboration in Canon EFS 17 - 85 lens?

Bystander

The more I use my EFS 17 - 85 lens the more CA I seem to see. Are others having this issue? I get it in contrasty, back lit situations. My old G1 was like that too but I thought this lens would be better than that (not sure it is).

Any suggestions? What are better alternatives to this lens?

Thanks,
Frank

Andy

Bystander wrote:

The more I use my EFS 17 - 85 lens the more CA I seem to see. Are others having this issue? I get it in contrasty, back lit situations. My old G1 was like that too but I thought this lens would be better than that (not sure it is).

Any suggestions? What are better alternatives to this lens?

Thanks,
Frank

yup, i've seen it in this lens. but again - many lenses will exhibit this in the types of scene you're describing.

i recommend shay's color fringe remover it's a cinch to fix ca in post.

Bystander

andy wrote:

yup, i've seen it in this lens. but again - many lenses will exhibit this in the types of scene you're describing.

i recommend shay's color fringe remover it's a cinch to fix ca in post.

Thanks Andy. I'll try Shay's solution. My ES 100 - 400L lens also shows some CA.

I sometimes shoot in the woods in the early morning. I get nice results except for the CA. It sometimes gives a very subtle purple haze to the scene. Actually is an interesting look but I'd like to be able to control it. Hope this works.

Thanks Again,
Frank

Andy

Bystander wrote:

Thanks Andy. I'll try Shay's solution. My ES 100 - 400L lens also shows some CA.

I sometimes shoot in the woods in the early morning. I get nice results except for the CA. It sometimes gives a very subtle purple haze to the scene. Actually is an interesting look but I'd like to be able to control it. Hope this works.

Thanks Again,
Frank

shay's tool is a wonder of modern mankind. learn to use it in manual mode, and use a layer mask to "remove the removal" selectively.

Blurmore

Even more of a *not nice name* when using a 3 flash set-up
I shoot weddings with this lens, and fire flash on camera, backlight, and portable sidelight. If the back light is at all hot it fringes on white collars. The petal hood is not sufficent for this lens south of 50mm, it is designed (ofcourse) to guard flare from an overhead light (in horizontal) source primarily and offer only minimal side flare protection. If it is bayonetted just mm off it's lock position (bumped) it vignettes at full wide. For my use I have found the 28 or 24-70 f2.8 L that my boss owns to be a better choice for receptions, it shows almost no CA, and the hood is the right size to stop flare from any angle that your flash isn't going to be in the shot. And 38 mm is more than wide enough, I made a real mistake with buying this lens in the 20D kit, but it is worlds better than the 18-55. One other interesting note, when comparing angle of view to my 85 prime, the 85 end of the 17-85 ef-s is not as tight. I think Canon rounded up this lens by 4 mm. In another comparison of the 85 f1.8 and the ef-s the 85 end is not as 'compressed' as the prime, and seems to render the subject a little fat, not a good thing for portraits. I'm passing on the new 28-105 f4L, my experience with shorter focal length IS is luke warm (for what I shoot), I'll just save my money for the 24-70 f2.8L.

Bystander

Blurmore wrote:

I shoot weddings with this lens, and fire flash on camera, backlight, and portable sidelight. If the back light is at all hot it fringes on white collars. The petal hood is not sufficent for this lens south of 50mm, it is designed (ofcourse) to guard flare from an overhead light (in horizontal) source primarily and offer only minimal side flare protection. If it is bayonetted just mm off it's lock position (bumped) it vignettes at full wide. For my use I have found the 28 or 24-70 f2.8 L that my boss owns to be a better choice for receptions, it shows almost no CA, and the hood is the right size to stop flare from any angle that your flash isn't going to be in the shot. And 38 mm is more than wide enough, I made a real mistake with buying this lens in the 20D kit, but it is worlds better than the 18-55. One other interesting note, when comparing angle of view to my 85 prime, the 85 end of the 17-85 ef-s is not as tight. I think Canon rounded up this lens by 4 mm. In another comparison of the 85 f1.8 and the ef-s the 85 end is not as 'compressed' as the prime, and seems to render the subject a little fat, not a good thing for portraits. I'm passing on the new 28-105 f4L, my experience with shorter focal length IS is luke warm (for what I shoot), I'll just save my money for the 24-70 f2.8L.

Thanks Blurry.

Have you considered the 17 - 40L? Its got a great rep. Prolly too wide not narrow enough for your work. The ones you mention aren't wide enough for landscapes, methinks.

Cheers,
Frank

Blurmore

Bystander wrote:

Thanks Blurry.

Have you considered the 17 - 40L? Its got a great rep. Prolly too wide not narrow enough for your work. The ones you mention aren't wide enough for landscapes, methinks.

Cheers,
Frank

I use the 17 end of the 17-85 only for behind the bride walking down the isle shots, and I'm not always even that wide. Anything wider than 28 I'd buy would be a prime or a fish-eye, my use for a WA zoom is limited.