Question About Lens CA (chromatic aberration).

[gone]

Does lens CA affect photos taken w/a 35m film camera using B&W film? There's a fair number of sharp lenses available that are not valued very highly due to this issue. I was wondering if this is just a color/digital issue, or if it is something that also affects B&W film photography?

 

[Bill Burk]

It would affect Black and White film too.... but you could solve the problem by shooting with a filter.

 

[Ian C]

Chromatic aberration affects all photography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

 

[pdeeh]

the question is not so much "does this issue exist?" (which it does) but "will I be able to notice the smallest difference at ordinary print sizes?"

 

[Xmas]

You might just detect a difference 16x20, Panf, heavy tripod with and without a red filter with a 5cm lens more apparent with longer focus lens, the apo teles are apo for cause.

 

[gone]

Well, that sounds promising. I've been looking at some of the less expensive 135mm 2.8 lenses for my Nikon SLR to shoot some portraits with, and I generally will use a red filter, or at least a yellow filter, when outdoors. I can easily leave the filter on indoors. So it sounds like at moderate enlargement sizes, and w/ a red filter, an inexpensive lens that has CA might still make a good lens for B&W film shooting. There are a LOT of budget third party 135 lenses available, so the choices will be pretty good. .

 

[summicron1]

the question is not so much "does this issue exist?" (which it does) but "will I be able to notice the smallest difference at ordinary print sizes?"

for the most part I suspect the answer to this question is "No."

For normal enlargements -- 8 by 10 inches -- any halfway decent 35mm camera and lens can give you good results.

 

[Xmas]

Well, that sounds promising. I've been looking at some of the less expensive 135mm 2.8 lenses for my Nikon SLR to shoot some portraits with, and I generally will use a red filter, or at least a yellow filter, when outdoors. I can easily leave the filter on indoors. So it sounds like at moderate enlargement sizes, and w/ a red filter, an inexpensive lens that has CA might still make a good lens for B&W film shooting. There are a LOT of budget third party 135 lenses available, so the choices will be pretty good. .

the series E 135mm will be ok the apo are normally longer and portraits need soft focus not micro skin blemishes. I'd take care about contrast filters as well.

 

[Hatchetman]

I don't think you would notice it in practical application with B&W film.

 

[elekm]

I agree with Hatchetman. Pixel-peeping reveals a lot of things that aren't visible in a print.

 

[Arklatexian]

Question? Is pixel-peeping the same as grain-sniffing? I am convinced that there is an optimal viewing distance......Regards

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. It all depends on how bad the CA is.

Way back when, in 1922, Berthiot's Serie I d Color f/4 (#1, 85 mm; #2, 150 mm; #3, 210 mm; #4, 380 mm) used CA to get the highly desirable soft focus effect. Slightly later Boyer's Opale did much the same. Boyer abandoned the Opale when color film became generally available.

In more modern times, the Soviet Uran-10 lens for, mainly, the AFA-39 aerial camera, is, according to http://www.photohistory.ru/1207248190024779.html "corrected for the orange-red region and is used with filters GS-18, OC-12, CS-14." Its successor, the Uran-27, is "corrected for the general blue-red region of the spectrum and can be used without a filter." See http://www.photohistory.ru/index.php?pid=1207248190090015

 

[Bill Burk]

Question? Is pixel-peeping the same as grain-sniffing? I am convinced that there is an optimal viewing distance......Regards

The closest equivalent is to take a 30x microscope to the print.

I can tell that my 11x14 enlargements from 4x5 are NOT as crisp and definitive as George Fiske's albumen prints from 1880's

 

[dynachrome]

Most 135s do not get close enough for a tightly cropped portrait. Using a red filter with b&w film can sometimes lessen the intensity of blemishes but it can make the lips look unnaturally light. A good 135, if it isn't too fast, is not very expensive. It should not be necessary to use a filter to lessen the appearance of CA. If you are using the lens on a digital camera then all bets are off. You just have to try the lens and see what happens.