Does old equipment get more aberration?

[gotsecretary]

<p>Here's a picture I took with an old D40 and the kit lens 18-55 @35mm f4.8 1/500<br>

https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7582/15963355315_a273917fd4_k.jpg<br>

See the left side? It sort of makes my head hurt to look at the branches or the parking sign.<br>

Is this aberration? Is it normal?<br>

Is it possible the lens (camera?) was dropped or abused somehow to make it so bad? Or am I just expecting too much from a cheap lens? Everyone seems to say the lens is all you ever need.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>It says "image unavailable".</p>

[gotsecretary]

<p>Ooops! This one:<br>

http://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8607/15776282190_26df58313c_k.jpg<br>

Also, at ISO 800</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I opened your link in another tab. Kit lenses often have some softness on one side or the other. Yours is pretty typical I think. I've seen worse. I have a 18-105 that can be a little soft on the left side too. I use it mainly for people, so it is not a problem. For landscapes with a wide angle where I need sharpness from edge to edge, I have another lens. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I'm not very savvy on chromatic aberration, so I don't know if the bleeding of whites leftward on the upper tree trunk is that, but I also see what looks like a fair amount of JPG artifacts. </p>

[gotsecretary]

<p>I wonder if it could get worse over time? If an old owner could have abused or dropped it or something and the elements get out of whack. I guess if I'm really concerned I should just get a better lens, but I'm curious.</p>

[hapien]

<p>I looked at the picture. The lens seems to be able to make decent images. CA is there, but it is usually there in high contrast subjects and open apertures. CA might be lower if you stopped down a bit, say f/5.6 or f/8. Or opened original picture in photo editing software with auto CA reduction on. Image sharpening may be a bit on high side on camera or in edit. Or might be just fine in paper print.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>If you are shooting JPGs yes, if you are shooting RAW, not so much. Let me explain.</p>

<p>In-camera processing has improved substantially for JPGs, and seems to improve a bit more with every new body released. Newer Nikon bodies have automatic corrections for chromatic aberrations and other lens specific issues. Improvements have also been made to in-camera JPGs with regard to high ISO images. These corrections are applied automatically to the in-camera processed JPG images. So indeed, the image you posted would look better if shot with a newer Nikon body. But the corrections are not applied to the RAW image so all things being equal, the RAW images would not be any different using the same lens.</p>

<p>CA is not unusual and easily correctable. Especially if your shoot RAW. In newer bodies, CA is corrected automatically in-camera for JPGs.</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_barron]

<p>Unlike the glory days of Nikon's amazing manual focus lenses, the very cheaply-built lenses of today aren't made for the ages. It doesn't take a drop to the ground or a slam into a door to throw the tiny, delicate lens elements out of true. In fact, things like riding in a car for a long period or bringing your gear in from the cold over and over can unseat these elements.<br>

The good news, of course, it that there are scads of affordable replacements out there. The 18-55mm lenses from Nikon, Sony, Canon and others are so cheap they are almost disposable. Do yourself a favor and move up to a better wide angle.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Richard, CA happens on expensive lenses as well. It is not fair to blame the lens in this case. In fact, it is unlikely that the lens is damaged, because it it was damaged due to a drop or having an element move, there would likely be highly visible focus issues within the image addition to the CA. This does not appear to be the case. In fact, I suspect if the exact same lens was put on a body that had auto correction, and took the exact same image, the auto correction feature would correct the CA in the shot. </p>

<p><em>"Do yourself a favor and move up to a better wide angle."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Since the D40 does not have auto correction, a 'better' lens may still produce CA under identical lighting/shooting conditions and it would still have to be corrected manually.</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>Honestly, chromatic aberration isn't a key point for me. More important in my work is build quality, which is off-scale low in the 18-55mm, and versatility, by which I mean that I have less than no use for a 55mm f/5.6 lens. I've got three 18-55mm lenses sitting around gathering dust - I can't give them away - and each one has a different image quality problem, meaning each has a different area of the frame that is unsharp because of cheap construction. You can take hold of the focus ring on that lens and wiggle it back and forth over a millimeter, even on the new ones - believe me: everyone in my classes has that lens on their cameras on the first night.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>As usual, Elliot makes a good point. </p>

<p>With the more modern DSLRs there's a data file within the system for most camera lens combos. This allows in-camera correction of optical distortion and some chromatic aberration. </p>

<p>This is a very good system until, you either buy a lens that doesn't have a correction file or a camera that doesn't understand them. The result is 'suddenly' your lenses have gone bad. Truth was they always were but the in-camera JPEG corrections always looked better, because they were!</p>

<p>I'd reckon an upgrade of camera is due. Nothing too expensive, a gently used D90 or D5100 maybe for now? Depends if you need/want the D90's in-body AF motor or not.</p>