10-24 lacking sharpness when blown up to 16X20 print size

[Jay A]

Has anyone done a real good comparison between the 10-24 and the 14? I have been using the 10-24 and have been pretty satisfied with it, printing mainly 10" prints and viewing on screen. However, yesterday I blew some images up to 20" prints and I was quite frankly rather disappointed in what I saw. It is just not all that sharp a lens. I've had it for a short time and can probably switch it out for the 14, but I figured I would come here to see if I could get some feedback. Please, do not respond if you have only viewed the 2 on a computer monitor. I have long contended that the only real good way to judge a lens is to make some large prints. Has anyone done so and compared it with the 14?

 

[Clayton1985]

Has anyone done a real good comparison between the 10-24 and the 14? I have been using the 10-24 and have been pretty satisfied with it, printing mainly 10" prints and viewing on screen. However, yesterday I blew some images up to 20" prints and I was quite frankly rather disappointed in what I saw. It is just not all that sharp a lens. I've had it for a short time and can probably switch it out for the 14, but I figured I would come here to see if I could get some feedback. Please, do not respond if you have only viewed the 2 on a computer monitor. I have long contended that the only real good way to judge a lens is to make some large prints. Has anyone done so and compared it with the 14?

I'm not sure I understand. Yes, printing will be the ultimate test, but are you saying that you can only see this issue when printing but not viewed on screen regardless of size?

Also, what is your basis for comparison for judging the sharpness of the 10-24 (other Fuji X lens or other system)?

 

[Jay A]

I'm saying that in the two weeks i have owned the lens I haven't done any large prints and haven't really noticed anything wrong. Now that I have, it does not stack up against my other Fuji lenses (18-55, 55-200, 23 and 56) nor my Canon lenses at the larger print sizes. I can help it by cranking up USM in Photoshop but if I don't it just lacks sharpness and micro contrast. So I am wondering whether the 14 might have been a better choice.

 

[Matoqui]

I'm saying that in the two weeks i have owned the lens I haven't done any large prints and haven't really noticed anything wrong. Now that I have, it does not stack up against my other Fuji lenses (18-55, 55-200, 23 and 56) nor my Canon lenses at the larger print sizes. I can help it by cranking up USM in Photoshop but if I don't it just lacks sharpness and micro contrast. So I am wondering whether the 14 might have been a better choice.

Normally I inspect my images on the screen at a 1:1 magnification prior to printing. If the picture is sharp on the screen, the print should be sharp as well. If the image is sharp on the screen but the printed version is not sharp, there might be something wrong with the printer.

 

[flyxray]

Zoom lens always gonna be only zoom. Never even close to prime lens

 

[Jay A]

I can't say that I spend a lot of time analyzing sharpness on a computer monitor but of course, if there is something wrong it should show up at 1:1 on screen. Point being, the lens for whatever reason is somewhat of a disappointment when blown up. I am not sure how many people nowadays even print, no less print to 16X20 sizes. I would think that those who do, see differences in lenses that most people who only look at images on a computer especially online will never see. There is nothing wrong with my printer, as prints done from Canon L lenses at that size look superb. That said, I played around with some images from the 55-200 a little while ago, and it too is just not all that good when blown up and printed to 16X20. I have to crank the USM to at least 100 in Photoshop to get what I want. Only problem there is that some of the resulting artifacts in doing so are not to my liking. Granted too, I am ultra critical when it comes to lens sharpness and what may be unacceptable to me, may be perfect acceptable to someone else.

What can I say! I think I am going to return the 10-24 and go with the 14 instead. Comparing to a full frame image from a Canon and an L lens probably isn't going to satisfy me there either, but at least I (think) I will be getting the most that I can out of the APS-C X-Trans sensor this way.

 

[Clayton1985]

Zoom lens always gonna be only zoom. Never even close to prime lens

Well he says it doesn't compare to the 18-55 and 55-200 so prime vs zoom is not the issue.

 

[ryan2007]

This depends on your settings.

Be sure to start by manually setting ISO and Dynamic Range manually set to 100%.

Be sure to use the correct metering pattern

Manually set the AF point typically to the center

Stop the lens down at much as possible

Last and most important, you have to use a specific photo printer and specific photo paper, be sure the print heads are clean, be sure to select the correct type of paper being used in the print drivers or the printer will spray too much ink, 90% of everything can be set to a Matte Paper setting reducing the ink the printer sprays.

 

[Jay A]

I follow everything as you have mentioned with the one exception of not stopping down as much as possible. Doing so will never produce the sharpest image due to difraction at the smallest lens openings. You will get a sharper image if you know the sweet spot (usually 2 or 3 stops doen from wide open). This will not give you the greatest depth-of-field mind you but it will produce the best sharpness all else being equal.
Do you guys ever dial up the in-camera sharpness? I have mine set to zero.

 

[Clayton1985]

I'm saying that in the two weeks i have owned the lens I haven't done any large prints and haven't really noticed anything wrong. Now that I have, it does not stack up against my other Fuji lenses (18-55, 55-200, 23 and 56) nor my Canon lenses at the larger print sizes. I can help it by cranking up USM in Photoshop but if I don't it just lacks sharpness and micro contrast. So I am wondering whether the 14 might have been a better choice.

Normally I inspect my images on the screen at a 1:1 magnification prior to printing. If the picture is sharp on the screen, the print should be sharp as well. If the image is sharp on the screen but the printed version is not sharp, there might be something wrong with the printer.

+1. And even if the OP doesn't spend much time analyzing image sharpness on a monitor.... others do and I'm sure they could provide meaningful feedback if the images in question were posted. I'm also not sure how someone ultra critical when it comes to lens sharpness can avoid spending much time analyzing image sharpness on a monitor but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Jay A]

I'm saying that in the two weeks i have owned the lens I haven't done any large prints and haven't really noticed anything wrong. Now that I have, it does not stack up against my other Fuji lenses (18-55, 55-200, 23 and 56) nor my Canon lenses at the larger print sizes. I can help it by cranking up USM in Photoshop but if I don't it just lacks sharpness and micro contrast. So I am wondering whether the 14 might have been a better choice.

Normally I inspect my images on the screen at a 1:1 magnification prior to printing. If the picture is sharp on the screen, the print should be sharp as well. If the image is sharp on the screen but the printed version is not sharp, there might be something wrong with the printer.

+1. And even if the OP doesn't spend much time analyzing image sharpness on a monitor.... others do and I'm sure they could provide meaningful feedback if the images in question were posted. I'm also not sure how someone ultra critical when it comes to lens sharpness can avoid spending much time analyzing image sharpness on a monitor but maybe I'm missing something.

Because as I said at the beginning, by far the best way to judge sharpness is by making large prints. Not by viewing on a computer monitor. The resolution capabilities of most consumer grade monitors frankly suck compared to the output of a quality printer. Unfortunately those who grew up in photography with digital cameras, computer monitors and the internet very often are not aware of this and put too much trust into what they see on the monitor. You have to realize that a monitor has far lower resolution than a good printer, so it will be the limiting factor in how your image looks. Garbage in, garbage out is the saying. It's like comparing a D800 using lens X with it using lens Y. You may see a big difference. However, if you use both lenses on a D600, the differences may be smaller and not as noticeable. The higher the resolution capability of your output device, the more faults you are going to see in the image. That's one reason why they make $150 monitors and also make $2000 monitors. Unfortunately, I have a cheaper monitor and just do NOT judge sharpness on it alone.

 

[The Name is Bond]

What's your viewing distance? Are you inspecting these prints close-up or at typical viewing distance?

 

[Jay A]

Both...same as I do when checking sharpness with any lens.

 

[Astrophotographer 10]

It would be better to post examples. Otherwise it comes across as conjecture as you are making a statement about the performance of a lens without proof. The same lens has been lauded by many others.

Greg.

 

[Jay A]

It would be better to post examples. Otherwise it comes across as conjecture as you are making a statement about the performance of a lens without proof. The same lens has been lauded by many others.

Greg.

Yes I understand but originally I asked whether anyone has done large comparison prints from both the 10-24 and the 14. I just want to know if the 14 would be a better way to go or whether prints from the two would look essentially the same or extremely close. If I were to post images I am not sure what purpose that would really serve since I am asking for comparisons in prints. Also I have no 14 images to post as comparisons. That's what I'm asking for. I am not trying to prove anything, I am just asking if anyone has seen a comparison (in print) and what were their thoughts. I have tried googling Fuji 14 vs Fuji 10-24 but I haven't come up with any comparison results.


Sorry to be difficult

 

[Jay A]

Well as I said earlier, I think I am going to just return the zoom and go with the 14...or maybe buy the 14, do my own comparison and return the one I don't like.

 

[ryan2007]

I follow everything as you have mentioned with the one exception of not stopping down as much as possible. Doing so will never produce the sharpest image due to difraction at the smallest lens openings. You will get a sharper image if you know the sweet spot (usually 2 or 3 stops doen from wide open). This will not give you the greatest depth-of-field mind you but it will produce the best sharpness all else being equal.
Do you guys ever dial up the in-camera sharpness? I have mine set to zero.

I advise doing all the sharpening in post editing so you always have a master shot to work from

 

[Jay A]

I follow everything as you have mentioned with the one exception of not stopping down as much as possible. Doing so will never produce the sharpest image due to difraction at the smallest lens openings. You will get a sharper image if you know the sweet spot (usually 2 or 3 stops doen from wide open). This will not give you the greatest depth-of-field mind you but it will produce the best sharpness all else being equal.
Do you guys ever dial up the in-camera sharpness? I have mine set to zero.

I advise doing all the sharpening in post editing so you always have a master shot to work from

That's what I normally do. Was just wondering.

 

[Charles2]

I have to crank the USM to at least 100 in Photoshop to get what I want. Only problem there is that some of the resulting artifacts in doing so are not to my liking.

Among better sharpening tools:

* Picture Window Pro, which has sliders to select the areas that get sharpened according to how much edge they already have - in addition to the usual radius and amount settings.

* Raw Therapee (which will work on TIFs and JPGs), which has RL Deconvolution.

As for in-camera sharpening that you mention later, it should have no effect on the raw file. If you want the most quality for a large print, start from the raw file, not the camera JPG.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

Well as I said earlier, I think I am going to just return the zoom and go with the 14...or maybe buy the 14, do my own comparison and return the one I don't like.

Check also comparisons done by admiringlight. And for what it's worth, I extensively compared the 14mm against the zest 12mm. The 14mm was sharper 30% of the time. 50% of these times the difference was visible in my zr30w ips monitor without zooming 1:1 - so 15% overall. I ended up keep the 12mm for the fov. Nothing can beat your own testing but it's good to ask.

Out of curiosity, do you have a specific printer in mind ?
--
Apollon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apollonas/
http://500px.com/Apollon
Fuji XE-2, Canon FD 300 4L, Fuji 55-200, Fuji 56 1.2, Canon FD 50 3.5 macro, Fuji 27 2.8, Fuji 23 1.4, Zeiss 12 2.8, Rokinon II 8 2.8