You certainly could do that, Bob, however, I might suggest that your time and deep expertise in this area is probably better spent with people who genuinely want help rather than those wanting to waste everyone's time simply arguing points.
Hi Jerry and yes, I got that impression too and that is why I qualified my response with "truly interested".
What a cheeky answer.
The comments in my original response are based on viewing and analysing the one sample photo provided. As that is the only direct evidence offered in support of your claim that some combination of the camera, lens or image processing software is producing flawed images, it just made sense to me to go back to the original image and see for myself if any of those problems are indicated. You know where I stand on that question.
I agree Bill and some very nice images. The 18-55 punches well above it's weight class IMHO.The comments in my original response are based on viewing and analysing the one sample photo provided. As that is the only direct evidence offered in support of your claim that some combination of the camera, lens or image processing software is producing flawed images, it just made sense to me to go back to the original image and see for myself if any of those problems are indicated. You know where I stand on that question.
I've been shooting with an X-T20 and 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS since April 2017. Here, are a few samples:
Establishing DOF of test images is, of course, essential to evaluating the sharpness of a lens. If an element in a composition lies outside the range within which objects should appear to be in focus, that element cannot be used as a measure of critical sharpness or resolution of the lens.
My guesstimate on your distance from the flower where focus was set was an educated guess based on the angle of view at 55mm, the subject and the location of the focal plane in the photograph. If you were substantially farther than 10-feet from the flower that served as the focal point, what was the distance? With that, the focal length, f-stop and sensor format, it's easy to use an online DOF calculator to determine the actual depth of field.
With respect to the 18-55mm, it's a fine lens. It's also far from the best lens Fuji makes. My copy shows fairly obvious (viewed at 100%) softness at the sides and corners. The crop you made and attached with your first post was taken from the far left side of the image. It shows the kind and degree of softness I'm used to seeing. I called afternoon to that in my initial response.
As for the bokeh (the quality of defocused blur) in the one sample image provided, it's not at all unlike what I've seen in images made with my copy of the 18-55 and in other lenses I own. Whether or not you agree with my interpretation of what factors are the cause of that bokeh, the bottom line point I would make is that under more favorable conditions and in a composition that maximizes a lens' ability to create separation, the resulting bokeh can be much more pleasing.
I (and others) have suggested simple setups you could photograph to better understand the optical characteristics of your new camera and lens. I suggested a setup I have use with just about every lens or digital camera I've owned. It's an excuse to make some photos with new kit and the resulting images are actually informative.
The one observation I'll make about your response, is that I'm surprised by it. Personally, I'd be relieved to hear even one experienced photographer say a camera or lens I had concerns about was actually performing to spec. I'd be all over doing some simple followup testing to confirm (or refute) that. You seem seem deeply invested in wanting your new gear to be flawed. That I don't get.
"he one observation I'll make about your response, is that I'm surprised by it. Personally, I'd be relieved to hear even one experienced photographer say a camera or lens I had concerns about was actually performing to spec. I'd be all over doing some simple followup testing to confirm (or refute) that. You seem seem deeply invested in wanting your new gear to be flawed. That I don't get."The comments in my original response are based on viewing and analysing the one sample photo provided. As that is the only direct evidence offered in support of your claim that some combination of the camera, lens or image processing software is producing flawed images, it just made sense to me to go back to the original image and see for myself if any of those problems are indicated. You know where I stand on that question.
I've been shooting with an X-T20 and 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS since April 2017. Here, are a few samples:
Establishing DOF of test images is, of course, essential to evaluating the sharpness of a lens. If an element in a composition lies outside the range within which objects should appear to be in focus, that element cannot be used as a measure of critical sharpness or resolution of the lens.
My guesstimate on your distance from the flower where focus was set was an educated guess based on the angle of view at 55mm, the subject and the location of the focal plane in the photograph. If you were substantially farther than 10-feet from the flower that served as the focal point, what was the distance? With that, the focal length, f-stop and sensor format, it's easy to use an online DOF calculator to determine the actual depth of field.
With respect to the 18-55mm, it's a fine lens. It's also far from the best lens Fuji makes. My copy shows fairly obvious (viewed at 100%) softness at the sides and corners. The crop you made and attached with your first post was taken from the far left side of the image. It shows the kind and degree of softness I'm used to seeing. I called afternoon to that in my initial response.
As for the bokeh (the quality of defocused blur) in the one sample image provided, it's not at all unlike what I've seen in images made with my copy of the 18-55 and in other lenses I own. Whether or not you agree with my interpretation of what factors are the cause of that bokeh, the bottom line point I would make is that under more favorable conditions and in a composition that maximizes a lens' ability to create separation, the resulting bokeh can be much more pleasing.
I (and others) have suggested simple setups you could photograph to better understand the optical characteristics of your new camera and lens. I suggested a setup I have use with just about every lens or digital camera I've owned. It's an excuse to make some photos with new kit and the resulting images are actually informative.
The one observation I'll make about your response, is that I'm surprised by it. Personally, I'd be relieved to hear even one experienced photographer say a camera or lens I had concerns about was actually performing to spec. I'd be all over doing some simple followup testing to confirm (or refute) that. You seem seem deeply invested in wanting your new gear to be flawed. That I don't get.
Your sample shows how the "bokeh" is rather nervous in such a photo at f 5,6 Nothing else can be said - if you do not seriously take a photo that shows if there is really a problem like some lens element misaligned /descenter or something else
I've only shot Fuji for the past 4 years and the problems experienced (and therefore lack of confidence and suspicions) was with Canon and especially their L zooms. Canon's upped their QC in recent years but in the film and early digital era it seemed at times non-existent.
Thanks for your generous offer Bob!
Hmm, there seem to be people here who find it rude to refer people to the original post, so I'll repeat if for you ;-)
Do tell us what you dislike about this one sample image
I guess I missed the part about a different lens. Well, send in the whole kit and be done with it since you can’t rent one for some reason.
Thanks for your generous offer Bob!
As Jerry says - I'm indeed not truly interested. But not because of why Jerry thinks ;-)
I have tested lenses since years. See below one of the charts I used back then, now laying around in the basement. Obviously nobody here can know this. I didn't consider it important and also, as experience shows, people tend not to read the entire post.
There are two reasons why I'm not interested:
- I'm kind of over it. I know about the huge deviation especially zoom lenses have. So I don't want to waste my time. I trust that I'd discover a truly faulty lens without photographing brick walls or charts. Anything else just drives me mad, thinking I might have a bad copy. It was also this forum here which tought me to better go out and take pictures. (Jerry as Mod, if he hadn't blocked me, might have been able to check how long I'm member of this forum. It must be well over 10 years)
- seriously - all I wanted was, to find out if the issue is a general one. This is what forums are about, so manufacturers can't say any longer "whow, this is the first time one ever had this problem". I imagined simple yes or no answers.
I switched to Fuji recently after years of Canon D-SLRs, crop and FF (EOS 6D on sale right now). I think the Fuji 18-55 is comparable in quality to the Canon 24-105 f4 L, but even with much worse lenses like the EF-S 17-85mm 4.0–5.6 IS USM I have never seen anything close to this Fuji "bokeh". At no aperture, no distance and at no shooting situation.
I have to confess I under estimated the people's motivation to discuss possible capturing issues with my example picture. It was simply not meant for that. At a certain point of this thread I started looking for better examples, but at each picture I found many potential for discussions.
Now I think this thread is at a stage where posting further pictures wouldn't make much sense. My bad maybe. Maybe some are just too sensitive. Who knows.
Thanks for your offer anyway ;-)
reach
It’s true that the 18-55 isn’t known for bokeh but I’m sorry, the picture is definitely without a doubt NOT “normal” for that lens. Maybe you had a bad copy.Bokeh on Fuji's 18-55 (and 55-200, just to warn you) is not good. It's nervous and is of "onion ring" type. In some situatios bokeh is acceptable and in others it's annoying. I also have this lens and your photo is "normal" for this lens, unfortunately. In my opinion, 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are overrated. Yes, they are sharp and contrasty, well corrected for optical abberations but with a cost in bokeh department. For example, I'd rate Nikon's kit lens (18-55 or older 18-70) better than Fuji's. Not so sharp but bokeh is better.Thanks for your generous offer Bob!
As Jerry says - I'm indeed not truly interested. But not because of why Jerry thinks ;-)
I have tested lenses since years. See below one of the charts I used back then, now laying around in the basement. Obviously nobody here can know this. I didn't consider it important and also, as experience shows, people tend not to read the entire post.
There are two reasons why I'm not interested:
- I'm kind of over it. I know about the huge deviation especially zoom lenses have. So I don't want to waste my time. I trust that I'd discover a truly faulty lens without photographing brick walls or charts. Anything else just drives me mad, thinking I might have a bad copy. It was also this forum here which tought me to better go out and take pictures. (Jerry as Mod, if he hadn't blocked me, might have been able to check how long I'm member of this forum. It must be well over 10 years)
- seriously - all I wanted was, to find out if the issue is a general one. This is what forums are about, so manufacturers can't say any longer "whow, this is the first time one ever had this problem". I imagined simple yes or no answers.
I switched to Fuji recently after years of Canon D-SLRs, crop and FF (EOS 6D on sale right now). I think the Fuji 18-55 is comparable in quality to the Canon 24-105 f4 L, but even with much worse lenses like the EF-S 17-85mm 4.0–5.6 IS USM I have never seen anything close to this Fuji "bokeh". At no aperture, no distance and at no shooting situation.
I have to confess I under estimated the people's motivation to discuss possible capturing issues with my example picture. It was simply not meant for that. At a certain point of this thread I started looking for better examples, but at each picture I found many potential for discussions.
Now I think this thread is at a stage where posting further pictures wouldn't make much sense. My bad maybe. Maybe some are just too sensitive. Who knows.
Thanks for your offer anyway ;-)
reach
Fuji's top of the range lenses are primes - try 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, 90 2.0 and you will get everything perfect - sharpness & bokeh.
I totally agree with you and I too had the Fuji 18-55. I have no idea who would buy that lens specifically for great bokeh resultsBokeh on Fuji's 18-55 (and 55-200, just to warn you) is not good. It's nervous and is of "onion ring" type. In some situatios bokeh is acceptable and in others it's annoying. I also have this lens and your photo is "normal" for this lens, unfortunately. In my opinion, 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are overrated. Yes, they are sharp and contrasty, well corrected for optical abberations but with a cost in bokeh department. For example, I'd rate Nikon's kit lens (18-55 or older 18-70) better than Fuji's. Not so sharp but bokeh is better.Thanks for your generous offer Bob!
As Jerry says - I'm indeed not truly interested. But not because of why Jerry thinks ;-)
I have tested lenses since years. See below one of the charts I used back then, now laying around in the basement. Obviously nobody here can know this. I didn't consider it important and also, as experience shows, people tend not to read the entire post.
There are two reasons why I'm not interested:
- I'm kind of over it. I know about the huge deviation especially zoom lenses have. So I don't want to waste my time. I trust that I'd discover a truly faulty lens without photographing brick walls or charts. Anything else just drives me mad, thinking I might have a bad copy. It was also this forum here which tought me to better go out and take pictures. (Jerry as Mod, if he hadn't blocked me, might have been able to check how long I'm member of this forum. It must be well over 10 years)
- seriously - all I wanted was, to find out if the issue is a general one. This is what forums are about, so manufacturers can't say any longer "whow, this is the first time one ever had this problem". I imagined simple yes or no answers.
I switched to Fuji recently after years of Canon D-SLRs, crop and FF (EOS 6D on sale right now). I think the Fuji 18-55 is comparable in quality to the Canon 24-105 f4 L, but even with much worse lenses like the EF-S 17-85mm 4.0–5.6 IS USM I have never seen anything close to this Fuji "bokeh". At no aperture, no distance and at no shooting situation.
I have to confess I under estimated the people's motivation to discuss possible capturing issues with my example picture. It was simply not meant for that. At a certain point of this thread I started looking for better examples, but at each picture I found many potential for discussions.
Now I think this thread is at a stage where posting further pictures wouldn't make much sense. My bad maybe. Maybe some are just too sensitive. Who knows.
Thanks for your offer anyway ;-)
reach
don't get me wrong, if there is absolutely nothing or very little distraction on the background the 18-55 will look beautiful clean results but the example the OP provided originally is just terrible and way too many variables to pin point the "problem". No one that understands photography buys f4 or variable aperture zoom lenses for their oof rendering. A good example was the Canon 70-200f4LIS which I owned and shot with extensively. The lens had a very unpleasant oof rendering under certain circumstances but was regarded as being sharp as a tack. It also was soft at it's minimum focus distance but those were tradeoffs the designers chose to make.Bokeh on Fuji's 18-55 (and 55-200, just to warn you) is not good. It's nervous and is of "onion ring" type. In some situatios bokeh is acceptable and in others it's annoying. I also have this lens and your photo is "normal" for this lens, unfortunately. In my opinion, 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are overrated. Yes, they are sharp and contrasty, well corrected for optical abberations but with a cost in bokeh department. For example, I'd rate Nikon's kit lens (18-55 or older 18-70) better than Fuji's. Not so sharp but bokeh is better.Thanks for your generous offer Bob!
As Jerry says - I'm indeed not truly interested. But not because of why Jerry thinks ;-)
I have tested lenses since years. See below one of the charts I used back then, now laying around in the basement. Obviously nobody here can know this. I didn't consider it important and also, as experience shows, people tend not to read the entire post.
There are two reasons why I'm not interested:
- I'm kind of over it. I know about the huge deviation especially zoom lenses have. So I don't want to waste my time. I trust that I'd discover a truly faulty lens without photographing brick walls or charts. Anything else just drives me mad, thinking I might have a bad copy. It was also this forum here which tought me to better go out and take pictures. (Jerry as Mod, if he hadn't blocked me, might have been able to check how long I'm member of this forum. It must be well over 10 years)
- seriously - all I wanted was, to find out if the issue is a general one. This is what forums are about, so manufacturers can't say any longer "whow, this is the first time one ever had this problem". I imagined simple yes or no answers.
I switched to Fuji recently after years of Canon D-SLRs, crop and FF (EOS 6D on sale right now). I think the Fuji 18-55 is comparable in quality to the Canon 24-105 f4 L, but even with much worse lenses like the EF-S 17-85mm 4.0–5.6 IS USM I have never seen anything close to this Fuji "bokeh". At no aperture, no distance and at no shooting situation.
I have to confess I under estimated the people's motivation to discuss possible capturing issues with my example picture. It was simply not meant for that. At a certain point of this thread I started looking for better examples, but at each picture I found many potential for discussions.
Now I think this thread is at a stage where posting further pictures wouldn't make much sense. My bad maybe. Maybe some are just too sensitive. Who knows.
Thanks for your offer anyway ;-)
reach
Fuji's top of the range lenses are primes - try 16 1.4, 23 1.4, 35 1.4, 56 1.2, 90 2.0 and you will get everything perfect - sharpness & bokeh.
