[Toni60]

Sorry, I took some photos with my 60-250 and I found a cromatic aberration on one of these photos. I post this photo:
focal lenght 180 mm at f11 with K5IIs and tripod.
On the left near the white petal there is a evident blu trace.I am not an expert and I don't know if this is normal but i think that found CA on this expensive lens is not good for me.
I have difficult to remove on my mac.Please your comment are appreciated and also the suggestion how to remove.
Many thanks.
Toni

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Adam]

Is this a really tight crop? I think the best way to fix the fringing would be to use the lens corrections in the supplied Pentax digital camera utility, on the original file.

Here's a quick fix using photoshop's yellow/blue fringe correction + de-saturation on the blues channel.

[MJSfoto1956]

if you could post a RAW file somewhere I could process it via DxO Optics Pro to see how it handles its lens data for this lens/body combination.

Michael

[starbase218]

I just took a few shots with my own 60-250 at f/11 and ISO 100, on a tripod. This is the result:



And one a bit more prone to CA's


This seems both sharper and better in terms of CA's to me.

[Toni60]

Many thanks to all for the replies.Here the link for original raw:
http://www.filedropper.com/igp0938
I do not use Pentax digital camera utility because my version is too old for OS X El Capitan.I do not remember to write that I used also the Hoya close-up lens.
But please this CA is a defect of my lens or is normal? I use also 17-70 and 55-300 of my daughter and I do not found the CA.
I am also interested to your opinion on my photo if it is enough good or is necessary to improve the quality.
Many many thanks for your suggestions.
Toni

[Digitalis]

Sorry, I took some photos with my 60-250

Are you Canadian by any chance?


If you want my advice: buy a macro lens. Telephoto zoom lenses are without exception, rather bad at close focusing. However, using them at their minimum focal length helps considerably but even then: a dedicated macro lenses will beat them every time with superior optical quality - I know this because the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG* I have produces, very average IQ as the focus distance recedes past 2.5m @ 300mm...no matter how much it is stopped down. I am fortunate to own two superb macro lenses the sigma 180mm f/3.5 and the Pentax FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro - they are both excellent close focus telephoto lenses, and fit in the middle of the focal length range of the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.


Pentax K5IIs- Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO EX 1/250th ISO 80 f/5.6

*which is widely regarded as one of the best telephoto zoom lenses ever made.

---------- Post added 12-01-15 at 05:31 PM ----------

I actually haven't directly compared my sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG against my Sigma 180mm f/3.5, until now.


Pentax K5IIs - 100% crop Un-sharpened output, no lens profiles applied. Both lenses at 180mm focused at 1.8m (MFD on the 100-300mm f/4)


It is pretty obvious which lens is optically superior at these focus distances. To be fair, the Sigma 100-300mm isn't that bad, vignetting is higher, contrast is lower, there is about a -0.4 stop reduction in transmission**, CA is noticeable. But overall, IQ could be raised further with the help of appropriate PP.

If I really wanted to be unfair about it I would have used the Pentax FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro in this comparison.

**Both lenses feature IF, which makes this rather curious. In theoretically they should be identical.

[MJSfoto1956]

I do not remember to write that I used also the Hoya close-up lens.

The CA you are experiencing is clearly caused by the Hoya close up lens, not the 60-250mm.

Michael

[UncleVanya]

The Raynox and Nikon close up filters used on my 60-250 have been very good compared to what you got with the Hoya.

[Toni60]

The CA you are experiencing is clearly caused by the Hoya close up lens, not the 60-250mm.

Michael

Sorry but I am not fully agree, probably the close-up lens increase the CA but please see the following photo, without close up lens at 88mm f4, on the eye, again blu trace.
Regards.

---------- Post added 12-02-15 at 04:15 PM ----------

Are you Canadian by any chance?


If you want my advice: buy a macro lens. Telephoto zoom lenses are without exception, rather bad at close focusing. However, using them at their minimum focal length helps considerably but even then: a dedicated macro lenses will beat them every time with superior optical quality - I know this because the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG* I have produces, very average IQ as the focus distance recedes past 2.5m @ 300mm...no matter how much it is stopped down. I am fortunate to own two superb macro lenses the sigma 180mm f/3.5 and the Pentax FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro - they are both excellent close focus telephoto lenses, and fit in the middle of the focal length range of the Sigma 100-300mm f/4.


Pentax K5IIs- Sigma 180mm f/3.5 APO EX 1/250th ISO 80 f/5.6

*which is widely regarded as one of the best telephoto zoom lenses ever made.

---------- Post added 12-01-15 at 05:31 PM ----------

I actually haven't directly compared my sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG against my Sigma 180mm f/3.5, until now.


Pentax K5IIs - 100% crop Un-sharpened output, no lens profiles applied. Both lenses at 180mm focused at 1.8m (MFD on the 100-300mm f/4)


It is pretty obvious which lens is optically superior at these focus distances. To be fair, the Sigma 100-300mm isn't that bad, vignetting is higher, contrast is lower, there is about a -0.4 stop reduction in transmission**, CA is noticeable. But overall, IQ could be raised further with the help of appropriate PP.

If I really wanted to be unfair about it I would have used the Pentax FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] Macro in this comparison.

**Both lenses feature IF, which makes this rather curious. In theoretically they should be identical.

I am Italian, I know that is better to have a macro lens in fact when I can I would like to buy Pentax 100mm f2.8 WR.
My congratulation for the lens and photos.
Regards.

[UncleVanya]

I am not sure that's CA you are seeing. Even further down the white fur on the dog seems blue shifted. However I can tell you I can't say for sure. I haven't seen anything like that on my copy of the lens.

[MJSfoto1956]

here are some "close up" shots taken with my 60-250mm some with, some without, a Marumi 330 close up filter. All images processed in DxO Optics Pro v10.







In short, this has been one of the finest, most useful, most flexible, most consistent, zoom lenses I have ever owned in the past 38 years.
Perhaps you do indeed have a specimen that is not quite up to par. Is your lens still under warranty?

Michael

P.S. I might add, all images were handheld.

[UncleVanya]

A close up using the Raynox 250:

[BigMackCam]

30 seconds in Lightroom brought this result... using the dropper in Lens Corrections / Color / Defringing - not necessarily what you want, but better, perhaps?

[Toni60]

here are some "close up" shots taken with my 60-250mm some with, some without, a Marumi 330 close up filter. All images processed in DxO Optics Pro v10.







In short, this has been one of the finest, most useful, most flexible, most consistent, lenses I have ever owned in the past 38 years.
Perhaps you do indeed have a specimen that is not quite up to par. Is your lens still under warranty?

Michael

P.S. I might add, all images were handheld.

Yes my lens is still under warranty I will try to make others photos in order to verify if the problem appear again.For your experience is possible that the UV filter can cause this problem?
My congratulation for your photos, I like a lot n°3 but please what is the secret for this kind of photos, light, setting, etc...Is possible to see the exif data only for compare.
I do not like my photos, I read a lot of books etc but probably I am not capable the suggestions are appreciated.
Regards.
Toni

[TaoMaas]

If you're using a UV filter AND a close-up filter, that might be a big part of your problem. You might want to run a few tests with and without those filters to make sure exactly where your problem lies.