135/2 seems okay but need improve on ca

I tried this 135/2 on 7D with some heavy ca.

I am not sure whether this is normal as out of focus/DOF?

How dare you doubt the IQ of the infamous 135...

Burn you must!

Talley wrote in post #15801436
How dare you doubt the IQ of the infamous 135...

Burn you must!

You don't even have one.

dalplex wrote in post #15801353
I tried this 135/2 on 7D with some heavy ca.

I am not sure whether this is normal as out of focus/DOF?

That looks about right for f/2. CA not that bad. Honestly, don't worry about it. If you let it get to you, you might as well put the camera away now.

Looks like the dude in the pick-up truck is about to litter.

I feel CA is very bad around the spoke of wheel and bumper. Actually 100/2.8L macro is not that good neither, but almost corrected by DLO from DPP.

However, this 135/2 and another 180/3.5 is not in the list, which really annoying me.

AbPho wrote in post #15801440
...don't worry about it. If you let it get to you, you might as well put the camera away now...

Like I said....


Come back when you've seen real CA.

Fast prime = longCA wide open. You only see it on OOF chrome on black? Terrible, I'd throw the lens away.

BTW don't by a 50L, 85L, 85 1.8 or sig versions. Not sure about the wider fast primes, but I bet you won't like the 24 1.4 or 35 1.4's. I would bet your 50 1.4 is worse at 1.4.

i dont see anything at all. try an 85 1.2 at 1.2 and then we're talkin

Doesn't seem that bad to me.

Bryan

ejenner wrote in post #15802165
Fast prime = longCA wide open. You only see it on OOF chrome on black? Terrible, I'd throw the lens away.

BTW don't by a 50L, 85L, 85 1.8 or sig versions. Not sure about the wider fast primes, but I bet you won't like the 24 1.4 or 35 1.4's. I would bet your 50 1.4 is worse at 1.4.

Meh. Too many people complain. There will be CA on wide open primes!!

Use it to photograph people, not chrome wheels across the street. Problem solved.

Really?

If you want minimum to no CA, that 200 F2 is calling your name !

interesting that the top picture looks like a kit lens, BUT then when you see what a tiny part of the actual picture it is, then it looks pretty darn good! 135L is an amazing lens (I only use it for people though, and I agree, my/the 85LII is much worse).

Looks normal to me. I have seen this level of CA with the 135L's I have owned. Never really ruined any image though and easily corrected in LR.

cdang wrote in post #15806272
If you want minimum to no CA, that 200 F2 is calling your name !

I was wondering about that one when I was listing the primes I know are worse. In that case I'm going to show my wife the CA on my 135 and see if she agrees I need the 200 f2 to get acceptable shots.

Not quite a 'stick it in your pocket' lens like the 135 though.

iLvision wrote in post #15802227
Meh. Too many people complain. There will be CA on wide open primes!!

Well, I have to admit that with my 85 there are situations that I know it will not produce good results because of the CA, but with PP now you can still get away with a lot. No lens is perfect, there are always trade-offs (even the 200 f2 which is heavy and expensive).