DSLRUsers.com

This is a subject I know very little about………….. so I’m hoping there are a few experts out there to help

Here is an example of what I am experiencing with my 70-200VR. As you can see this image has been cropped quite a bit.

How common is this and should I be concerned (especially because the lens is only 2 months old)

Thats pretty bad - I get less than that on my $150 70-300 Tamron zoom

Wouldn't expect that on a 70-200 VR - doesn't look like a very high contrast scene, what f-stop? wide open?

I Know!!!! That's what is worrying me!!!

D200 f3.2 @ 1/500 sec.

Kellogs wrote:I Know!!!! That's what is worrying me!!!

D200 f3.2 @ 1/500 sec.

Maybe a combination of factors, very bright scene, high contrast, high saturation mode on the D200, ISO500 and a wide aperature

I recommend not using high saturation above ISO400 - it creates colour noise because some of the colours are out of spec/gammut (over saturated)

D200 produces very vivid colours even at normal or moderate

That's nothing to do with the lens.

It's an artefact known as purple fringing (I wonder why? ) and it generally happens in areas of excepionally high contrast. Typically you will see a blown area adjacent to a darker section of the image - exactly as your image presents.

The cure is to alter your technique so as to reduce the likliehood of this happenning. Use fill flash to increase the amount of light going onto the subject, and then adjust your exposure accordingly. The net effect of this is that you will be reducing the contrast range that your sensor has to cope with, thus helping to aleviate the problem.

Yoink!

That was one of the reasons I got rid of my Sigma 70-200 F/2.8.

Quite a few cars with high contrast decals/colour schemes exhibited this. I figured it was the lens and got rid of it. I later thought perhaps the cheap filter I was using didn't help either.

I think it has something to do with the lens not properly focussing all the wavelengths of light onto the sensor correctly. Or some such nerdy thing. Either way, I wouldn't have expected it from a 70-200 VR

Have a look here and here.

As Gary says, this effect happens on very high contrast boundaries. In the above picture, the arm is completely blown (255,255,255) and right next to it is a very dark area (down to 40,40,40). You will usually see more of this with higher resolution sensors (like the D200) and more when you're close to wide-open, but you can easily get rid of it in your RAW converter of choice, or PS.

What filter (brand and type) are you using in front of your lens ?

Also, as pharmer mentioned, you are using ISO 500, on a D200 with high saturation and your highlights have blown. If you look closely, you can see local blooming which is causing small amounts of the type-1 (short) banding.

MCWB wrote:As Gary says, this effect happens on very high contrast boundaries. In the above picture, the arm is completely blown (255,255,255) and right next to it is a very dark area (down to 40,40,40).

This is worse even than just badly blown - it's way off the scale! Have a look at the white block adjacent to the elbow - that's a nasty piece of overexposure there, and I would really be looking at ways to narrow the contrast range as my first port of call in addressing the problem with this issue.

With this great a level of overexposure, I'd be adjusting technique before even thinking about a flaw in the equipment. If the image was correctly exposed (or moreso) and this problem continued to exist, then I'd start looking at the equipment, but not based upon the evidence presented in this image.

gstark wrote:This is worse even than just badly blown - it's way off the scale! Have a look at the white block adjacent to the elbow - that's a nasty piece of overexposure there, and I would really be looking at ways to narrow the contrast range as my first port of call in addressing the problem with this issue.

With this great a level of overexposure, I'd be adjusting technique before even thinking about a flaw in the equipment. If the image was correctly exposed (or moreso) and this problem continued to exist, then I'd start looking at the equipment, but not based upon the evidence presented in this image.

Yep, it would seem that the highlights are blown by about 3 to 4 stops, that is how much you have to blow the highlights to start to get the type 1 banding.

Raskill wrote:Yoink!

That was one of the reasons I got rid of my Sigma 70-200 F/2.8.

This lense is no worse than the Nikon with CA issues - the only lenses I've been able to get CA on are ultra cheap plastic zooms (70-300) and the Tokina 12-24.

You have to overexpose in very contrasty condidtons to get CA

pharmer wrote:

Kellogs wrote:I Know!!!! That's what is worrying me!!!

D200 f3.2 @ 1/500 sec.

Maybe a combination of factors, very bright scene, high contrast, high saturation mode on the D200, ISO500 and a wide aperature

I don't think Kelly mentioned ISO500. She did mention 1/500 sec exposure time. But I agree, very high contrast with blown highlights will do it. And as someone has already mentioned, your raw converter should be able to help (assuming shooting in raw).

Cheers
John

johnd wrote:

pharmer wrote:

Kellogs wrote:I Know!!!! That's what is worrying me!!!

D200 f3.2 @ 1/500 sec.

Maybe a combination of factors, very bright scene, high contrast, high saturation mode on the D200, ISO500 and a wide aperature

I don't think Kelly mentioned ISO500. She did mention 1/500 sec exposure time. But I agree, very high contrast with blown highlights will do it. And as someone has already mentioned, your raw converter should be able to help (assuming shooting in raw).

Cheers
John

Its in the EXIF data

I dont know what you guys are talking about. Its obviously the glow of the bride on her wedding day.

Kellogs, I like your wedding pictures on your HP.

Johnd,
Sorry, I have to say this: Kellogs is a boy.

Kellogs,

I'm with all other previously posters as Gary, Pharmer, gooseberry & MCWB.
Relax and try something difference or with difference setup.
Yes, I spotted small amount of the type-1 banding too.
______________________________________

Or ditch the D200 and lust the D2Xs

Sorry to say Birddog but last time I looked i was female!!!!

Kellogs wrote:Sorry to say Birddog but last time I looked i was female!!!!

OMG! You have inverted!!!!!

what gary said is absolutely right

but you can minimise it by upping your f stop

on my 28-70 at 2.8 any high contrast areas produce fringing

but if i stop the lens down to f4 it reduces it

Thanks everyone for all your great advice. Looks like I won't have to throw the 70-200VR lens out afterall!!!

nito wrote:I dont know what you guys are talking about. Its obviously the glow of the bride on her wedding day.

Nah, this is what happens when you eat fish from the harbour...

Cheers
Steffen.

Kellogs
Could you please post the entire image so I can see the extent of the CA in relation to the image size?

birddog114 wrote:

Kellogs wrote:Sorry to say Birddog but last time I looked i was female!!!!

OMG! You have inverted!!!!!

Actually birddog, its the other way around. We were all inverted, but some became expansive instead.

nito wrote:

birddog114 wrote:

Kellogs wrote:Sorry to say Birddog but last time I looked i was female!!!!

OMG! You have inverted!!!!!

Actually birddog, its the other way around. We were all inverted, but some became expansive instead.

you have put an Image in my mind of a production line and a bike pump ...
ewww

Here it is.................

Please ignore the composition and resolution. It’s an image I wasn’t planning on keeping.

Thanks again everyone!!!

Kellogs wrote:Thanks everyone for all your great advice. Looks like I won't have to throw the 70-200VR lens out afterall!!!

Of course you have to throw it out! Just let me know when and where...

Looks like you've got some good advice here Kellogs - I'm sure it will help in the future.

Kelly,

Just a quick Hue/Sat adjustment, magenta saturation turned right down, and blues and reds down a bit.

Looking at that image I doubt that there is anything wrong with the lens...providing the image is soft because of a slow shutter speed. CA looks normal for that type of harsh lighting and was probably made worse by the slight amount of camera or subject movement. Relax!