corners with 15-45 and 16-50

[alan brown]

For those that might be curious, here are two images from the 15-45 and the 16-50 showing the bottom right corner. They were processed in ACR. The 15-45 is first. The left corner looks the same.




15-45mm




16-50mm

Of course these two lenses are not the best that Fuji offers but I just wanted the 15-45 to be as good as the 16-50. I'm not sure how much, if any, difference you can see through the lens of DPR, but on my computer at 100% I can see that the 15-45 is slightly better than the 16-50. The biggest prints I make are on 17"x22" paper and my 16-50 has always looked good. I'm quite impressed with my new 15-45. I'm still getting used to the way it zooms.

Best,

--
alan brown

 

[Cena]

Thank you for showing this comparison.
I can’t comment on 16-50, but I compared my sample with 14 2.8: the difference of angle is marginal; image quality with smaller aperture (f5.6) is very good, the edges are not as good as 14 2.8 but you have to look exactly even at 100 % view
The good news: my sample shows also good quality up to round about 30 mm, then it unfortunately starts to deteriorate especially at (far) edges (I check always at 100 %).
This is my second sample, a third will come to check if it will have better edges at longer end.

Anyway I like the lens - especially at the wider end (!); as I posted in another thread I use it when very light gear (cycling, hiking) is needed. Practically I use it like (35mm equiv.) 21 -40 mm zoom (and more when motive is not critical) and add 35 1.4
and 60 2.4 > with a little cropping I can cover 21 – 105 mm with very good quality!
Obviously one should expect with this sort of zooming slow handling oft his lens.

 

[georgehudetz]

Thanks for posting, Alan. I agree, the 15-45 is sharper than the 16-50 in your images above.

It would be interesting to see how they compare at other focal length ranges.

 

[io_bg]

The 16-50 is already quite decent and I never expected the 15-45 to be better even at the wider setting.

Now, dear Fuji, how about a 14-45mm f/4 zoom?

 

[HZP]

Results kept comming out the same.

 

[jambun]

Hi.

I'm quite interested in this new lens, but only if has better image quality and is in fact wider than the 16-50 I already have (not just on paper!)

From the images here it looks like the 15-45 is very very slightly better at the short end and the 16-50 is quite a bit better at the long end.

Obviously this is only 2 images, from one set of both lenses, taken by one photographer. So it's not really a final test of how these two lenses perform against each other. But from these it looks like the 16-50 is a little better over all.

Anyway, seeing as you have both, can you take a photo with each at the wide end so that I can see just how much wider the 15-45 actually is?

I've seen a few people saying that after lens corrections it isn't quite as wide as the advertised 15mm!

Cheers.

J

 

[PLShooter]

Yes, my 15-45 is actually just as good at all focal lengths, if not a bit better, than my excellent 16-50. And yes again, the PZ is a PITA compared with "normal" zooming but at least the focus ring can be used for more precise zooming on an X-E3. This is my favorite combo for everyday use and hiking.

 

[jambun]

Thanks for your reply.

Is the 15mm actually any wider than the 16mm of the 16-50 after the lens corrections?

 

[PLShooter]

SOOC images show the 15-45 to be noticeably wider, but I can not quantify how much.

15-45@15mm



16-50@16mm

 

[jambun]

Thanks for that.

 

[Cena]

You might be interested?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61168501

 

[alan brown]

You might be interested?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61168501

I'll have to do some more checking. I can compare the 14, 15-45, and 16-50 with the zooms at their widest settings. At this point I have no idea how wide the zooms really are. I love the 14mm, but the 15-45 does offer a great deal of versatility and light weight.

 

[rainydiary]

Last time there are person in this forum compared ISO 6400 images taken by 15-45 and 16-50 then the 15-45 image lost detail.

May anyones have the lens do test again begin from ISO 200 to 6400 ?

Thank

 

[jambun]

I can compare the 14, 15-45, and 16-50 with the zooms at their widest settings. At this point I have no idea how wide the zooms really are. I love the 14mm, but the 15-45 does offer a great deal of versatility and light weight.

 

[CAcreeks]

Is this the definitive verdict on the 15-45 at 45mm? (Much softer than the 16-50 at 50.) Did anyone have better luck with sampl variation? If 45 is this soft, I would buy X-T100 without lens and hopefully pick up a 16-50 or 18-55.

Results kept coming out the same.

 

[JMoss001]

Thanks for posting, Alan. I agree, the 15-45 is sharper than the 16-50 in your images above.

It would be interesting to see how they compare at other focal length ranges.

--
http://georgehudetzphotography.smugmug.com/
My Flikr stream: http://flic.kr/ps/Ay8ka

I don't believe you can judge the quality of the lens from photos on the internet. The number of pixels of the original photo have been compressed to the number of pixels that can be shown on the screen here. Even the largest photo that was posted through the link below the photo, then enlarged to full scale, is not the same as the original camera output. Who knows what the download is. Is it the full resolution of the camera? This is pixel reduction compression, distortion #1. It makes assumptions for you. This is all very misleading.

I think all you are judging here is the compression of pixels #1 and the data compression distortion #2, which also makes assumptions for you. Assumptions like, if the color next to a particular pixel is within 80% (for example) of that pixel's color, then make both colors the same. That kind of thing is going on here. Compression is also in the data processing of the camera output to boot! This is what photography has become in the last 40 years. All we had to worry about before that was film grain.

You must all know this if you are used to using Photoshop. That is what the ->Save For Web<- option is all about. I am seeing in the above photos, the large version, lots of compression distortion. I am not seeing sharper here. I am seeing ugly compression distortion. There is distortion of the outlines and what is next the lines. The only way to do this kind of comparison is to download the original huge file that the camera produced. There are so many conversions going on here, in the camera, in the computer... It is very misleading.

Has anyone compared the lenses on a FujiFilm camera to a Canon, or Nikon and reported back? Traditionally, the lens is the most important part of a camera. Who makes FujiFilm's lenses?

 

[georgehudetz]

Thanks for posting, Alan. I agree, the 15-45 is sharper than the 16-50 in your images above.

It would be interesting to see how they compare at other focal length ranges.

 

[Arizona Sunset]

Would others be willing to post 15-45 examples at 45mm?

Does it sharpen up stopped down, or stay soft like the above?

 

[maltmoose]

Would others be willing to post 15-45 examples at 45mm?

Does it sharpen up stopped down, or stay soft like the above?

I'm on my second 15-45 as i wasnt happy with the first. The wide end is fine but im still not happy with the long end, a bit smeary and soft. I didnt notice significant improvement stopping down further.

Heres a test photo that ive processed to try get the best out of it using capture one.

Its ok for a kit lens i guess but wish it were a bit better. The 18-55 zoom long end is better.


15-45mm kit lens long @ 45mm.

Heres the wide end, does the job but nothing special. Good size, weight and flexible lens though.




15-45 @ 15mm

 

[noisephotographer]

The first post shows a crop of the 15-45mm at f/8! The difference could be much larger at f/3.5!

I have only seen a few sample images (with larger apertures than f/8) from the 15-45mm and 16-50mm, but my impression is that the 16-50mm is better at the wide end.