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

Wezre 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?

When focused at infinity at f/2.8 and a focal length of 55mm, everything from about 160-170 feet to infinity should be acceptably sharp. The trees in the middle of the scene are definitely farther away than that.

I'm not sure where those numbers come from, but I am sure they don't work with my 16-55mm.

Nighttime, focused at 'infinity'.

Nighttime, focused manually

Daytime, focused at 'infinity'

Daytime, focus pulled a bit back from the furthest position, as some astrophotographers suggest as starting point.

Daytime, autofocused on the construction cranes.

All images shot from balcony railing, 2 second timer. The buildings on the near side of the construction cranes are ~500 meters away, while the ones on the hill behind them are at ~2000m. Are you (and OP) still sure that everything beyond 170 feet (~52 meters) should be perfectly sharp with a 55mm/2.8 = 20mm wide aperture focused to infinity?

How do we even know exactly where infinity focus on a particular lens is? Why would you set focus to infinity when you can set it to the actual distance to your subject?

OP might still have a bad copy, in fact I suspect I have a bad copy myself! But it's not going to be clear to diagnose with photos that are not focused on the subject.
---

To OP (canetsbe): Me, Rod and Erik have requested samples to evaluate that are focused on something so that defocus can be eliminated as a source. Without it, we won't be able to help determine if your copy is bad or not.