Little guy was in good spirits for fighting a cold and it gave me a chance to test near 105mm which happens to be my favorite focal length for portraits.
How good actually is this lens? Is it really this good?
Verdict: "This is an amazingly sharp lens, with lots of other fine qualities as well. It is the first lens to exceed our usual graph limits in terms of sharpness, an achievement in itself. With low flare and virtually no CA or distortion, the technical results are amongst the best. In terms of handling, it is pretty much faultless."
Alistair1 wrote:
How good actually is this lens? Is it really this good?
Verdict: "This is an amazingly sharp lens, with lots of other fine qualities as well. It is the first lens to exceed our usual graph limits in terms of sharpness, an achievement in itself. With low flare and virtually no CA or distortion, the technical results are amongst the best. In terms of handling, it is pretty much faultless."
Alistair1 wrote:
How good actually is this lens? Is it really this good?
Verdict: "This is an amazingly sharp lens, with lots of other fine qualities as well. It is the first lens to exceed our usual graph limits in terms of sharpness, an achievement in itself. With low flare and virtually no CA or distortion, the technical results are amongst the best. In terms of handling, it is pretty much faultless."
This may be asking a but much, but is it at all possible for someone to show some direct comparisons between this lens at 120mm and the 70-200f2.8 at the same length? Or perhaps this lens at 70mm and the 24-70f2.8 at that same length?
The lens is next to impossible to find anyplace so I cannot pick one up to try myself, but I feel that while a lot of the images I see on the internet look good, there have been many that for whatever reason just don't. I'm wondering whether the lens just does not perform as well at all focal lengths, or if it's just online compression that is detracting from the images. For instance, here on Fred's site, images from this lens tend to lack vibrance, especially compared to those shot with the 2.8 zooms. Some seem to lack sharpness as well. But without a comparison I have no way of knowing if it's the lens or if it's due to viewing here online rather than viewing original files.
Jay968 wrote:
This may be asking a but much, but is it at all possible for someone to show some direct comparisons between this lens at 120mm and the 70-200f2.8 at the same length? Or perhaps this lens at 70mm and the 24-70f2.8 at that same length?
The lens is next to impossible to find anyplace so I cannot pick one up to try myself, but I feel that while a lot of the images I see on the internet look good, there have been many that for whatever reason just don't. I'm wondering whether the lens just does not perform as well at all focal lengths, or if it's just online compression that is detracting from the images. For instance, here on Fred's site, images from this lens tend to lack vibrance, especially compared to those shot with the 2.8 zooms. Some seem to lack sharpness as well. But without a comparison I have no way of knowing if it's the lens or if it's due to viewing here online rather than viewing original files.
Sharpness is a product of the resolution people are embedding. I can assure you this lens is stupid sharp. The images can be as vibrant as you want, I have been on a film-emulating jag lately, so lots of Fuji Pro washed out tones from me
You should post this request in a new thread, as this isn't the place for such a topic.
The lens is sharp but I'm uploading pictures with a big compression. I'm going from 25 MB in crop mode to 1.8 MB to upload here and 54 MB to 1.8 MB for a Fx picture.
Ludvig83 wrote:
The lens is sharp but I'm uploading pictures with a big compression. I'm going from 25MP in crop mode to 1.8 MB to upload here and 54 MP to 1.8 MB for a Fx picture.
Thanks.
Your photo does look pretty good considering the compression.
