Yes. I didn't have the issue after the repair.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
18-55mm kit lens
- Thread starter jor23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fujifilm x-t20
Apa Macam
Leading Member
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 512
This sounds like something is wrong with the lens. It might be damaged from drops of mistreatment of some kind. I will sell it if I were you.
I have 18-55 on an XT20 as well, Mine fit very securely and I get plenty sharp photos even at wide open at both FL and Aperture (18mm f2.8). I was already impressed with it the first time I came across this lens back in 2013 on an XE1 (belongs to a friend), but I'm even more impressed now, even since I own it myself.
Last edited:
I went to the same flower to take a few more shots. Took my Sony, but forgot its battery... silly me.
But here are a few more shots with the 18-55mm at 55m F4 and F5.6. The pictures sharpen up at F5.6.
At F4, a couple were sharper than the others. This makes me think it's the focus that's not very reliable? There was no wind and I have the shutter speed at 1/500, OIS on.
Also took the 18-135mm that I still have. Tried to set it to 55mm, but it turned out to be 50mm. At F5.6, it's pretty much the same as the 18-55mm.
Maybe this is just a less than stellar copy of the 18-55mm. I will post some pictures of the Sony if it stops raining here soon...
But here are a few more shots with the 18-55mm at 55m F4 and F5.6. The pictures sharpen up at F5.6.
At F4, a couple were sharper than the others. This makes me think it's the focus that's not very reliable? There was no wind and I have the shutter speed at 1/500, OIS on.
Also took the 18-135mm that I still have. Tried to set it to 55mm, but it turned out to be 50mm. At F5.6, it's pretty much the same as the 18-55mm.
Maybe this is just a less than stellar copy of the 18-55mm. I will post some pictures of the Sony if it stops raining here soon...
5
57even
Guest
Lenses are not always very resilient to bad treatment. I think my first one fell off the delivery truck. My second one was impressive.
Most people find the 18-55 weakest at the long end, which is the case with most standard zooms.
At 18mm at wider apertures it is actually sharp, even in the edges, but has field curvature.
When tests account for field curvature (by focusing the lens again when testing the corners) they report very good performance at the wide end wide open - as optical limits do. When they focus only in the centre (like Lenstip) they report weak edge performance at the wide end and at fast apertures.
How much field curvature matters depends on your subject. For copying artwork, very much so. For photographing people off centre when using the joystick to move the focus point - not at all.
The ois is useful, but is not up with the later Fuji lenses in effectiveness.
The build quality is normally very high for the price. Any kind of play may mean this is a dropped lens.
At 18mm at wider apertures it is actually sharp, even in the edges, but has field curvature.
When tests account for field curvature (by focusing the lens again when testing the corners) they report very good performance at the wide end wide open - as optical limits do. When they focus only in the centre (like Lenstip) they report weak edge performance at the wide end and at fast apertures.
How much field curvature matters depends on your subject. For copying artwork, very much so. For photographing people off centre when using the joystick to move the focus point - not at all.
The ois is useful, but is not up with the later Fuji lenses in effectiveness.
The build quality is normally very high for the price. Any kind of play may mean this is a dropped lens.
DocetLector
Leading Member
You must have gotten a defective lens, there is no play and strange sound on my copy, it is a very well built lens.
I still would very much like to see some photos from the Sony with the 24 - 105 mm
18 - 55 f 2,8 / 18 mm
18 - 55 f 4 / 55 mm
By the way this lens is made of metal - which plastic parts did you mean?
Here are two samples of my copy: one at f 2,8 / 28 mm and one at f 4 / 55 mm.
I still would very much like to see some photos from the Sony with the 24 - 105 mm
18 - 55 f 2,8 / 18 mm
18 - 55 f 4 / 55 mm
By the way this lens is made of metal - which plastic parts did you mean?
Here are two samples of my copy: one at f 2,8 / 28 mm and one at f 4 / 55 mm.
Last edited:
K
KeepCalm
Guest
I do have a rather jaundiced view on this but not entirely without reason and it is probably a phenomenon called Sony fatigue by someone else on the site. It probably results more for me from being worn down by experiences on the compact forums hearing endlessly how fantastically soft Canon lenses are, the Panasonic stuff gets a similar trashing, compared with the wonderful RX cameras which are put forward as pretty much perfect in every way. The term wonderful has actually been used recently in the Panasonic forum with the routine trashing of the TZ100 and TZ200.
Your idea that Sony are better only in some ways would be met with complete disapproval by some people on the site.
Insecure probably but on the forums it is difficult not to get the feeling it is mainly Sony users saying how dreadful your kit is to an extent not found with other brand users.
i have owned an 18-55 and it is an excellent lens and this analysis on a secondhand example is just a lot of nonsense.
Just FYI, they don’t correct for field curvature.
Vic Chapman
Forum Pro
I tried a series of semi-controlled tests. cameras on tripod. shots with 2-sec timer. OIS off.
Batteris test... sony files are bigger, because of the higher MP.
Leses
- 18-55mm
- 18-135mm
- 23mm f2
- Sony 35mm f1.4
- Sony 16-35 GM f2.8
- Sony 24-105 G f4
The GM is surprisingly soft at 35mm f2.8 ... and 23mm f2 is just not good wide open. maybe the target was too close? it's horrible.
Too much to upload full-sized images. All are 1:1 crop at the center.
At 18mm, about 28mm FF equivalent
Batteris test... sony files are bigger, because of the higher MP.
Leses
- 18-55mm
- 18-135mm
- 23mm f2
- Sony 35mm f1.4
- Sony 16-35 GM f2.8
- Sony 24-105 G f4
The GM is surprisingly soft at 35mm f2.8 ... and 23mm f2 is just not good wide open. maybe the target was too close? it's horrible.
Too much to upload full-sized images. All are 1:1 crop at the center.
At 18mm, about 28mm FF equivalent
My conclusion is that, for this copy of 18-55mm that I have, the center sharpness is not stellar wide open at 55mm. It should be sufficient, if not pixel peeping 
Definitely sharpens up if close down a bit.
The 23mm F2 is horrible at close focus wide open. Haze, fuzzy, blurry, whatever you want to call it. It's not sharp.
Definitely sharpens up if close down a bit.The 23mm F2 is horrible at close focus wide open. Haze, fuzzy, blurry, whatever you want to call it. It's not sharp.
I think there is an issue with your lens, but It's worth noting that the battery (or any text, even relatively small text) is not a very good test of lens resolution. It is more a test of acutance or edge sharpness, since it is actually rather coarse detail in photographic terms. Something with texture such as a woven fabric (or a plant leaf, for that matter) is a better target as it includes coarse and fine detail.
Lens test charts include coarse and fine detail by design, naturally.
Lens test charts include coarse and fine detail by design, naturally.
DocetLector
Leading Member
I would never accept the poor performance of this 18 - 55.
About the 23/2,0 : it`s a well known issue that this lens is not sharp at real close distance and wide open. But when does one want to take a photo at real close distance wide open? Outside this spectrum this lens is a very good performer.
About the 23/2,0 : it`s a well known issue that this lens is not sharp at real close distance and wide open. But when does one want to take a photo at real close distance wide open? Outside this spectrum this lens is a very good performer.
5
57even
Guest
It is completely unacceptable in IMO.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum