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

norjens wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

Here are a couple more photos, one manual focused using 100% magnification on the camera LCD and focus peaking, vs AF. You will find that both methods are yielding the same result.

AF

MF

Also some closer shots, also yielding same result regardless of AF or MF. This one I compared f/2.8 to f/8.

f/8

f/2.8

A couple of questions...

Where is the focus point in the landscape shots? They still look crappy to me.

Are these SOOC jpegs or RAW conversions?

If they are from RAWs, what software are you using, and what processing has been applied?

From the context of the conversation here previously, I'd guess he focused on the trees. Regardless of exactly where it was focus, he states that it was manually focused at 100%, so it should be sharp somewhere. Clearly it is not, and no raw converter can do such damage to a file as we see here.

@OP: These are good samples, I think we can conclude from these that there probably isn't any other issue than the lens that is causing these results. It doesn't exactly look like softness, it almost seems more like some form of reverse coma (which isn't a thing, but that's what it looks like). I see a bit of it in my copy as well, but nothing like the amount seen here.

I agree, I don't think mine could look that bad at f/2.8 no matter where I focused it. Looks like it might be even worse on the right side in the landscape shots.

OP, my 16-55 is very sharp at all apertures and focal lengths. It's best at the wide end, but still very, very good at the long end - yours should be too. Send it back.