Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2014 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???

  
 
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


In this shot
-where was the focus point
- how was it stabilized
-how much wind was present
and finally is this SOOC jpeg? or if from RAW, which converter was used?
Too many variables...for which none of us can account.

In addition, I assume that you are aware that RAW support for Fuji is sketchy at best, especially form Adobe. A good example of this comes the dpreveiw review of the X-E1 in which the test shot is simply terrible in terms of sharpness. Take the same file, download it and then convert with C1 (for example) and it's a completely different story.

Finally from the same review that you quote "
"....at 200mm there is a further, slight reduction in clarity. At maximum aperture, sharpness approaches very good in the centre of the frame and is good towards the edges of the frame. Peak sharpness is again achieved at f/8. Here clarity in the centre falls just short of excellent and is very good towards the edges of the frame."

I think the numbers look reasonable from this review.

What's going on with the shot you posted is anybody's guess.



Feb 08, 2014 at 11:35 AM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


One thing to note, as has been confirmed by one of the photographers who provides sample images to Fuji: the official samples are straight RAW conversions with absolutely zero sharpening or contrast adjustments. Zero. They want the flattest samples possible to be as 'pure' a sample image as possible. If you import any Fuji files into ACR and turn sharpening completely off, they ALL look soft. The Xtrans sensor requires some sharpening to bring out the detail.


Feb 08, 2014 at 12:05 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


Hmm...straight raw conversions. Do you know which converter was used?


Feb 08, 2014 at 12:18 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


No.


Feb 08, 2014 at 12:31 PM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


galenapass wrote:
Hmm...straight raw conversions. Do you know which converter was used?



Probably SuckyPix, as that's Fuji's "official" RAW conversion software...



Feb 08, 2014 at 02:13 PM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


RustyBug wrote:
Fuji's glass lineup doesn't seem to be interested in long glass IQ with the XF only going out to 200 and it is a zoom that is a bit "suspect" at it's IQ from the samples I've seen.

1) Are there any 300mm or longer AF options for X-mount?

2) Are there any AF primes longer than 100mm (actual, not equivalent)?

3) What long glass with aperture ring would you consider for non-AF use on the Fuji's?

4) Adapter recommendations for long glass on Fuji?

Thanks for you thoughts on the subject.



I was using the Nikon AIS 200mm f4 and 300mm f4.5 ED-IF with a Metabones adapter, prior to getting the Fuji XF 55-200mm zoom, but the Fuji zoom is much better performance-wise, with OIS thrown in as a bonus.



Feb 08, 2014 at 02:15 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


galenapass wrote:
Please look at at review sites such as PZ


This is what I've found so far ...

http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/3451-fuji-55-200mm-test-delayed/

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/fujifilm-55-200-3p5-4p8/3
What's fairly clear here is that the XF55-200mm delivers a decent level of detail at all settings, but equally, the images don't look as strikingly sharp as you can get from Fujifilm's best lenses such as the XF 35mm F1.4 R. There's a reason for this, though: as we'll see later, the camera automatically applies some correction for pincushion distortion at all focal lengths, which effectively 'stretches' the centre of the image slightly. This gives a degree of blurring when examining images at the pixel level, offsetting to some degree any sharpness advantage from Fujifilm's X-Trans CMOS sensor.



Feb 08, 2014 at 02:43 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


http://www.jordansteele.com/2014/chloe_face_crop.jpg

My goodness Mr. Steele, do some sit-ups brother! Your gut looks almost as big as mine… (oops).


Rusty,
You're totally right not to trust on-line samples posted here or on official sites. Such images are a testament to what the lens in question can do and not what it typically does. I went though this with a few different lenses before that dawned on me. Namely the Lumix 100-300 5.6 where lots of user samples were looking pretty "OK" but after a shoot with all/any of three different versions the lens reveals itself to basically suck in most situations - most of the time - under most conditions. But there's always a guy who will jump up and defend it b y posting some accidentally good or well processed images from it. The inverse often happens when the lens isn't a sought after or popular model (aka gem in the rough).

I have no idea about the lens being discussed here this time now so I'm not really saying anything either way but just a nod to your caution. You're right to do/be so.



Feb 08, 2014 at 03:00 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


Yes, that is one thing I am worried about. I have this very lens on order and will be checking it carefully for decentering issues when it arrives. As for sharpness etc, it's still good to go to a review site (IMO) but, it seems that different raw converters have a substantial impact on the resulting image.

This review, along with the results posted on Dpreview for the X-E1, http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_xf_55_200mm_f3_5_4_8_r_lm_ois_review/sharpness_2/
convinced me that many online Fuji images were suspect. To my eye, the shots posted in this review are as soft as those on Dpreview which had me suspicious that the wrong converter was used, or that the lens had a centering defect, or that it had simply been misfocused.
In my case, I did rent the lens first and found similar results as compared to the images that Jordan has posted. The lens is quite sharp, however, I am finding that one does not see this until sharpening is increased - more than the 5DII that I am used to. In fact, when I first started shooting with the 18-55mm lens, I thought there was an issue with my copy since images were not as sharp as I expected but that was resolved by increasing sharpening more than my standard workflow was set for.

For me, the combination of issues stemming from raw conversion and the proper amount of sharpening make it difficult to sit in an armchair and assess image quality from Fuji lenses based upon internet information. I tend to give Jordan's reviews (for example) more credence because I know he is aware of the processing Fuji issues, whereas some of these other sites probably not so much.

But, again, it's hard to tell anything from a single image, or group of images, where little is known about all the variables involved.

I think you should send some business to Lensrentals.com if you want to figure out how well the 55-200mm will work for you.

Edit - Regardless of all this discussion, there are not very many long lens AF options viable for Fuji which I hope will change sometime later this year.



Feb 08, 2014 at 03:24 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


molson wrote:
Probably SuckyPix, as that's Fuji's "official" RAW conversion software...


.



Feb 08, 2014 at 03:35 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


Sounds like a boost in sharpening is the order of the day ... not sure if that constitutes a "sharp lens" and it has an effect on the tonal transitions too. Probably would require dialing in (which is okay) a sharpening algorithm, but only if the raw detail is already there. Not sure @ the distortion correction on/off aspect ... Jordan, anything on this from your end?

I'd be curious to see how the 55-200 compares to the C/Y 70-200/4 @ raw (both on same Fuji) as to whether it is the glass or the sensor/algortihm.

The one shot that has captured my attention (now & previously) was Jordan's parking meter image.

Edited on Feb 08, 2014 at 03:58 PM · View previous versions



Feb 08, 2014 at 03:50 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


I agree, that seems to be the most direct approach - mounting some glass with known IQ (via converter) and comparing directly to the 55-200. I could do that, but still waiting for delivery.

I wonder if anyone here has this comparison already?



Feb 08, 2014 at 03:55 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Long glass recommendations for Fuji bodies ???


Jordan and Jim are likely candidates for such a comparison ^ if they have the adapters. I would want to see the straight RAW with distortion correction, sharpening, etc. turned off.

The fine detail structure just seems to be coming up short for me on what I've seen so far. Would definitely be eye opening to see how it renders from various 200m lenses all on the Fuji.



Feb 08, 2014 at 04:02 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.