My Least Favorite XF Lens

Jerry-astro wrote:

yokken wrote:

Man there are a lot of superlatives being thrown around in here.

No way no how is the 18-55 a 5 out of 5 lens. It is maybe a 3.5 out of 5, or 4 out of 5 at best if yours is an ideal sample. Mine produces good results when I use it, but I prefer the IQ of primes whenever possible. It is quite a versatile lens. As Benjamin points out, it is perfectly capable and perhaps even ideal for some professional situations (the OIS is a huge boon).

Anyone who thinks it is a 5 out of 5 lens is kidding themselves and misleading folks who read these types of threads and don't know any better. Maybe it's 5 out of 5 if you've never used anything else... lol.

If what you get looks good to you, great, I'm happy for you. Keep shooting and keep sharing. But don't go spreading false statements like "it's a 5 out of 5 lens" just because your standards are low and you don't care to analyze things objectively, and don't attack or insult those who disagree, and want to actually want to get into details. Those people are still photographers, and I daresay they care more than you about getting a good-looking image, both IQ-wise and composition-wise, which is why they (and I) talk at length about the strengths and weaknesses of gear.

You just can't criticize anything these days. You'll hurt someone's feelings.

You’re free to share your own views here and disagree as to its ranking as a lens. It’s my opinion that you are NOT free to simply declare that something you disagree with here is a “false statement” without backing that with data and examples. If you don’t think it’s a “5 out of 5 lens,” great. You’re welcome to your opinion and to share real examples and data that back your assertion. But I’d strongly suggest you not characterize others’ opinions as “false statements” just because their opinions don’t happen to jive with yours without providing some concrete data.

Frankly, I’d see your post as more of an “attack” than many of the other comments here, so please do take a long look in the mirror before posting a long lecture and advice that you yourself don’t really conform to.

That's fair, Jerry. All of the photos I have would support my backing of it as a 3.5 or 4 but I don't have tons of examples lying around that show exactly why it's not a 5. I guess if it displays lateral CA at all it's not a 5? I can go take some photos right now that show it if that would help.

Here is a Dropbox folder with some sample images, all edited except for the RAF. Overall the lens is very capable as I have said many times in this thread. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a569n3l2el2pus3/AADJ1-d3wPlQXQm0SJbDj0Jva?dl=0

Here is a screenshot of the lower left corner with no edits and CA correction disabled in LR. If one considers lateral CA to be data that contradicts with categorizing a lens' performance as 5 out of 5, then here's some data.

Note that this was taken at 55mm, ISO200, f/6.4.

And here is a crop with automatic CA correction enabled.

Anyone else want to contribute data that suggests/proves that the lens is not a 5 out of 5? That it is not one of Fuji's best lenses?