Thank you for recognizing that different users with different examples of a piece of gear and different working techniques may see different results. As for using the lens in a manner that I would not do in the real world just to prove or disprove your point, that makes no sense to me; I’m just a lowly macrophotograper who photographs mainly small arthropods and small wildflowers for a few scientific databases. In every instance, once my identification of the genus and species is confirmed, my photos have been marked “Research Grade.” Never has been one been marked as unacceptable due to some sort of distortion or aberration.
The high-relief portions of the coin have a pink cast, and the low have a green cast. I could correct that by using a smaller aperture, but at this magnification, that starts to introduce softness from diffraction.
NOTE: This isn't the Canon 100mm macro - this is a lens with better long CA performance. It's one of the reasons I don't use the Canon for coin photography.
Am I the only one who thinks that the SA changes impact the focus in a HORRIFIC way? The rose in the video is suddenly extremely soft which looks realy ugly to me... I think this could be not so easily achieved in post - but this kind of blurred focus looks realy not desirable for me in any context... also the change in the Bokeh doenst look nice to me in any means...
I had the 135 soft focus that had a similar control for spherical aberration. Despite myself often liking a softer look I felt that the spherical aberration control exaggerated things and made things just look weird rather than good. I also agree that it negatively impacted the bokeh when it was dialed up. one of those things that sounds better on paper than in practice