Maybe if the adapter has some reflective surfaces, bouncing light back into the elements?
I dunno, just guessing.
That is pretty bad, but also kind of a "worst case" type of shot. I'd be very interested to see the Canon L in a side-by side comparison. If they are close, then this lens is still a winner. Great drawing style, etc.
I see some red in the background. Maybe it is a reflection? Also, is that with an extension tube ? I don't think the lens is corrected for close up work. I've never seen anything like that with my copy.
It is hard to judge from this one very hard condition sample. I have not found any disturbing CA in my shots. Torture test might show some. Shooting at 35/1.4 MFD FF means that the plane of focus is very very thin. I would like to see a lens that is perfectly APO corrected in in this FL and both in the focus area as well as the oof areas.
The reason I love this lens is the 3D, sharpness, distortion control and the "look" I get in my photos. If it shows some CA when pushed to the limit so be it. I think you should have kept the lens for a while and done some real shooting with it. Unless shooting Ice against Snow is why you got the lens...Do you have more than this one frame to show us?
I don't see anything wrong with the IQ of your photos. Maybe you expect too much from such a fast (and old) wide angle lens?
The Nikkor has CRC and is very good close up, but you get a lot of veiling flare and bluish fringing with it at larger distances. So I really don't agree with "ISO1600".
I don't see anything wrong with these photos. There are certain things I should not do with this lens. But I am happy to have it, and we will get old together.
jan_haidn wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with these photos. There are certain things I should not do with this lens. But I am happy to have it, and we will get old together.
