XF 16-55mm - Do I have a bad copy?

canetsbe wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

norjens wrote:

It does look bad, and at f/8 as well.

However, I suspect this is simply an issue of incorrect 'depth of field' (dof). You are focusing on infinity, but that's not where the subject is; nothing is going to be really sharp at 55mm when you are focusing so far past it.

Do you have a sample shot we can evaluate where you have focus set to where the subject is?

It's definitely not a DOF thing. I have other lenses that are perfectly sharp focused at infinity.

At 55mm? Focus on the subject, not infinity. The lens may indeed me wonky, but you should try focusing properly and reevaluate. .

Sure. I own plenty of other cameras and have experience with other systems and this has never been a problem. The subject is effectively at infinity; those hills in the distance are miles away, yet are blurry. The trees are hundreds of yards away and according to the AF system, they are in focus.

According to the AF system? i agree that your distant hills should appear sharper at infinity, but wherever your focus point is should be critically sharp, everywhere else will be less sharp. If you want both the foreground and infinity to appear equally in focus, you should be focusing at the hyperfocal distance or twice the distance of the closest feature you want to appear in focus, not infinity. I agree, however, that your images look very soft and that your lens may very likely be subpar. I have very few images at 55mm and f/2.8 at that distance, but this one was shot at 1/80" from a moving boat and even with the camera shake, it's still significantly sharper than what you're getting out of your lens. I would definitely send it back. The 16-55 is a super lens, it won't be as sharp at f/2.8 as it is at f/5.6, but it really should be very good at all focal lengths and apertures,

Your lens should be plenty sharp at 55mm and f/2.8 for this kind of thing...

I totally get what you're saying. It's true! And even other close-up shots aren't as sharp as the second photo you sent at f/2.8. And your ship photo is pretty dang good for f/2.8/ I will be sending it back to Fujifilm again.

It probably helps to add some test results, for instance with manual focus on the two trees and  at infinity shots at a different focal length and/or intermediate aperture