Fuji GF 250mm F4 lens samples - Ice Hockey

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Tokitaro Forum Member • Posts: 84
Re: Twillight Zone - Elephant in the room
1

ikolbyi wrote:

Doppler9000 wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

JimKasson wrote:

ikolbyi wrote:

bobby350z wrote:

Looks cleaner, was the ISO much lower? (Edited, I see the exif, ISO6400). Not bad. Again a f2 or f2.8 lens is still a better option.

Correct -I was significantly able to reduce the ISO both when shooting at f4 and f5.6 with the 250mm over the 100-200mm f5.6. The 250mm @ f5.6 produced cleaner results as well, I just don't have samples at the moment as I don't have any framing I liked - update to come. The issue with the 100-200mm was at f5.6 required such high ISO to properly expose the image in comparison to both the 120mm & 250mm set to f5.6.

I do not own the 110mm to test. If I obtain that lens on-loan I will happily test it.

Are you saying that the T stop of the 100-200 was significantly different from the T stop of the 250 when both are set at f/5.6? That’s not the case with my copies of the two lenses. Maybe a tenth of a stop delta.

JimKasson - that is exactly what I have been trying to say from the prior post based on my results. I have zero explanation why. The only factors I am performing differently are: 1: higher shutter speed; 2: IS in-body is enabled, disabled in lens; 3: lighting is terrible

As stated many times in the prior forum regarding the 100-200mm, before I purchased it I tested the f5.6 with my 120mm to make sure f5.6 was usable. On the 120mm f5.6 was perfectly usable. Then I purchased the 100-200mm and the entire lens was not usable at all (referring back to the prior forum post). I had minimum success with 100-200mm only when at 100mm, but even then, I was not happy with the results compared to the 120mm @ f5.6 performance. The 250mm is proving to be very robust but this was my first try with it. More testing (and user education) needed.

Did you look at your 100-200 to make sure it wasn’t stopping down when it should have been wide open? Did you test it under controlled conditions against another GF lens set to f/5.6?

All my lenses are shot in full manual.

That has nothing to do with what I asked. I was just asking for a visual inspection of the diaphragm blades.

I no longer have in hand to perform this ask. The store I returned it took it back, we will assume their was no issue.

The 100-200mm f5.6 performed just fine under controlled conditions. In fact it produced nice results. But the moment I walked into an ice rink the image quality completely fell apart. (The auto-focus motor was one of the fastest I have used in the GFX line)

So you're saying that the lower than expected T-stop only occurred in ice rinks? That's Twilight Zone stuff.

I agree with this statement. I can only present the data I have.

Time has come to circle back to the 100-200mm f5.6 lens post and its limitation for this unique event: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65758386

Attached are 2 photographs of the 250mm f4 lens shot at f5.6 in the same rink as the 100-200mm f5.6 at f5.6 Notice how on the 250mm I am able to expose at ISO 10000 whereas on the 100-200mm I need to use ISO 12800 in order to properly expose.

The 250mm shot looks a bit darker. 10,000 vs 12,800 is 1/3 of a stop. Not sure this is an elephant or the Twilight Zone.

All images are heavily edited in Photoshop, could simply be how I edited them this time around by not giving them enough brightness. Do you want me to retouch them?

Why encourage comparisons of heavily edited files? Just post the RAW files.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow