itsmrjack wrote:
Does this nervous transition zone smoothen out when stopping down at all? I'm thinking that it's a long enough focal length and short enough MFD that you can still get moderate focus fall-off up to f11.
It becomes less obtrusive as you stop down and I'd say by f/2.8 there are only traces of the "nervous" bokeh left, but the rendering of the transition zone still isn't great at the same distances and angles. I think it'd be fine for a casual observer, but as an owner (and I suspect most other photographers) would immediately pick up on the rendering looking a bit funky wide or close to wide open. So I don't think of stopping down as a mitigant for this; I simply try to avoid putting those sorts of backgrounds or foregrounds in my transition zones with the 55.
Murphy's law kicks in of course and a month or so back I got an otherwise very nice impromptu family group sequence at f/4-f/5.6 with what I thought was a marginal but hopefully acceptable transition zone background (trees and foliage some distance away at the edge of a playground)...got home and at some angles there is some definite awkwardness in the rendering back there though the subjects otherwise pop beautifully out of the background. However, it's definitely much less obtrusive at the smaller apertures to the extent that I think even most photographers wouldn't immediately notice let alone mind, and I hit it with a bit of negative clarity and structure in C1P which did the trick for me.
itsmrjack wrote:
Would you be open to taking and sharing a shot of the same object/scene where the 55 gets "nervous", but using both lenses to show how the transition zones compare? I sure would find it helpful and I'm guessing others would too!
Happy to give it a go but no promises on timeline, I'd need to find the time, remember to bring both lenses out, and probably locate or bribe a subject.
JadedWriter wrote:
Basically sounds like the only two...three things I might need would be the 110, 45-100 and 20-35. I do low angle group shots for ad work and need to incorporate bigger environments so definitely need something in the 24mm range.
Probably. I also have the 32-64 and little 50, and also just bought the 20-35. So far I've found the 32-64 essentially equal to the 45-100. I haven't received the 20-35 yet, but understand it's basically as good as either the 23 or 30 primes, and since it's nearly the same size and weight as the 23, it seems a no-brainer. At least if you know you need wider than 32... Knowing *my* typical uses, the 20-35 will probably be my least used lens, but none-the-less I like the idea of having it available. My big issue with the 20-35 plus 45-100 strategy, is I tend to use the 30-45 range (24-35 in Fx terms) *a lot...* So for me, if I could only have one, it would probably be the 32-64 plus 45-100, but I understand the logic behind living with the 35-45 gap...
For the ad work stuff I feel like I would need wider than 24mm for cushioning. I don't even think I hit 35mm for those and even that's too narrow the last time I tried. Group shots are a pain gear-nut wrote:
Probably. I also have the 32-64 and little 50, and also just bought the 20-35. So far I've found the 32-64 essentially equal to the 45-100. I haven't received the 20-35 yet, but understand it's basically as good as either the 23 or 30 primes, and since it's nearly the same size and weight as the 23, it seems a no-brainer. At least if you know you need wider than 32... Knowing *my* typical uses, the 20-35 will probably be my least used lens, but none-the-less I like the idea of having it available. My big issue with the 20-35 plus 45-100 strategy, is I tend to use the 30-45 range (24-35 in Fx terms) *a lot...* So for me, if I could only have one, it would probably be the 32-64 plus 45-100, but I understand the logic behind living with the 35-45 gap... ...Show more →
_Refraction wrote:
It becomes less obtrusive as you stop down and I'd say by f/2.8 there are only traces of the "nervous" bokeh left, but the rendering of the transition zone still isn't great at the same distances and angles. I think it'd be fine for a casual observer, but as an owner (and I suspect most other photographers) would immediately pick up on the rendering looking a bit funky wide or close to wide open. So I don't think of stopping down as a mitigant for this; I simply try to avoid putting those sorts of backgrounds or foregrounds in my transition zones with the 55.
Murphy's law kicks in of course and a month or so back I got an otherwise very nice impromptu family group sequence at f/4-f/5.6 with what I thought was a marginal but hopefully acceptable transition zone background (trees and foliage some distance away at the edge of a playground)...got home and at some angles there is some definite awkwardness in the rendering back there though the subjects otherwise pop beautifully out of the background. However, it's definitely much less obtrusive at the smaller apertures to the extent that I think even most photographers wouldn't immediately notice let alone mind, and I hit it with a bit of negative clarity and structure in C1P which did the trick for me. ...Show more →
Where I'm from that's also known as sods law Seriously though, your description of the 55's transition behaviour is very helpful.
_Refraction wrote:
Happy to give it a go but no promises on timeline, I'd need to find the time, remember to bring both lenses out, and probably locate or bribe a subject.
Thanks, I appreciate these sorts of comparisons can get quite involved... which is why I decided to rent the 55 and 63 in order to see for myself. If I can get time I will try to post pictures - though I have managed to book the rental while in the midst of moving house, so let's see!
_Refraction wrote:
It becomes less obtrusive as you stop down and I'd say by f/2.8 there are only traces of the "nervous" bokeh left, but the rendering of the transition zone still isn't great at the same distances and angles. I think it'd be fine for a casual observer, but as an owner (and I suspect most other photographers) would immediately pick up on the rendering looking a bit funky wide or close to wide open. So I don't think of stopping down as a mitigant for this; I simply try to avoid putting those sorts of backgrounds or foregrounds in my transition zones with the 55.
Murphy's law kicks in of course and a month or so back I got an otherwise very nice impromptu family group sequence at f/4-f/5.6 with what I thought was a marginal but hopefully acceptable transition zone background (trees and foliage some distance away at the edge of a playground)...got home and at some angles there is some definite awkwardness in the rendering back there though the subjects otherwise pop beautifully out of the background. However, it's definitely much less obtrusive at the smaller apertures to the extent that I think even most photographers wouldn't immediately notice let alone mind, and I hit it with a bit of negative clarity and structure in C1P which did the trick for me.
Happy to give it a go but no promises on timeline, I'd need to find the time, remember to bring both lenses out, and probably locate or bribe a subject. ...Show more →
This echoes my findings as well.
It’s such a pity that Fuji couldn’t get the most important aspect of one of their most important lenses right. The second aspect being of course AF.
A close friend of mine,and very successful environmental portrait photographer, actually gave up on the G system on this. His thinking being what is the point of having a bit more res and DR over Sony if Fuji’s most awaited lens ever is worst than GM glass on the aspects that clients actually see? I shoot Nikon more but same thing. The bokeh of their top S glass is significantly ahead.
I mostly use the G for landscape and a bit of studio portrait so I don’t mind but still.
I am doing a casual shoot in Kyoto right now with 20-35, 45-100, 55 f1.7 and 110mmf2.0. I hate the idea of having to add PS blur to some of the images captured with the 55mm.
AF speed and nervous bokeh at the open apertures is why I didn’t keep mine. Frankly the little 50 is better at both, albeit not as fast. The 110 is glorious; the 55 at least deserved better AF motor/s…
bernardl wrote:
This echoes my findings as well.
It’s such a pity that Fuji couldn’t get the most important aspect of one of their most important lenses right. The second aspect being of course AF.
A close friend of mine,and very successful photographer, actually gave up on the G system on this. His thinking being what is the point of having a bit more res and DR over Sony if their most awaited lens is worst than GM glass on the aspects that clients actually see?
I mostly use the G for landscape so I don’t mind but still.
I am doing a casual shoot in Kyoto right now with 20-35, 45-100, 55 f1.7 and 110mmf2.0. I hate the idea of having to add PS blur to some of the images captured with the 55mm.
Damn I need to get one to see what a nervous bokeh is. But I won't probably see it. I don't get serious bokeh on wines either. Whether it is $100 champagne with a $1 taco or $5 wine with $100 steak, I like them all. Folks complain about 80mm too. I haven't seen any problems with it yet. From what I hear 55 is like 80mm f1.7 but with a bit better AF. If that's the case, I would be ok with it.
I did most of that shoot I posted with the 55 1.7 and an 18 1.4 on an XH2 and the biggest issue I had in hindsight was getting sick on the roof I swear I'm the only person in this thread just shooting the lens and not micro analyzing the IQ. I feel like every time I shoot the lens I enjoy it overall. Same with the 80 1.7. bobby350z wrote:
Damn I need to get one to see what a nervous bokeh is. But I won't probably see it. I don't get serious bokeh on wines either. Whether it is $100 champagne with a $1 taco or $5 wine with $100 steak, I like them all. Folks complain about 80mm too. I haven't seen any problems with it yet. From what I hear 55 is like 80mm f1.7 but with a bit better AF. If that's the case, I would be ok with it.
Well, speaking only for myself, my particular prejudice against the 55 was simply I was comparing bokeh to the 110, and focus speed and size to the 50 — and end of day for *my* needs and style of shooting, I frankly didn’t think the 55 carried its weight. I respect others feelings vary. It was excellent optically.
Don't worry about it. A lot of this craft is centered around a lot of personal give and take. I think this is why at this point it's more a matter of using something for yourself than it is reading people talk about something. There's things I don't like as well, it just takes a lot to get me to not like something unless it's something I'm basically just not using in my workflow compared to something else. gear-nut wrote:
Well, speaking only for myself, my particular prejudice against the 55 was simply I was comparing bokeh to the 110, and focus speed and size to the 50 — and end of day for *my* needs and style of shooting, I frankly didn’t think the 55 carried its weight. I respect others feelings vary. It was excellent optically.
bernardl wrote:
It’s not available online sorry. I could PM it to you next week if I don’t forget?
No need since I have the lens myself. Just wondering what the point was of posting something that doesn't show the "problem".
Personally I think fake bokeh almost always looks worse than any type of harsh, real bokeh.
Makten wrote:
No need since I have the lens myself. Just wondering what the point was of posting something that doesn't show the "problem".
Personally I think fake bokeh almost always looks worse than any type of harsh, real bokeh.
The intent was to show the kind of distance that is causing the issue.
Btw I have been using the 55mm a lot this week. Overall positive until tonight where I tried to use it in low light situation.. boy is the AF terrible on the 100II.
Tracking on even very slowly moving subjects is a total no go, but even AF-S misses most of the time. I have to use manual focus to get decently focused images.
The 100II is overall poor in low light but the 110mm f2.0 was much better as long as I used large sized focusing point.
Btw I have been using the 55mm a lot this week. Overall positive until tonight where I tried to use it in low light situation.. boy is the AF terrible on the 100II.
Tracking on even very slowly moving subjects is a total no go, but even AF-S misses most of the time. I have to use manual focus to get decently focused images.
Agreed.
Something I have been trying to get my head around - and explain to others - is how the AF performance of the 100II changes as the light levels drop. I haven't shot with Nikons since a friend's D3 back in the DSLR era, but today in Canon RF (R5/R6/R6 II), AF performance degrades relatively gently as it gets dark. So for instance I've shot at or above ISO 6400, wide open at f/2 on the RF 28-70 f/2, and although the speed of lock-on and the tracking aren't as good as in brighter light, it's not as if the performance falls off a cliff. You can sense the steady drop-off as it gets darker and darker e.g. if you are shooting a function from afternoon into the evening.
But the 100II goes from very good single shot AF (AF-S) and moderate continuous AF (AF-C) with the right lenses in good light, to totally useless continuous AF in even somewhat dim light. In comparable light I see a perceptible drop-off in AF performance in Canon RF, but it is far more gradual. Single shot AF continues to be somewhat usable in low light mode if you and your subjects have the patience to wait around for it.
bernardl wrote:
The 100II is overall poor in low light but the 110mm f2.0 was much better as long as I used large sized focusing point.
I should have packed my Z8 and 50mm f1.2 S.
Cheers,
Bernard
Also agree the 110mm is better, I switch to single shot and the second smallest AF point. Which remind me of being restricted to the cross-type AF points in the DSLR era, and not in a good way...it's a rather outmoded way of working IMO and reduces the speed and spontaneity of portrait subjects. So I regard the 100II as a bright to good light option for this sort of shooting, unless in a controlled environment.
The Canon RF 50 f/1.2 has comparatively slow AF by modern standards as it was an early RF lens...but like you, I trust it to nail the eyeball pretty much every time even in lower light.
Why Fuji is still so behind Canon/Nikon/Sony in AF is a bit of a mystery to me - the only thing I can think of is that the engineering team is under-resourced. Canon came from nowhere to competitive mirrorless AF so it's clearly possible to catch up. I'm hoping that like Canon did in the lifetime of the R, Fuji gets with the program and makes the AF much more competitive through firmware updates.
I was speaking with a photographer using an XT5 yesterday that I thought had good AF based on what some Fuji users have been reporting online but his comments was that for fast moving kids it didn’t cut it either.
Seriously though, your description of the 55's transition behaviour is very helpful. 
