Testing the Brick – what is your experience?

[Phil1]

Can you tell me please how the resolution of your Brick at f2.8 compares to that of your 35mm f1.4 at f2.8 and your 16mm f1.4 at f2.8? I ask as when I tested my copy of the Brick it didn’t seem to live up to its reputation and I have a few days of the ‘return window’ left.

Let me say first of all that I do take real photos but, as a precaution I always test a new lens as I’ve had the odd duff one in the past.

Before buying a lens I look at the reviews and forums. For example, Lenstip published some outstanding results for the 16-55mm f2.8 and this was backed up by very positive and convincing comments from many folk, including some of the leading contributors to this forum.

To be specific, whereas Lenstip showed the Brick at 16mm (it’s best FL) & f2.8 to be at least as good as the 35mm f1.4 at f2.8 (both lenses in the centre) my results showed my copy of the Brick had much poorer resolution than that of the 35mm f1.4 at f2.8.

I am aware that I use a different technique to Lenstip to measure resolution and therefore my results do not compare directly to those of Lenstip in an absolute sense but I think they are valid comparatively, i.e. if both lenses had equal resolution, both techniques would show this but the absolute numbers from the two techniques might well differ.

I’d really appreciate your comments on how the resolution of your Brick compares to your other Fuji lenses!

Many thanks

Phil

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

I don't own the Brick but am often tempted. It's this very issue you raise that holds me back. I don't want to spend a $1000AUD on a mint Brick, only to find that my primes are noticeably better.......

This comparison may interest you. It's a link to one photographer (not me) who published his comparison between the Brick and four primes - 16, 23, 35 and 56 - all the faster options.

https://fotograficoweb.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/the-ultimate-fujifilm-x-series-lenses-comparison/

Interestingly enough, it's at 23mm where the Brick seems to have the least favorable performance in comparison to the prime (at least in his test). Whenever I see the "bucket full of primes" tag that often gets applied to the Brick, I wonder how many prime owners actually sold their primes once they'd field tested their Bricks......

Cheers,

Rod

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Can you tell me please how the resolution of your Brick at f2.8 compares to that of your 35mm f1.4 at f2.8 and your 16mm f1.4 at f2.8? I ask as when I tested my copy of the Brick it didn’t seem to live up to its reputation and I have a few days of the ‘return window’ left.

Let me say first of all that I do take real photos but, as a precaution I always test a new lens as I’ve had the odd duff one in the past.

Before buying a lens I look at the reviews and forums. For example, Lenstip published some outstanding results for the 16-55mm f2.8 and this was backed up by very positive and convincing comments from many folk, including some of the leading contributors to this forum.

To be specific, whereas Lenstip showed the Brick at 16mm (it’s best FL) & f2.8 to be at least as good as the 35mm f1.4 at f2.8 (both lenses in the centre) my results showed my copy of the Brick had much poorer resolution than that of the 35mm f1.4 at f2.8.

I am aware that I use a different technique to Lenstip to measure resolution and therefore my results do not compare directly to those of Lenstip in an absolute sense but I think they are valid comparatively, i.e. if both lenses had equal resolution, both techniques would show this but the absolute numbers from the two techniques might well differ.

I’d really appreciate your comments on how the resolution of your Brick compares to your other Fuji lenses!

Many thanks

Phil

I compared mine directly to a 16mm 1.4 and the zoom was as good or better in every way over all apertures, it blew away the 18mm - not even close, my 35 1.4 was about even or a tad better at around f2.8 - while the brick was comparable sharpness-wise to the 35, I do somehow take better pictures with the prime. The only other lense that I’ve compared directly side by side was the 50-140 at 50-55mm shooting portraits, and while both were excellent, on most of the shots (but not all) I did prefer the 50-140 a bit better for that purpose. I’ve used the 23mm f2 a bit and while I didn’t compare it side by side with the brick, my impression was that the prime didn’t offer anything at all over the brick here besides the smaller size, which I actually didn’t really like either (the lighter weight was nice, though. I’m still thinking about trying the 23 1.4 to see if fares any better

 

[Sutto]

My 'brick' is extremely sharp wide open - at all focal lengths. So much so that I use it as the bench-mark to measure and test all other lenses against. I really love this lens so much. In over 35 years of photography, having owned dozens of different lenses from many brands - this is the best lens period. That includes testing it against primes as well. I am very fussy with my images and ONLY shoot people (therefore always wide open), and never landscapes or sceneries.

I have just purchased the new 23mm F2, and of course tested it against my 16-55. These were real tests - my street photography shots of real people - skin tones, eye lashes, hair etc. I only ever shoot wide open so these are the worst scenario cases. I was really impressed with the 23mm f2 - it is a lovely little lens and extremely sharp, even wide open (contrary to what a lot of reviews say). It has lovely rendering and beautiful clarity and contrast to the images.

However, having said that, the images from my 16-55, are noticeably 'nicer'/sharper/better or whatever than the 23mm f2. Moreover, up till about a month ago I had the 35mm f2 for about 2yrs. It turned out to be a photographic no-man's-land (50mm is neither here nor there for me), so it was never used a lot and recently sold. However I can say it was slightly sharper and nicer all round than the 23mm f2. However the 16-55 was equally as good in every way. I believe the 16-55 to be the very best of lenses, and if I could choose only one lens of Fuji's it would be that one. I'm not talking through a hole in my head because I've been buying and testing Fuji lenses over 7 yrs to arrive at the 3 lenses that I now own (16-55, 23mm f2 and 90mm f2). I have had the 35mm f2, 3 of those crumby horrible 18-55 kit lenses, the 55-200, the 18-135, the 16mm 1.4, the crappy 18mm and 27mm and the 50-140.

All the other lenses have gone for various reasons, and to me the only ones worth keeping (for what I do), is the 16-55, the 90mm and the lovely little 23mm f2. I seriously wonder if you have a faulty copy of the 16-55 if you are not happy with it? You are lucky if you live in the States because you guys have a great return policy. We here in Australia if we buy something, when we walk out that proverbial door (or click that buy button), we are stuck with it for good. I would return that baby and get another one.

Sutto

philipsuttonphotography.com

 

[Phil1]

Hi Rod

Thanks very much for this link - much food for thought and very interesting test results!

Phil

 

[Iuvenis]

My brick is comparable with primes from 16-35, at the same aperture of course. I couldn't believe it when I bought it. At 55 it doesn't match the 56 at the edges, however.

 

[slind]

When I had "the brick", it was superb optically. But at this price not having OIS is a deal-breaker for me. Ok for the X-H1, not for the X-T2/3.

 

[Phil1]

Some interesting results so far - some in favour of the Brick and one or two not! Sample variation perhaps?

Most folk are comparing performance with other lenses which rules out the possibility of the test method causing apparent differences as each person presumably used the same method for their comparison.

As my Brick seems inferior to the other lenses I’ve tested I'm inclined to think that it is faulty and that I should get it swapped. However, I'll wait a day or two to get some more views before finally deciding. In the meantime my thanks to everyone for your helpful and thought provoking replies.

Phil

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

Hi Rod

Thanks very much for this link - much food for thought and very interesting test results!

Phil

Phil, I’ve heard of more than a few dud copies of this lens out there. Mine is very sharp pretty much everywhere and at all focal lengths and all apertures. If yours isn’t, send it back, it should be, at a minimum, really good everywhere. At 16mm it should be stellar. Mine isn’t unique, there are many, many super copies around. I never have to worry about avoiding particular apertures or focal lengths due to poor image quality, if I focus it in the right place, it delivers great results no matter what I’m doing with it. Yours should too.

 

[Loganberry]

My brick is comparable with primes from 16-35, at the same aperture of course. I couldn't believe it when I bought it. At 55 it doesn't match the 56 at the edges, however.

My copy is great from 16-45mm at f8. At 55mm, f8 is not as sharp on middle distance trees etc. Basically good up to f4 at 55mm. However don't generally do landscapes at 55mm so not really a problem. Close up at 55mm, any f stop is fine.

Don't have any primes so can't compare. Better than my 18-55 f2.8 - 4 was but not by a large amount. Makes mincemeat out of my XC 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 MK2.

 

[Pan50]

My Brick is very sharp through all focal lengths and especially from 23mm to 55mm. I love it at 55mm and large apertures, renders nice bokeh and a sharp subject matter. However, I do think the 35mm f1.4 is one of the very best lenses I’ve ever owned. So if I did test it at f2.8 v. The Brick at 35mm f2.8 I would not be surprised that the prime would be a little sharper.

 

[Cream17]

Makes me smile the nick names we give our lenses. 16-55 is hardly a brick....

In the days when I was shooting Nikon there was the 28-70 f2.8 which was known as the "Beast" hahaha