Originally posted by d.bradley Thanks for the note, I'm glad to hear that, since it seems to coincide with my experience. Figuring out what the limitations of the lens will help me refine my technique...I know that, for example, stopping down will be less helpfull than improving my stalking techniques.
I am huming and hawing about going to an AF supertelephoto, but I think I'll stick with the 500/4.5 smc tak for now with the hope that if I can get good wildlife shots with this lens, I'll be able to get good shots with just about anything
I think we all wouldn't mind an FA*600, coming up with the cash for one on the other hand is something else entirely. If only eating was optional!
As Dadipentak said earlier I think the key with the tak/K is being able to mask out as much of the fringing resulting from the CA as you can in post-processing, especially with heavy crops where it's a lot more noticeable. The lens is certainly sharp enough for it. This is something I need to spend more time experimenting with, somewhere in there is a balance between time spent and results.
That aside I find it's just a plain fun lens to use. And whoever thought to put the sights on it is a genius.
Originally posted by dadipentak That is a very interesting observation! I wish I still had mine so I could test how that plays out in practice but I imagine the same might apply to my 1000mm f8.
I've no experience with the 1000/8, but since it's of a similar vintage to the 500/4.5 I'd be surprised if it was completely free of the effect (it is as a result of axial CA after all). It might be that your lens has more even correction though so you don't get one colour offset to the same extent across the focus range.
I think it starts becoming a real issue in the 500 beyond around 150ft or so which is usually too far away to get a decent shot anyway. With the 1000 you'd think the 'sweet spot' would extent somewhat further out (300ft? More?) and that's a
long way away.
Next time I'm out I'll have to try and remember to do some test shots to see if I can quantify it a bit better.