Fujifilm 50-230mm - both versions

Montanawildlives wrote:

Vic Chapman wrote:

JNR wrote:

Well, what exactly is the definition of optically substandard?

We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230. No one expects it to perform close to the 50-140+tc given the pricing, weight and size difference. However, they would be considered quite similar in quality compared to a Pentax 645z coupled with a 600 f/5.6 - which would be a quantum leap in optical quality. (I'd use the Fuji example, but they don't yet have a comparable, truly long lens in the medium format arsenal.)

JNR

You have just proved my point. "We can all agree that that an Apple iPhone is substandard compared to the 50-230." You're just drawing the line to different standard.

I'm not arguing with the fact that the 50-230mm is for its price/weight/size, a good alternative. What I am arguing is users saying it is pixel peeping to view images at full size. I repeat, I personally have yet to see a really sharp picture from the long end of this lens in spite of users posting pictures purporting to show sharpness.

There are respected members on this forum who own both 50-230 and 55-200. That shows the usefulness of the XC lens when traveling but also shows that the XF lens is enough better to own for use when weight is not such a problem.

My real argument is with the pixel peeping remark that finds it acceptable to view at half size as a means of making the lens "better" - yet the same person can't wait to buy a new body with more pixels - which is nonsensical.

I'll ask you this - do you agree with the generally accepted wisdom that good lenses beat a good body and that systems are built on the quality of the lenses? That is where the distinction comes in.

Not everyone can afford the best lenses and Fuji serve that camp too. I can't afford new lenses either, I save hard and buy used lenses and bodies. I learned a long time ago that buying second best quality only leaves one dissatisfied and means buying twice. That's one reason I try to make the point when members are asking advice on gear.

Vic

I doubt you'll be convinced (one can always find fault at SOME level of magnification), but I'm pretty sure everyone else here will say "yep, that's the kind of sharpness I've seen." This is a SOOC jpeg of a dandelion--probably had sharpening at +1 and NR at -1 (usually do). Shot on the Xt-1 (ahem) at f13 to get decent depth of field. SS speed 1/150 at 230mm.

As I noted before, on my 25" QHD (2560 x 1440) monitor, this photo, viewed at 100%, is about 2 monitors high and 2 monitors wide--about 50" on the diagonal, far larger than I would ever consider printing.

Some of us have abandoned pixel peeping because it can be worse than pointless. The problem with viewing and judging a picture at a level of magnification far greater than you would ever print is that you may do something like correct for noise that is only visible at 100%--reducing perceived sharpness at the printing size. Pixel peeping and adjusting a picture based on what you see at 100% can hurt your prints.

I recently bought the xh1, partially for the 24MP sensor. I did test shots and sure enough, I could see that the pics were sharper than those from my xt1 when pixel peeping. Then I had two identical pictures from the two cameras printed at 16x20" and could not see ANY difference (I literally lost track of which was which and could not figure it out). I returned the xh1 and decided not to waste my time pixel peeping or my money buying equipment so that I could feel better when sitting at my computer.

Anyway, if one isn't getting sharp pictures with this lens, even at it's worst focal length (like most telephoto zooms--including the 55-200 and 50-140, the long end is the weakest), then one is doing something wrong.

So it's shot at f13 for DoF is it. Are you sure it's not because the lens is far less than sterling wide open at its mediocre max f6.3? I often hear the argument that it the lens is fine once you stop it down a bit. That is just as bad as saying view at half size. Limited in max aperture to begin with and then close down - but avoid apertures which are too small for fear of diffraction - that leaves you what - 2 usable apertures, neither with decent separation - and then you only view at half size. Who buys a lens that can't be used wide open, especially one that is already restricted. What about cropping. I've seen wildlife shots from this lens that have been cropped - and it shows!

You can argue as much as you like but it won't alter the fact - not opinion but fact - that the 50-230 XC is limited in max aperture and indeed in usable apertures generally and in quality of output compared to it's betters.

I only intended to comment on the term "pixel peeping" which is commonly used by those who either can't take a decent picture or can't process it.

Even a shaky picture can look okay if it's downsized. I'm not saying every picture must be shown fullsize of course but neither should downsizing be used as a cop out or excuse for sloppiness.

I'll say it again the 50-140mm XC is fine if you use it within its limitations.

Vic.