It seems the new Olympus 60mm F2.8 Macro lacks just about any form CA. It's not completely clear if it's software based but I don't think it is since Olympus has never done software CA correction before. It also doesn't show LoCA which is hard to fix in software.
Off the top of my head, the most CA resistant lenses are:
Leica 100mm APO F2.8 Macro
Olympus 60mm F2.8 Macro
Coastal Optics 60mm F4 APO
Leica 120mm F2.5 APO Macro
Correction on the last one: Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 125/2.5 SL macro (out of production -- new production is SLII but doesn't include the 125/2.5).
Are you only interested in macro lenses or also others? Maybe super telephoto lenses are too obvious. Probably pretty much all WA/UWA lenses have a certain amount of lateral CA. Even the Distagon 21/2.8 has some even though some people here like to say that it's "almost apochromatic".
@alundeb below: Good call. I think the older non-OS version may be included in the list as well.
^Yep, there were some people complaining about it, I think it was in "The apo thread". It has a little green/red bokeh CA. In a comparison with the Zuiko 90/2 that lens had way more bokeh CA though.
I guess everyone just forgot about the "latest and greatest" 50 APO from Leica. The added benefits of APO, as noted in "the apo thread," are resolution and color. I'm surprised that carsten did not add his Summicron APO in the list. I had mine for about 2 months, and I can't find any noticeable CA to speak of. Bokeh CA is minimal IIRC.
On the WA side I think the symmetrical ones are free from lateral CA. Not sure about longitudinal, but since the DOF is big it tend not to show up either.
Hey guys, just curiosity, I have the Olympus on order.
I totally did forget about the Voigt 125.
From the samples Ming and Robin posted, there's just zero CA which is really remarkable considering how the MFT will usually magnify defects. I don't get how they designed a F2.8 lens for $500 that doesn't show even bokeh CA wide open.
I hope this is a sign of future offerings from all manufacturers.
I wouldn't be too sure of the m4/3 offering. They are actually "cooking" their raw (both Oly and Pana). Whether it is a bad thing would depend on personal preference. Beside, it's more difficult to coax a lens into producing any CA at macro distance, especially under studio lighting.
Also on the long end, add the FD 500mm f4.5L, and in the other direction, the SMC Takumar 100mm f4 Macro, Mamiya 120mm f4 Macro A. Can't forget the mirror-reflex (FD 500mm f8, Tamron 55BB), but you get a few donuts (or a few dozen) in the OOF areas as a trade...
hiepphotog wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure of the m4/3 offering. They are actually "cooking" their raw (both Oly and Pana). Whether it is a bad thing would depend on personal preference. Beside, it's more difficult to coax a lens into producing any CA at macro distance, especially under studio lighting.
Olympus has never done in-camera CA correction. For any lens in their lineup.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, even if they do...who cares? If software can completely eliminate the last minor defects in the optical design, and it does it seamlessly without user input, and without any detriment to sharpness (as looks to be the case here), what is the difference? Photographically, you are still getting an exceptionally sharp, completely CA free image. However, I doubt there is any software CA correction being done here anyway, as the Olympus cameras don't do software CA correction, and it also completely free of longitudinal CA, which I've never seen autocorrected in any way. Only Lightroom 4's fringing command deals with it, and it does it by targeted desaturation.
Sep 24, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
The reason I care about whether CA is removed by software or isn't there to start with is that it seems to me that removing it with software doesn't produce the same sort of sharp edges and contrast that you get when the CA isn't there. Maybe I am wrong about that, but it seems that way to me. By the way, one other lens that has been CA free in my experience is the Minolta MC APO 400mm f/5.6. Not a very wide aperture at all so perhaps not much of a trick, but I haven't seen CA with my copy of this lens. Bifurcator's list is interesting, but it is a different sort of idea. Many of the lenses in his 'perfect' list exhibit CA, but they make the list for other reasons by standing out from similar lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The reason I care about whether CA is removed by software or isn't there to start with is that it seems to me that removing it with software doesn't produce the same sort of sharp edges and contrast that you get when the CA isn't there. Maybe I am wrong about that, but it seems that way to me. By the way, one other lens that has been CA free in my experience is the Minolta MC APO 400mm f/5.6. Not a very wide aperture at all so perhaps not much of a trick, but I haven't seen CA with my copy of this lens. Bifurcator's list is interesting, but it is a different sort of idea. Many of the lenses in his 'perfect' list exhibit CA, but they make the list for other reasons by standing out from similar lenses....Show more →
I understand, but this lens appears to be absolutely razor sharp corner to corner. Can't wait to get mine (tomorrow)
Jman13 wrote:
Olympus has never done in-camera CA correction. For any lens in their lineup.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, even if they do...who cares? If software can completely eliminate the last minor defects in the optical design, and it does it seamlessly without user input, and without any detriment to sharpness (as looks to be the case here), what is the difference? Photographically, you are still getting an exceptionally sharp, completely CA free image. However, I doubt there is any software CA correction being done here anyway, as the Olympus cameras don't do software CA correction, and it also completely free of longitudinal CA, which I've never seen autocorrected in any way. Only Lightroom 4's fringing command deals with it, and it does it by targeted desaturation....Show more →
My bad on that one. I should be more clear that Oly only does distortion correction in camera. And I understand your point; thus, I said it was a personal preference. To me, doing correction in camera would give the optical engineers too much slack. I would imagine things would go downhill from here if the whole industry decides to opt for this way (lesser quality for the same price or higher due to the seemingly better performance).
Bif -- How do Canon's 90 TS-E and new 100L stack up? I'm not as widely versed in these esoteric lenses on your list, but these two seem pretty clean to me, in the same range as the 24 TS-E II.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The reason I care about whether CA is removed by software or isn't there to start with is that it seems to me that removing it with software doesn't produce the same sort of sharp edges and contrast that you get when the CA isn't there. Maybe I am wrong about that, but it seems that way to me.
Garbage in, garbage out is still valid up to a point. I find that I can't correct lateral CA with lightroom or PS in an entire image, unless the CA only occurs at one distance (practically never the case). You can remove it in one place, but you'll introduce fringing in other places that didn't have CA to begin with.
)