p.1 #1 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
Just bought an fuji x-t10 with 18-55mm lens as my walk around option, since I'm tired of carrying full frame DSLR around..
I'm disappointed with lens performance. But maybe that's only because I'm used to full frame and some sharp primes.
I would like if someone could look at these test photos and tell me is this a normal result from this lens, or I simply have a dud.
The problem is the lens is sharp only in the middle third or fourth of a frame. The lack of sharpness is more pronounced as the focal length increases, so my test photos are taken on 55mm.
55mm f5.6, shot handheld, focused in the middle where the van is https://ibb.co/1b4CWkS
If you click on a download button belw the image, it will open in a full size
55mm f8, shot from a tripod, focused manually on a right sheet of paper. https://ibb.co/gJnbnzy
p.1 #2 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
I don't download unknown files from unknown websites from links from unknown parties...
Perhaps you could share some .jpg images directly in the thread? Simply host them somewhere and then paste the image URLs here. This will display the images in your post as long as the links end with the usual ".jpg" file suffix.''
p.1 #3 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
It looks fine to me. I don't know what FF kit you are accustomed to, but the XT10 is only a 16 megapixel APS-C sensor so it is not able to resolve as much detail compared to what you might be used to in a FF kit.
p.1 #5 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
Both stones and trees are so far away from the camera, that it can't be that one is in focus and the other isn't. In all my photos for a last few days, bushes and trees look absolutely horrible. Just a bunch of mushy mess.
One more test photo of a bushy terrain. This one looks a bit better than the last one, but probably only because the hill is on a direct sunlight https://ibb.co/Hn3t4Ss
I couldn't find many full size sample photos taken by this lens online, but those photos that I have seen, aren't much better than mine. The web site Pixelpeeper doesn't exist anymore to check is my lens normal or not.
p.1 #6 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
Are these RAW or Jpeg files? If they are RAW then it could be your processing software. Lightroom is notoriously bad with processing Fuji RAW files. Certain subject matter such as trees or rocks end up looking "wormy" or "mushy".
I use Iridient X-Transformer which is a plug-in for Lightroom that generates a lossless DNG file from a Fuji RAW file which is then imported into Lightroom. I get much sharper results with this method than simply importing Fuji RAW files directly into Lightroom. You may also try the "Enhance Details" feature in Lightroom which uses AI to apply sharpening and also generates a DNG file, similar to Iridient X-Transformer. There are also other software you can try that might be better, such as Capture One.
If these are just Jpeg files then you can probably increase sharpening in-camera with the menu setting. See what happens there.
I personally think the images you posted are plenty sharp for almost any type of use including for making large prints. But, remember this is a kit lens and the resolution of the XT1 sensor is limited. It's not going to give you the same quality as you may be used to from L glass.
p.1 #7 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
I have vast experience with that lens on various cameras.
The 18-55mm is optically very good, even when at it's weakest focal length of 55mm it's still good. But it may present some problems:
1. LENS STABILIZATION:
First of all, check if the lens firmware is up to date. There was a fix for an issue regarding the lens stabilisation making parts of the image soft. On older cameras, setting the IS to mode 2 ("IS2 shooting only") also helps preventing the IS causing softness (not sure if still needed or it was fixed with newer firmware).
2. AF RELIABILITY
There is a generation of Fuji cameras witch AF is not 100% reliable with the 18-55mm. On older cameras with contrast-detect, the AF was slower but precise. On cameras of the generation of the X-Pro2, X-T20, X-H1(I list this ones because they're the ones I had), the AF isn't reliable, it sometimes front-focus or back-focus a little, even if it shows a green AF confirmation, making the impression of overall unsharpness. Not sure how it is on a X-T10, on the newer cameras (like the X-S10 I have) the AF is much better with this lens. A solution I've found to this is to use the lens on MF mode and with back-button-focusing. For whatever reason it seems to be more precise this way, and if not you can see it better having focus peaking active.
3. X-TRANS
If you're directly comparing the images at 100% to your full-frame system you may notice lack of fine detail. Not because of sensor size but because of the X-Trans pixel array. Forget about the various non-up-to-date opinions about what software is the best to read X-Trans, they're just things that people keep repeating for years. Current Adobe software is actually the best for extracting fine detail from X-Trans, they have a "enhance details" option that uses the GPU to extract all the fine detail and color resolution that the normal demosaicing lacks. No need to search for convoluted software, I've tried them all, Adobe fixed it even if at a cost of a bit slower process (one more click of an option, GPU processing and saving a new DNG image). Capture One also does a great job and with good color too, not as much detail but the sharpening works better than Adobe with standard demosaicing.
p.1 #8 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
mdude85 wrote:
Are these RAW or Jpeg files? If they are RAW then it could be your processing software. Lightroom is notoriously bad with processing Fuji RAW files.
No it isn't. Adobe products work fine with x-trans files today.
p.1 #9 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
gdanmitchell wrote:
No it isn't. Adobe products work fine with x-trans files today.
Lightroom's issues with processing X-trans files are widely known and have been discussed ad nauseam. This is why some people use Iridient X-Transformer or Capture One to process those files. I have no opinion on what software is best for this task. I personally use X-Transformer and I don't need it all or even most of the time. Many people do not see a problem with how Lightroom processes X-trans files and that's okay.
The OP also described bushes and trees as being "mushy" -- that might be evidence of a processing/demosaicing issue.
Note that only newer versions of LR (2019 and later) have the Enhance Details (now called "Enhance") feature.
p.1 #10 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
mdude85 wrote:
Lightroom's issues with processing X-trans files are widely known and have been discussed ad nauseam. This is why some people use Iridient X-Transformer or Capture One to process those files. I have no opinion on what software is best for this task. I personally use X-Transformer and I don't need it all or even most of the time. Many people do not see a problem with how Lightroom processes X-trans files and that's okay.
The OP also described bushes and trees as being "mushy" -- that might be evidence of a processing/demosaicing issue.
Note that only newer versions of LR (2019 and later) have the Enhance Details (now called "Enhance") feature....Show more →
This is what I meant about "non-up-to-date" reports regarding Adobe and X-Trans. The solution has been around for quite some time.
Even before that, the rendering of Adobe wasn't as bad as when X-Trans appeared, it got better even before the "enhance details". I suspect that this is what caused all this negative association that is repeated even today.
The detail with Adobe isn't bad if one doesn't use the standard sharpening, because it messes de details up. I've found Nik Sharpener Pro to push very good details minimizing artifacts.
Of course standard demosaicing still has problems regarding color resolution, but it's not that noticable unless one sees images at almost pixe-level.
But I don't really want to turn this into another X-Trans / Adobe debacle, maybe let's just let him experiment with it. He may even be a JPG shooter (and Fuji JPGs are fine with detail). What's important is to get to know what is the issue with the lens, because from the images I've seen and my experience with that lens, I suspect it's not only about X-Trans demosaicing.
p.1 #11 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
@ Sr Cordeiro
The issue could be with both the processing and the lens, or it could be neither. Maybe this is just as sharp as the images are going to get. The OP should try all the options at his disposal including adjusting the lens settings as well as post-processing.
To the OP - what I said is not “out of date” Some people have a really high opinion of themselves, don’t they? Anyway, I encourage you to try tweaking your post-processing and see what kind of results you get. Like I said before, it may not help at all. If you’re coming from a 5DIII with high quality lenses then you might notice a degradation in image quality here, especially in details. The 5DIII is an older camera but its sensor is larger and better than the XT1. Plus the 18-55 lens is high quality but it’s not on par with the best lenses from Canon (or even the best lenses from Fuji).
p.1 #12 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
mdude85 wrote:
Are these RAW or Jpeg files? If they are RAW then it could be your processing software. Lightroom is notoriously bad with processing Fuji RAW files. Certain subject matter such as trees or rocks end up looking "wormy" or "mushy".
I use Iridient X-Transformer which is a plug-in for Lightroom that generates a lossless DNG file from a Fuji RAW file which is then imported into Lightroom. I get much sharper results with this method than simply importing Fuji RAW files directly into Lightroom. You may also try the "Enhance Details" feature in Lightroom which uses AI to apply sharpening and also generates a DNG file, similar to Iridient X-Transformer. There are also other software you can try that might be better, such as Capture One.
If these are just Jpeg files then you can probably increase sharpening in-camera with the menu setting. See what happens there.
I personally think the images you posted are plenty sharp for almost any type of use including for making large prints. But, remember this is a kit lens and the resolution of the XT1 sensor is limited. It's not going to give you the same quality as you may be used to from L glass....Show more →
These are raw files, exported as jpeg using Capture one. I have an older lghtroom, and it destroys the fuji raw quality. I guess the Capture one is ok, since some parts of the picture are really nice and sharp.
I'm using canon 5d3 with 35mm f2IS, 85mm 1.8, Tamron 17-35mm DI OSD and canon 70-200mm f4 IS. Those are all very sharp lenses, so maybe that contributes to my frustration with fuji, but I still think there's something wrong with 18-55
p.1 #13 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
I have vast experience with that lens on various cameras.
The 18-55mm is optically very good, even when at it's weakest focal length of 55mm it's still good. But it may present some problems:
1. LENS STABILIZATION:
First of all, check if the lens firmware is up to date. There was a fix for an issue regarding the lens stabilisation making parts of the image soft. On older cameras, setting the IS to mode 2 ("IS2 shooting only") also helps preventing the IS causing softness (not sure if still needed or it was fixed with newer firmware).
2. AF RELIABILITY
There is a generation of Fuji cameras witch AF is not 100% reliable with the 18-55mm. On older cameras with contrast-detect, the AF was slower but precise. On cameras of the generation of the X-Pro2, X-T20, X-H1(I list this ones because they're the ones I had), the AF isn't reliable, it sometimes front-focus or back-focus a little, even if it shows a green AF confirmation, making the impression of overall unsharpness. Not sure how it is on a X-T10, on the newer cameras (like the X-S10 I have) the AF is much better with this lens. A solution I've found to this is to use the lens on MF mode and with back-button-focusing. For whatever reason it seems to be more precise this way, and if not you can see it better having focus peaking active.
Interesting points. In yesterday testing I got some strange results. One side of the image sharp, other side soft. I already checked for decentering using tripod, and all corners seem to be equally sharp. It could be stabilization maybe.
In other shooting, earlier that day, I got nice sharpness across the frame, which left me confused. Did I turn off IS that time? I can't remember. Got to check it out later
p.1 #15 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
mdude85 wrote:
@ Sr Cordeiro
The issue could be with both the processing and the lens, or it could be neither. Maybe this is just as sharp as the images are going to get. The OP should try all the options at his disposal including adjusting the lens settings as well as post-processing.
To the OP - what I said is not “out of date” Some people have a really high opinion of themselves, don’t they?
Well, we agree on that, that's exactly what I said on my post before, that's why I listed the various reasons it could be happen so the OP can maybe sort it out.
I don't really think I'm superior neither I will make personality judgements based in forum posts, I replied to help the best I can and based on the experience and struggles I had with the lens. Whenever I can I try also to help demystifying that X-Trans/Adobe thing that is lurking around for too long and starts to become desinformation IMHO. But if you're really interested in continue this discussion, maybe start a new post about it to further explain how talking about pre-2019 software is up-to-date
I can then search my photo archives for empirical evidence of my claims.
p.1 #17 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
At first, what you described about one side soft and the other sharp was exactly what was happening to me years ago before the firmware fix.
Making some manual focus tests was a good idea. You didn't mention if the firmware is up-to-date. If not, I suggest to try that first and re-test.
If it continues to show that odd behaviour it may be a lens element out of alignment. Can you return that particular lens and test another?
Nope, bought it second hand. No returns. How would you explain sharp center and soft sides when focused on the center, and sharp sides and soft center when focused on one side? (my last post)
p.1 #18 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
Didi88 wrote:
Nope, bought it second hand. No returns. How would you explain sharp center and soft sides when focused on the center, and sharp sides and soft center when focused on one side? (my last post)
That description is usually what defines field curvature, but it's odd since I've just tested my lens and it doesn't behave like that, so certainly not a design issue.
So maybe something out of alignment Or it's the OIS making weird stuff, once again be sure the FW is up-to-date (sorry to keep repeating this but you didn't mention if it is).
If it's a defective lens, I'm sorry to hear that, you had bad luck.
The 2nd copy of the 18-55mm I have came from the used market but it's good. In my experience, Fujinon lenses tend to not have much variability regarding quality control, various times I bought the same lens new and used (the eternal switching systems) and the quality has been the quite uniform, unlike some Olympus lenses I got that are all over the place (a 14-150mm I got new was much worse than the 14-150mm I have now that is used, and I will not even elaborate about the QC disaster that is the 17mm f/1.8).
Of course, coming from the used market who knows what that particular copy has been trough. And for the price of the lens used, I'm not sure it's worth sending it to repair vs getting another one.
p.1 #19 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
I will check if firmware is up to date.
I could send the lens to service, since another used lens would be about $380 and repair should cost no more than $250. But who knows, maybe it's defective and cannot be repaired.
And of course, there's no fuji sercvice in my country, I would have to send it to Poland
p.1 #20 · Do I have a bad copy of Fuji 18-55mm f2.8-4?
You could also just sell the lens and buy a new one.
Or you could just accept the lens for what it is and go out and enjoy shooting with it. I don't mean that to be rude, but you also have to think about how much time you're spending (wasting?) doing lens tests when you could be out there creating.
Some people have a really high opinion of themselves, don’t they? Anyway, I encourage you to try tweaking your post-processing and see what kind of results you get. Like I said before, it may not help at all. If you’re coming from a 5DIII with high quality lenses then you might notice a degradation in image quality here, especially in details. The 5DIII is an older camera but its sensor is larger and better than the XT1. Plus the 18-55 lens is high quality but it’s not on par with the best lenses from Canon (or even the best lenses from Fuji). 
Or it's the OIS making weird stuff, once again be sure the FW is up-to-date (sorry to keep repeating this but you didn't mention if it is).
(a 14-150mm I got new was much worse than the 14-150mm I have now that is used, and I will not even elaborate about the QC disaster that is the 17mm f/1.8).