Decent lens, but far from perfect...

alfaholic wrote:

There is no processing. There is no sharpening. My comparison is made with two RAW files without any sharpening and PP, so just the lens and captured sensor data.

And this is the problem.  I don't believe this is a valid or useful test of a lens.  When I shot film, my negatives didn't look good until they were developed.  

This sample is just OOF

Vic Chapman wrote:

alfaholic wrote:

Well, I am talking about lens sharpness without developing, with sharpness setting to zero in RAW developing software, just looking at the RAF file showing just the lens. As for developing, I can extrude some details from the files and then my photos look relatively normal.

Raw files should be flat with lacklustre colour and little sharpness - that's why they are Raw and need developing. I find that once tonal contrast is returned to the raw file the image immediately takes on sharpness.

Don't expect to process Fuji RAF files as you did Nikon NEF.

Vic

I process RAF files exactly how I process NEF files using ACR and CS6, and I see no difference. He could just be right about the lenses.

Although at 35mm in his files he posted here I'd say the Fuji 35mm is winning against the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 at 36mm easily.

But when it comes to the 35mm F1.8 DX he could just be correct.

That Nikon 35mm F1.8 DX IS insanely sharp. It has fantastic contrast and colour also, it really does. Open up files with it and they often need NO PROCESSING. I kid not. It's that good. It eats my already sharp and good contrast and okay colour Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM for breakfast and that is one damn fine MR zoom lens. You can click auto anything in ACR and CS6 on shots taken with that DX 35mm F1.8 and nothing barely changes, if anything.  The clarity and acutance are stellar.

On the downside it also has slow AF, nasty, nervous bokeh, and back focussing issues, especially wide open and in low light, so is far from perfect.

But it is as sharp as ________.

just to make more popcorns

Just saying this sample is slightly OOF nothing to do with sharpness

I always set shutter release to focus priority

But eventhough you can get sometimes some slightly OOF (a few %)

With the sample proposed it is always best to check with the focus peaking tha the focus is perfect

AF+MF turn gently the distance ring to check

I was just saying that with the sample proposed it was just not possible to make a valid statement about sharpness

bob13bob wrote:

thanks OP for bringing data to the table in this discussion. You are not hte only one to say this lens is soft at wide open f2. I can see from the first picture it's soft, not sure what some of these other posters are huffing.

Anyone can point out experimental flaws and mire a discussion with technical definitions to side rail the evidence.

It is all part of a conspiracy started by the Angry Photographer to make the world buy more Fuji lenses even though they are by far the most inferior lenses produced at the moment. I for one only shoot with Lensbaby and 7artisans and have never found a single imperfection. Simply flawless.

ViMa wrote:

bob13bob wrote:

thanks OP for bringing data to the table in this discussion. You are not hte only one to say this lens is soft at wide open f2. I can see from the first picture it's soft, not sure what some of these other posters are huffing.

Anyone can point out experimental flaws and mire a discussion with technical definitions to side rail the evidence.

It is all part of a conspiracy started by the Angry Photographer to make the world buy more Fuji lenses even though they are by far the most inferior lenses produced at the moment. I for one only shoot with Lensbaby and 7artisans and have never found a single imperfection. Simply flawless.

Thanks for the laugh..... 

Another tread brought back from the dead.