Purple fringing with my 135L - need help

mmahoney wrote in post #10623427
I had this same "it's a fast lens so it will have CA" discussion a few weeks ago on this forum and did post a quick sample of a high contrast file and 100% crops of center and corners straight out-of-camera showing absolutely zero CA or purple fringing. Just search my posts and you should find it.

Worth repeating .. a well tuned 135L shows ZERO CA OR PF under any lighting conditions.

Well, those posts must have been made longer than four weeks ago, because I've yet to find them when I search.

This is somewhat the first I've heard of the 135L having trouble with PF. Canon might be able to do some adjusting for you, but unless the lens is an apo-chromatic lens, there isn't a guarantee that the PF will be completely eliminated.

yeah, I see some fringing in my 135L as well. It's not a deal breaker and your samples are rare.
(I can't think of why I'd shoot snapshot / walkaround type photos in f/2.0)

If it makes you feel better, you can send it in, but you'll most likely get the same result.

CA is most prominent when there's something very bright next to something very dark, which you showed in your examples. The 135L is a very fast lens, especially for the focal length and unfortunately, CA is normal in these types of lenses.

The CA is very apparent in my example:

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Now my question is, is the fringing something that Canon repair could fix?

The PF from my first pic is unacceptable for me even when not zoomed in.

hawking_0103 wrote in post #10625760
Now my question is, is the fringing something that Canon repair could fix?

The PF from my first pic is unacceptable for me even when not zoomed in.

Did you try to fix it in PP? I think you'll be able to remove most - if not all - the PF with good software.

Rsyx wrote in post #10625770
Did you try to fix it in PP? I think you'll be able to remove most - if not all - the PF with good software.

I tried that in lightroom but don't like the desaturated purple tone..
The image becomes dull and white balance is off..

[Hyuni wrote:
='[Hyuni];10625752']

The CA is very apparent in my example:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Yours is still acceptable for me.
I know PF and CA is normal in fast lenses but just wanna know to what extend in such extreme cases like mine?

I don't usually pixel peep(in fact, almost never) until I got the first shot in this thread.

Also I tried to dig out my shots taken using another 135L, I don't see any PF unfortunately most of them are taken f/9.0, shots taken with f/2.0 didn't seem overexposed or subjected to extreme lightning like this one, so I couldn't compare and thats why I post it here and see if anyone could tell me if these fringing are normal.

AGAIN, I DON'T EXPECT ZERO PF AND CA IN THESE LENSES.. It has to do with the lens design as Poe said

that photo's sky is completely overblown. I'd say that CA would be bad with any lens.
In that photo, it looks like you exposed the ground correctly, underexposed the trolley, and completely blew the sky.

That'd be great if there was an affordable lens that would eliminate all CA in any harsh condition, but until then, you're going to have to shoot within the limits of the 135L (Which in my opinion is VERY acceptable. I love my 135L!)

I agree.

[Hyuni wrote:
='[Hyuni];10625752']ye​ah, I see some fringing in my 135L as well. It's not a deal breaker and your samples are rare.
(I can't think of why I'd shoot snapshot / walkaround type photos in f/2.0)

If it makes you feel better, you can send it in, but you'll most likely get the same result.

CA is most prominent when there's something very bright next to something very dark, which you showed in your examples. The 135L is a very fast lens, especially for the focal length and unfortunately, CA is normal in these types of lenses.

The CA is very apparent in my example:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

the diference between your lines photo and mma's is that he's shooting in the shade, so the contrast between the powerlines and the blue sky is not as bad as your example.

I find no point in pixel peeping. The only people who care about that are other anal photographers.
To me, a photo is more like a book trying to tell a story, but many times we treat it like a math exam and deducting 'points' to the photo. An interesting photo will go much farther than a technically correct, but boring one.

Wow .. there is no way I could ever coax my 135 wide open into the type of PF you showed with the water on a leaf. Not for a million bucks, it just won't do it unless I intentionally misfocus the lens .. you may want to have your lens & bodies checked.

And I shot the dark black telephone wires against a bright blue sky, which is hardly "shade" and he specifically asked for telephone wire examples.

Owning a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.8 I know PF all too well ........... but a well calibrated 135L does not suffer from the same ailment.

Of course if your artistic talents are so great that unwanted ugly purple blobs in the middle of the frame is easily overlooked by your agency, clients, or publishers then I take my hat off to you. Because all three of those pixel-peep, big time.

Here's a little contest for those who never care to look at actual pixels because their immense artistic talents overshadow any and all technical flaws

Which well known stock photo agency has the words "SHOW US THE PIXELS" (ie 100% crop) as part of their submission requirements?

PS .. no prize for the right answer.

So mmahoney, did you get your lens calibrated in the past? I just sent it back this morning, its sad to part a few weeks with my beloved 135L, my favourite lens so far..

mma, but your photo is the blue sky away from the sun and not facing the sun which is a much different circumstance than the OPs.
Plus, my photo is a snap of beading water on a leaf in the harsh mid day sun. It's nothing important and not worth getting my gear checked at since for the most part, all my gear has been very reliable. The real reason I kept it and posted it to my flickr is because the person I'm interested took a look at the photo after I took it and said, "It looks like a heart!" and she liked it for some reason. :P

anyway, looks like hawking sent her lens in for calibration. I just don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Hey guys, after 20 days of long wait for my 135L from Canon, I'd finally got back my baby 30 minutes ago!!! I was like a little girl so excitingly unboxing a Christmas present ya know!!

*Cough Cough*
Okay, I'm posting here again just to show how good their services are.

First, extreme PF torture test

I first saw the purple fringing when using an EF 50 1.4. I was a little put off by it. Then after some research I found that this is normal. Some lenses are worse than others. Call it a lens trait.