XF 16-55mm - Do I have a bad copy?

It does look bad, and at f/8 as well.

However, I suspect this is simply an issue of incorrect 'depth of field' (dof). You are focusing on infinity, but that's not where the subject is; nothing is going to be really sharp at 55mm when you are focusing so far past it.

Do you have a sample shot we can evaluate where you have focus set to where the subject is?

Bob Tullis wrote:

My first impression is to suspect there's a filter on the wide open shot.

There is no filter screwed on to the lens at all.

Rightsaidfred wrote:

Definitely not OK af f/2.8. I can compare with my 18-55 mm kit lens. I would not accept the repair (if your focus setting was correct, and I suppose it was).

Why is exposure so different between the two shots, actually?

Right - it looks terrible. I think I need to send it back to Fujifilm repair and hope for a complete replacement.

As for the exposure, I just wasn't really paying attention.  I was doing manual exposure and was moreso trying to get an example of the focus issue vs. trying to make a correct exposure.

norjens wrote:

It does look bad, and at f/8 as well.

However, I suspect this is simply an issue of incorrect 'depth of field' (dof). You are focusing on infinity, but that's not where the subject is; nothing is going to be really sharp at 55mm when you are focusing so far past it.

Do you have a sample shot we can evaluate where you have focus set to where the subject is?

It's definitely not a DOF thing.  I have other lenses that are perfectly sharp focused at infinity.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

norjens wrote:

It does look bad, and at f/8 as well.

However, I suspect this is simply an issue of incorrect 'depth of field' (dof). You are focusing on infinity, but that's not where the subject is; nothing is going to be really sharp at 55mm when you are focusing so far past it.

Do you have a sample shot we can evaluate where you have focus set to where the subject is?

It's definitely not a DOF thing. I have other lenses that are perfectly sharp focused at infinity.

At 55mm? Focus on the subject, not infinity. The lens may indeed me wonky, but you should try focusing properly and reevaluate. .

Sure.  I own plenty of other cameras and have experience with other systems and this has never been a problem.  The subject is effectively at infinity; those hills in the distance are miles away, yet are blurry.  The trees are hundreds of yards away and according to the AF system, they are in focus.

Rod McD wrote:

Hi,

The f2.8 image looks awful to me, even if it wasn't the ideal aperture. Nothing seems to be in focus anywhere in the image. Which leaves various possibilities.....

• Was it focused too far (beyond infinity, if that is possible on the 16-55 - it is on many AF lenses). And how/why?
• Was it focused too near? Seems unlikely.
• Was it on a tripod with the IBIS left on?

Other than those ideas, I'm stumped I'm afraid. A suggestion.... Put the lens on a tripod, IBIS off, and re-shoot using manual focus assisted by 10X magnified view. Try several shots refocused between each. If you get the same results, it's probably the lens optics, if you nail sharp focus, it's not the optics and you may have an issue with your camera's AF accuracy at that distance.

Then try it (still on the tripod) with the IBIS on, and see if that re-induces the loss of sharpness. If it does, it's the IBIS generating movement and it will confirm that you need to turn it off when using a tripod.

You could also repeat these tests at closer distances and see what results you get.

Regards, Rod

Thanks for the suggestions, Rod.  Those are good ideas for troubleshooting.  The photos above were shot hand held with IBIS enabled.  I am inclined to believe that this is indeed a problem with the lens itself, as I get the same results when shot using my X-Pro 2.  And other lenses seem to focus just fine on these bodies, without any issues focusing at distant landscape subjects.

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

norjens wrote:

It does look bad, and at f/8 as well.

However, I suspect this is simply an issue of incorrect 'depth of field' (dof). You are focusing on infinity, but that's not where the subject is; nothing is going to be really sharp at 55mm when you are focusing so far past it.

Do you have a sample shot we can evaluate where you have focus set to where the subject is?

It's definitely not a DOF thing. I have other lenses that are perfectly sharp focused at infinity.

At 55mm? Focus on the subject, not infinity. The lens may indeed me wonky, but you should try focusing properly and reevaluate. .

Sure. I own plenty of other cameras and have experience with other systems and this has never been a problem. The subject is effectively at infinity; those hills in the distance are miles away, yet are blurry. The trees are hundreds of yards away and according to the AF system, they are in focus.

According to the AF system? i agree that your distant hills should appear sharper at infinity, but wherever your focus point is should be critically sharp, everywhere else will be less sharp. If you want both the foreground and infinity to appear equally in focus, you should be focusing at the hyperfocal distance or twice the distance of the closest feature you want to appear in focus, not infinity. I agree, however, that your images look very soft and that your lens may very likely be subpar. I have very few images at 55mm and f/2.8 at that distance, but this one was shot at 1/80" from a moving boat and even with the camera shake, it's still significantly sharper than what you're getting out of your lens. I would definitely send it back. The 16-55 is a super lens, it won't be as sharp at f/2.8 as it is at f/5.6, but it really should be very good at all focal lengths and apertures,

55mm @ f/2.8, 1/80" from a moving boat.

Your lens should be plenty sharp at 55mm and f/2.8 for this kind of thing...

55mm @ f/2.8, 1/750"

I totally get what you're saying.  It's true!  And even other close-up shots aren't as sharp as the second photo you sent at f/2.8.  And your ship photo is pretty dang good for f/2.8/  I will be sending it back to Fujifilm again.

canetsbe wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

Erik Baumgartner wrote:

canetsbe wrote:

norjens wrote:

It does look bad, and at f/8 as well.

However, I suspect this is simply an issue of incorrect 'depth of field' (dof). You are focusing on infinity, but that's not where the subject is; nothing is going to be really sharp at 55mm when you are focusing so far past it.

Do you have a sample shot we can evaluate where you have focus set to where the subject is?

It's definitely not a DOF thing. I have other lenses that are perfectly sharp focused at infinity.

At 55mm? Focus on the subject, not infinity. The lens may indeed me wonky, but you should try focusing properly and reevaluate. .

Sure. I own plenty of other cameras and have experience with other systems and this has never been a problem. The subject is effectively at infinity; those hills in the distance are miles away, yet are blurry. The trees are hundreds of yards away and according to the AF system, they are in focus.

According to the AF system? i agree that your distant hills should appear sharper at infinity, but wherever your focus point is should be critically sharp, everywhere else will be less sharp. If you want both the foreground and infinity to appear equally in focus, you should be focusing at the hyperfocal distance or twice the distance of the closest feature you want to appear in focus, not infinity. I agree, however, that your images look very soft and that your lens may very likely be subpar. I have very few images at 55mm and f/2.8 at that distance, but this one was shot at 1/80" from a moving boat and even with the camera shake, it's still significantly sharper than what you're getting out of your lens. I would definitely send it back. The 16-55 is a super lens, it won't be as sharp at f/2.8 as it is at f/5.6, but it really should be very good at all focal lengths and apertures,

Your lens should be plenty sharp at 55mm and f/2.8 for this kind of thing...

I totally get what you're saying. It's true! And even other close-up shots aren't as sharp as the second photo you sent at f/2.8. And your ship photo is pretty dang good for f/2.8/ I will be sending it back to Fujifilm again.

It probably helps to add some test results, for instance with manual focus on the two trees and  at infinity shots at a different focal length and/or intermediate aperture

Wezre wrote:

norjens wrote:

It does look bad, and at f/8 as well.

However, I suspect this is simply an issue of incorrect 'depth of field' (dof). You are focusing on infinity, but that's not where the subject is; nothing is going to be really sharp at 55mm when you are focusing so far past it.

Do you have a sample shot we can evaluate where you have focus set to where the subject is?

When focused at infinity at f/2.8 and a focal length of 55mm, everything from about 160-170 feet to infinity should be acceptably sharp. The trees in the middle of the scene are definitely farther away than that.

I'm not sure where those numbers come from, but I am sure they don't work with my 16-55mm.

Nighttime, focused at 'infinity'.

Nighttime, focused manually

Daytime, focused at 'infinity'

Daytime, focus pulled a bit back from the furthest position, as some astrophotographers suggest as starting point.

Daytime, autofocused on the construction cranes.

All images shot from balcony railing, 2 second timer. The buildings on the near side of the construction cranes are ~500 meters away, while the ones on the hill behind them are at ~2000m. Are you (and OP) still sure that everything beyond 170 feet (~52 meters) should be perfectly sharp with a 55mm/2.8 = 20mm wide aperture focused to infinity?

How do we even know exactly where infinity focus on a particular lens is? Why would you set focus to infinity when you can set it to the actual distance to your subject?

OP might still have a bad copy, in fact I suspect I have a bad copy myself! But it's not going to be clear to diagnose with photos that are not focused on the subject.
---

To OP (canetsbe): Me, Rod and Erik have requested samples to evaluate that are focused on something so that defocus can be eliminated as a source. Without it, we won't be able to help determine if your copy is bad or not.

Here are a couple more photos, one manual focused using 100% magnification on the camera LCD and focus peaking, vs AF.  You will find that both methods are yielding the same result.

AF

MF

Also some closer shots, also yielding same result regardless of AF or MF.  This one I compared f/2.8 to f/8.

f/8

f/2.8

Joachim Gerstl wrote:

No, you most likely have no bad copy. Don't send it to Fuji yet before you give it another try.

Try to do focus manually using the loupe or simply use the AF on a subject which is about 5 to 10 meters away. To crank the lens to infinity doesn't work. Many lenses focus behind infinity. There is no way to get such a crappy image quality without a serious user error.

Lol, ok.  That's helpful. /s