Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8L II USM
5. Chromatic aberration
Chromatic aberration
When it comes to the longitudinal chromatic aberration the tested lens doesn’t cause any problems. The crops, shown below, prove that even at the maximum relative aperture that aberration remains negligible.
 |
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The graphs below show the chromatic aberration function graph respectively for the APS-C and full frame detectors.
The results in both cases are similar. At the shortest focal length we deal with the biggest chromatic aberration as it reaches high level. It decreases on stopping down but even when you close the aperture down significantly the aberration remains on the borderline between high and medium level. A bit better situation can be noticed in the middle of the focal lengths range – here the aberration can be described as medium. Even better results are at the maximum relative aperture – you are in the lower part of the medium level. It’s a pity, though, that at no combination of aperture and focal length the lens’s aberration doesn’t decrease to a low level.
How the Canon compares with its rivals? Unfavourably I must say because it loses to practically all currently produced 24-70 mm f/2.8 devices. Definitely the Canon didn’t exactly distinguished itself in this category…
 |
Spherical aberration
Contrary to the Tamron 24-70 mm f/2.8 VC, tested by us not so long ago, the Canon doesn’t show any distinct signs of spherical aberration or the focus shift effect, connected to it. Still that aberration is not corrected in a perfect way either. The photos below, with fuzzy diode images in front of and behind the focus, are the proof of it. Both images differ noticeably, being each other’s opposites in several areas – where there is a local maximum in the one, there is a local minimum in the other.
