Fuji 45mm GF vs 32-64 @ 45mm

I thought that I was seeing a little bit of softness in my 32-64 in the middle of the zoom range. So, I wanted to test it against my 45mm prime to see how big the difference was.

Here are the lenses side by side at F/4 in the center of the frame at 300% magnification. Zoom on the left, prime on the right.



View: original size

Prime is clearly better, but the zoom is still very good.

F/4 at the edge:



View: original size

Difference is more pronounced here.

Stopped down to F8 in the center:



View: original size

Pretty close now, though the prime is still a hair sharper and more contrasty.

Edge:



View: original size

The zoom still has a touch of softness at the edge. Prime has sharpened up nicely.

By F11 diffraction had equalized things in the center, and the prime still held a slight advantage on the edge of the frame.

The softness I thought I saw in the zoom is much less than originally feared. This is a fantastic performance. I still think that the zoom is a touch softer in the center of the zoom range than the extremes, but not in a way that I would ever hesitate to use it. Its also clearly a bit softer than the prime, but that isn't at surprise. The zoom is still sharper than many of the primes I used on my old full frame system.

--
Stay Calm and Carry Cameras

At roughly what percentage are we looking at this at? 200% or so?

Also how far is the edge? Right on the edge of the image?

Thanks for comparison

JT26 said:

At roughly what percentage are we looking at this at? 200% or so?

Also how far is the edge? Right on the edge of the image?

Thanks for comparison

Click to expand...

Crops are taken at 300% to best view the differences between the lenses. The edge crop is take from the extreme edge of the image, but no the corner. Just directly left of center.

Best zoom I've ever owned/shot with - some prime manufacturers would kill for this IQ

Chris Dodkin said:

Best zoom I've ever owned/shot with - some prime manufacturers would kill for this IQ

Click to expand...

I had sworn off zooms until this one.

Great job. I do this kind of thing all the time for fun. I did it all the time with Fuji XF lenses - comparing the excellent F2.8 zooms (8-16, 16-55 and 50-140) to the Fuji XF 16, 23, 35, 50, 56, 60, 80 and 90 primes.

There is no way it was scientific, but I think I set the shots up well enough (on a tripod and into a scene with a lot of across the frame detail) to make it interesting.

I posted a lot of those results from informal (for fun) comparison shoots over the years. Of course, it sets you up for all kinds of negative comments and attacks, but as long as you don't make dramatic claims or say that your test was conclusive, and admit that there are a lot of variables and that it is not a lab bench test, people appreciate the effort.

About three months ago I went up on the condo roof and shot the skyline of downtown San Antonio with trees in the foreground. I took multiple shots at 45 with both lenses using multiple apertures and over and underexposed. I did it several times in varying lighting conditions. Well … three times.

I then pixel peeped the Hell out of those images and my conclusion to myself (I did not post this) was that the 45 and 32-64 were so close that I could not tell the difference except in a couple of shots in the far corners (but even that was close and I wasn't sure).

That proves nothing publicly. But to me it continued to prove that the 32-64 is the best zoom lens I have ever used. It is incredible. And I have had a lot of great zooms in my days of insatiable craving for lenses. I mean my horrible addiction to lenses....

My name is Greg. I am a lensaholic...

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

I tested my 45mm and 33-64mm. Lenses.

At 5.6 my 45mm. Is sharper than my 32-64mm.

At 45mm f10.

Maybe 5-10%.

Those are the best apertures for both.

Mike P

Greg7579 said:

Great job. I do this kind of thing all the time for fun. I did it all the time with Fuji XF lenses - comparing the excellent F2.8 zooms (8-16, 16-55 and 50-140) to the Fuji XF 16, 23, 35, 50, 56, 60, 80 and 90 primes.

There is no way it was scientific, but I think I set the shots up well enough (on a tripod and into a scene with a lot of across the frame detail) to make it interesting.

I posted a lot of those results from informal (for fun) comparison shoots over the years. Of course, it sets you up for all kinds of negative comments and attacks, but as long as you don't make dramatic claims or say that your test was conclusive, and admit that there are a lot of variables and that it is not a lab bench test, people appreciate the effort.

About three months ago I went up on the condo roof and shot the skyline of downtown San Antonio with trees in the foreground. I took multiple shots at 45 with both lenses using multiple apertures and over and underexposed. I did it several times in varying lighting conditions. Well … three times.

I then pixel peeped the Hell out of those images and my conclusion to myself (I did not post this) was that the 45 and 32-64 were so close that I could not tell the difference except in a couple of shots in the far corners (but even that was close and I wasn't sure).

That proves nothing publicly. But to me it continued to prove that the 32-64 is the best zoom lens I have ever used. It is incredible. And I have had a lot of great zooms in my days of insatiable craving for lenses. I mean my horrible addiction to lenses....

Click to expand...

sounds like I made a good investment, thanks for confirming this!

Greg7579 said:

My name is Greg. I am a lensaholic...

Click to expand...

i totally get this

Greg7579 said:

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

I remember reading a review of the 32-64 before I bought it (on a french website that I can't find now), just after the GFX was launched. It compared the same test scene shot at the wide, mid and long end of the zoom, centre, edge and corner samples given, along with a comparison to the 63mm prime.

The zoom's wide and long end were superlative (the long end being only a whisker under the performance of the 63mm), with the mid being slightly softer at the edges - so this if there was a slight 'weak point' was it - the edges of the mid range.

On that review alone, I purchased the zoom and now it's 99% welded to my GFX, the best lens I've ever used. In fact most shots I take with it are under 40mm, then the others at 64mm.

For the most part it's too sharp. I'm constantly running into colour moire artefact issues around contrasty edges - and I don't always want to stop-down beyond f11 to minimise them (though ACR Color NR bumped up to 50 helps - at a cost to colour detail elsewhere).

Hamiltionian said:

I still think that the zoom is a touch softer in the center of the zoom range than the extremes, but not in a way that I would ever hesitate to use it. Its also clearly a bit softer than the prime, but that isn't at surprise. The zoom is still sharper than many of the primes I used on my old full frame system.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. I still haven't used the 32-64 nearly as much as it deserves, but I quickly found that the 45mm range was weakest near the edges and wondered if it were just my expectations given the praise. For me zoom work is run-and-gun on sub-FF systems (my m43 zooms tend to be highly uniform across focal length and aperture ranges) and prior to the 50R I hadn't shot a standard zoom with a high MP body before. My landscape style shooting to print (large) typically hinges on attaining deep DOF with foreground/background interest so slavish use of tripod-based tilt-shift lens work has colored my expectations.

left eye said:

I remember reading a review of the 32-64 before I bought it (on a french website that I can't find now), just after the GFX was launched. It compared the same test scene shot at the wide, mid and long end of the zoom, centre, edge and corner samples given, along with a comparison to the 63mm prime.

The zoom's wide and long end were superlative (the long end being only a whisker under the performance of the 63mm), with the mid being slightly softer at the edges - so this if there was a slight 'weak point' was it - the edges of the mid range.

On that review alone, I purchased the zoom and now it's 99% welded to my GFX, the best lens I've ever used. In fact most shots I take with it are under 40mm, then the others at 64mm.

For the most part it's too sharp. I'm constantly running into colour moire artefact issues around contrasty edges - and I don't always want to stop-down beyond f11 to minimise them (though ACR Color NR bumped up to 50 helps - at a cost to colour detail elsewhere).

Click to expand...

I almost always seem to use it at the wide or long end. I shoot it at 32 or 64 a lot. But I do that with zooms. It seems like I either need all the reach it has or all the width. The 100-200 for sure. I almost always shoot it at 100 or 200.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas

When does diffraction become an issue on the 44x33 sensor size?

Tom Ames said:

When does diffraction become an issue on the 44x33 sensor size?

Click to expand...

Depends on the pixel count. For the 50MP of the GFX 50s, the effects of diffraction usually become noticeable around F/11. F/8 shows a tiny amount of diffraction softening. F/16 is still quite usable, especially with some deconvolution sharpening.

Gonna take your word for it Ordered the 32-64 mm, will trade in my 64mm and get this one. And then, I will wait for the 45-100mm. Retaining 45mm for it's aperture and my low light portrait needs.