Need Advice

I have a 600mm with a 2x tc on it but I have the same problem with a 1.4 tc or NO tc.
When I take a photo of a Bald Eagle and crop it 100% I see a thin green line along the top of the white head.
I assume this is the fault of the lens but is there anything I can do to get rid of this.

That would be chromatic aberration (CA) ... easily removed with photoshop. I'd suggest looking up some tutorials. Also might help to post some photos.

Sounds like a small CA issue. Avoid the lighting situation or just PP it out quite easily.

Nature Nut wrote in post #15458361
Sounds like a small CA issue. Avoid the lighting situation or just PP it out quite easily.

I never tried shooting Raw only JPeg.
I guess I need to learn to do PP.
Why is it that I don't see this until a heavy crop is it their but I just can't see it??

Magnification brings out the 'bad' in any lens, it's just more aberration to contend with.
Cheap lenses have it 'sometimes' even if it's a wider angle.
I have it on my 400mm and my 2.0 also, and I have (I think) on my 1.4.
If you printed the image, I seriously doubt you'd see it anyway. Really, it's kind'a one of those, I know it's there, so "it's crap" kind of things...

Randy

Black Bart wrote in post #15458465
I never tried shooting Raw only JPeg.
I guess I need to learn to do PP.
Why is it that I don't see this until a heavy crop is it their but I just can't see it??

You can do CA removal in JPEG, you might lose some quality in the re-save though.Like said above zooming and magnification will show any small defects. When you crop you see that the lens coating is doing its job, but nothing is perfect. In cheaper lenses it is apparent even at full size and sometimes very distracting.

A quick slide of a bar on many PP programs and it is gone in a flash. Lightroom does a really good job with my cheaper lenses.

Thanks for the replies I will try to learn how to remove this.
I did not think that a Canon L series lens would have such defects but I guess nothing is perfect including my photos.

Remember that the teleconverter will exacerbate any lens issues.

Given the right lighting conditions, any lens can suffer from CA.
The teleconverter is most likely contributing to the problem.

philwillmedia wrote in post #15461710
Given the right lighting conditions, any lens can suffer from CA.
The teleconverter is most likely contributing to the problem.

Thanks Phil
This is an old FD 600mm with a FD converter on it.
I recently purchased it and I wonder if those old lens did not have coatings like the modern ones do.
I can't complain I got it pretty cheap and I use it for Eagles hard to get close to them so this works very well but on the really long shots I do a heavy crop and that is when I see this problem.

Someone said it may not show in a print I plan on making a print today and see how it turns out.

Depends on how much you crop. If you crop so much that you have less than 300 pixels per inch of print, the printer will resize the image to 300 ppi. This means adding new pixels and in the area of the green fringe some of those new pixels will be green too.

tzalman wrote in post #15465966
Depends on how much you crop. If you crop so much that you have less than 300 pixels per inch of print, the printer will resize the image to 300 ppi. This means adding new pixels and in the area of the green fringe some of those new pixels will be green too.

True, I sure should've said that when I mentioned printing it.

Thanks Tzalman.

Randy

recrisp wrote in post #15458612
Magnification brings out the 'bad' in any lens, it's just more aberration to contend with.
Cheap lenses have it 'sometimes' even if it's a wider angle.
I have it on my 400mm and my 2.0 also, and I have (I think) on my 1.4.
If you printed the image, I seriously doubt you'd see it anyway. Really, it's kind'a one of those, I know it's there, so "it's crap" kind of things...

Randy

I got photos made into prints and you are right the prints don't show the green.
So I guess it is not something that I need to lose sleep over.

Good, I'm glad to hear that!
I used to be able to print at work, we'd have leftover print paper on our 40" Epson, so we could print stuff on it. I printed many shots that were taken with a 3.34 meg Nikon 990, they came out as good as any that I do now, well, if I printed any now, that is. (I mean visible quality before printing)
I used to do Photoshop as my job, so we'd get to fix all kinds of things, also, you'd just see enough stuff that you knew it wouldn't show, but it's not always that way, but most times.
One of the biggest things that we saw was the Unsharp Masking halos that were done in Scanning. Man-0-man, that was some really bad looking stuff, but, you wouldn't notice itat all after it was printed.

The main thing is, you're happy, and you can not sleep peacefully. heheh

Thanks for letting me know too!

Randy

Black Bart wrote in post #15465111
Thanks Phil
This is an old FD 600mm with a FD converter on it.
I recently purchased it and I wonder if those old lens did not have coatings like the modern ones do.
I can't complain I got it pretty cheap and I use it for Eagles hard to get close to them so this works very well but on the really long shots I do a heavy crop and that is when I see this problem.

Someone said it may not show in a print I plan on making a print today and see how it turns out.

Oh, the FD 600. Yeah, is the lens. The 500L or 600L? Is pretty hard to get CA from them and I don't recall I ever had CA problems with my 500L. They are that good.