Originally posted by butangmucat My question: is this CA acceptable for publication purpose, and if is acceptable, to which degree?
This depends upon the output size that the image is intended for, for an 8X10 print the IQ is ok, not perfect. For prints larger than 8X10 some correction will have to be made as the aberration will become more apparent.
Originally posted by D1N0 Lenses are made to be sharp in the green part of the spectrum as that is the most important part.
Correct, Green light is commonly where lens MTF is tested ,Green light is coincidentally where modern DSLRs have twice the sensitivity: the Bayer CFA has more green elements than in either the red/blue.
Originally posted by D1N0 The orange fringing is probably caused by IR light registration by the sensor.
Incorrect, this is a clear cut case of first order lateral chromatic aberration, which is very common with an achromatic lens. IR has
nothing to do with it. UV filters also do
nothing to reduce purple fringing.
Originally posted by D1N0 UV and IR aren't so much of an issue, as film didn't register it
Incorrect, manufacturers went to great lengths to ensure both film and digital sensors are as unresponsive to UV/IR as possible. Silver halides raw sensitivity goes all the way all the way up to gamma rays. But is very limited in IR. The Sony camera the OP is using is known to have an unusual UV/IR filter that could potentially have a narrower or wider bandpass than Pentax cameras have. But from what I have seen so far ,IR contamination is not present anywhere in this image.
Originally posted by butangmucat I guess that a properly-designed telecompressor might be able to correct CA to an extent.
Unlikely,It would have to be made to exacting specifications to correct for the CA inherent in the optical design of the lens itself. And as we all know, every lens is different regarding control of optical aberrations.