Upload & Sell: On
Me, GH1. Others are using APS-C and FF tho if we're still talking about the PF thing. And on that note, isn't PF usually equal across the entire frame or are corners sometimes worse? I thought it was usually even across the whole. (?)
Yup, the PF is across the frame; the APOs have a little CA as well, but that's the lateral kind mostly; all my Minolta MF lenses have noticable PF/ longitudinal CA wide open , no matter what kind of scene, distance, lighting etc., and only get better 2-3 steps stopped down .
Looking at all the clean samples I see shot with Nex and Alt lenses, or other cameras and Rokkors, I'm quite confused .
Below the lenses I tried, fwiw ...
Well, enough of that, it's getting too OT, sorry ...
I don't think it's off topic. (I think) the entire reason to have a image thread on a lens or lens group is to discuss how to use them, convert them, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and of course to brag a little. So you seem perfectly on-topic to me.
And with that, I'm as confused as you are. I have a couple of hundred MF lenses and only a handful produce CA artifacts that show up in 100% screen displays. At 400% I can see more but that's kinda stretching things. Even a smaller handful yet produce PF. In almost all cases the the few with fringing and CA artifacts are slight enough that is would not show up at all in an 8x10 print out. Maybe in Double Quad Crown 60" x 40" (Movie Theater Poster) sizes it would be noticeable if you were to stand close enough tho. And even at that, again, there's only a handful in my collection that do that. There are some lenses that do it in an artistic why and I'm not really counting them - but there's only a few like hat too. A name that comes to mind for such a thing is Takumar - for example. There's a lot of CA in pre SMC takumars but it blends with the bokeh in a unique and "artsy" way so I dan't refer to it as CA - even tho it is.
<Shrug> I'm lost, I dunno what to tell ya man.