_Refraction wrote: 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.
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.
_Refraction wrote: 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.
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.
_Refraction wrote: 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.
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 their most awaited lens 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.
_Refraction wrote: 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.
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 shoot Nikon more but same thing. The bokeh of their top S glass is significantly ahead.
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.
_Refraction wrote: 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.
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 shoot Nikon more but same thing. Theo bokeh of their top S glass is significantly ahead.
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.
_Refraction wrote: 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.
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.
