Comparison of decentration of two copies of the XF 55-200 mm

[Rightsaidfred]

Dear all

A friend of mine was so kind to lend me his copy of the XF 55-200 mm to enable a decentration comparison of the two copies. Here I’d like to report on the outcome.

Opinions are welcome!

Context

Some time ago I reported on a decentration of my XF 55-200 mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS. I sent the lens to Fuji for repair, it was still within the warranty period. About four weeks later I got it back. The accompanying report was very brief: “Hereby you get back your fully functional product. Adjustment carried out: focus.”

I tested again and still found decentration present. I cannot exactly tell whether it is less or not after having sent it to repair but I can tell for sure that it is not significantly less. Hence, my interpretation is that the amount of decentration that my lens shows must be within the spec of the XF 55-200 mm.

Copy/copy variation & SOP for quick testing for decentration

The decentration of my lens was the reason why I concerned myself a bit with the topic of lens copy variation. Well, more than before I am convinced that it is not easy to tell whether you have a good or a bad copy in your hands. See here for a discussion contribution. In my little project on kind of an SOP for quick lens testing with an emphasis on decentration, one method turned out quite practical for me, the ‘quick decentering test’ as I call it. I also use a test chart. With both methods combined, a more or less fair statement should be possible. Of course, this by far does not equal an analysis under lab conditions.

Outcome of my comparison

55 mm @ f/5.6

• Both copies show decentration. My copy is clearly sharper on the right side than on the left side; bottom left is the corner with worst sharpness. Decentration of friend’s copy is a little bit more balanced but not much.
• Center sharpness of my copy is a tad better (ca 3000 lph) than that of friend’s copy (ca 2800 lph).

100 mm @ f/5.6

• My copy shows significant decentration. Again, the left side is weaker than the right side. Top left is the corner with the worst sharpness. Friend’s copy exhibits relatively little decentration.
• Center sharpness of my copy is a little better (3000 lph) than that of friend’s copy (ca 2800-3000 lph).

200 mm @ f/5.6

• Both copies show severe decentration. Again, the right side is way sharper than the left. Friend’s copy exhibits a little more balanced a behavior.
• Both copies show equal center resolution (ca 2800 lph which is less than at smaller fl). The finding corroborates RDoe’s recent statement that ‘resolving power (…) takes a hit from 150-200mm.’ Interestingly, friend’s copy is softer than mine in the center at 200 mm.

Overall summary of the comparison

Both lenses show decentration at all fl. My lens has more severe decentration but exhibits a tad better center resolution than friends's copy. The difference in center IQ is most prominent at 200 mm where friend's lens performs softer than mine.

Personal remark

Don't get me wrong - I like this lens. IQ is good over most of the frame and it is good value for money, I agree with Truman ('Punches above its weight'). In > 95 % of the cases I can live with it. Where I do have a limitation is when I do shoot something flat at high fl, see below: the subjects in left corners of the frame are not sharp.

Experimental Part & Sample photos part I

All images were done with tripod, lens support, ES, and remote cable release (exception: landscape test shots). The church on the photos was about 400 m away, and yes, in this case, air movement comes into play but I can tell you my results are consistent throughout all series. I always did multiple series and selected the sharpest images. See here for details on the quick decentering test and here of my test chart usage.

Part II of the photos follows (to comply with the forum's upload limit).


55 mm Quick decentering test, church tower, 100 % crops. My copy.


55 mm Quick decentering test, church tower, 100 % crops. Friend's copy.


55 mm Center sharpness comparison, church tower, 100 % crops. Left: my lens; right: friend's lens.


200 mm Quick decentering test, church tower, 100 % crops. My copy.


200 mm Quick decentering test, church tower, 100 % crops. Friend's copy.


200 mm Center sharpness comparison, church tower, 100 % crops. Left: my lens; right: friend's lens.


200 mm Landscape test, handheld, my copy. Watch the trees in the left corner.


200 mm Landscape test, handheld, friend's copy.

BR,

Martin

--

500px

500px.com

 

[Rightsaidfred]

Experimental Part & Sample photos part I

All images were done with tripod, lens support, ES, and remote cable release (exception: landscape test shots). The church on the photos was about 400 m away, and yes, in this case, air movement comes into play but I can tell you my results are consistent throughout all series. I always did multiple series and selected the sharpest images. See here for details on the quick decentering test and here of my test chart usage.

Part II of the photos follows (to comply with the forum's upload limit).

55 mm test chart, corners, 100 % crops, my copy.


55 mm test chart, corners, 100 % crops, friend's copy.


55 mm test chart, center, 100 % crops; left: my copy, right: friend's copy.


100 mm test chart, corners, 100 % crops, my copy.


100 mm test chart, corners, 100 % crops, friend's copy.


100 mm test chart, center, 100 % crops; left: my copy, right: friend's copy.


200 mm test chart, corners, 100 % crops, my copy.


200 mm test chart, corners, 100 % crops, friend's copy.


200 mm test chart, center, 100 % crops; left: my copy, right: friend's copy.

--
https://500px.com/bachrocks

 

[Greg7579]

Fred,

This is not about you, so don't take offense please.

I know there are decentered lenses out there in the wild from all brands. It is a popular topic on all boards. It even happens on the MF Board.

This is my personal opinion, and I am not saying the lenses you checked are not decentered.

But here is my long-held belief, and not just about Fuji.

At least 80% of all decentered lens claims are exaggerated, misconstrued or just outright bogus. They are usually the mental fantasy of someone that has limited experience with a variety of lenses and mostly don't know what they are doing or what they are looking at after a poorly executed test (usually at a flat chart). Or they are sometimes the contrived result of someone who is very experienced but has an agenda. (Not you.)

The internet is loaded with "tests" for decentered lenses and everyone is paranoid from the constant bad copy and decentered lens chatter on all the boards.

I have talked to Fuji, Canon and even Leica techs who cringe when I mention the word "decentered". They just chuckle and start telling stories. They claim very few lenses sent in are actually decentered or have any problem at all.

I know there are bad copies of all brands of lenses out there, and there are people who I respect on this Board who have had a decentered lens or a bad copy of a Fuji lens that they returned. It happens. But rarely.

It has never happened to me and no one has bought more Fuji glass than me so I guess I've been very lucky.

I am not talking about this post by the OP. I'm talking in general. I have seen several "decentered" lens test claims that were a DOF, atmospheric or camera stability issue.

I'm a pixel peeper and if I had a decentered lens I would know it because I know what right looks like with the world's best glass. I also know what right looks like when it is not the world's best glass but very good zoom glass at a great price like the 18-55 and 55-200.

The problem is, there is no objective standard for what a decentered lens is or what the results look like. It is subjective and sometimes we see something that might not be a problem for someone else or is really not a problem at all in actual shooting situations.

 

[Jerry-astro]

Fred,

This is not about you, so don't take offense please.

I know there are decentered lenses out there in the wild from all brands. It is a popular topic on all boards. It even happens on the MF Board.

This is my personal opinion, and I am not saying the lenses you checked are not decentered.

But here is my long-held belief, and not just about Fuji.

At least 80% of all decentered lens claims are exaggerated, misconstrued or just outright bogus. They are usually the mental fantasy of someone that has limited experience with a variety of lenses and mostly don't know what they are doing or what they are looking at after a poorly executed test (usually at a flat chart). Or they are sometimes the contrived result of someone who is very experienced but has an agenda. (Not you.)

The internet is loaded with "tests" for decentered lenses and everyone is paranoid from the constant bad copy and decentered lens chatter on all the boards.

I have talked to Fuji, Canon and even Leica techs who cringe when I mention the word "decentered". They just chuckle and start telling stories. They claim very few lenses sent in are actually decentered or have any problem at all.

I know there are bad copies of all brands of lenses out there, and there are people who I respect on this Board who have had a decentered lens or a bad copy of a Fuji lens that they returned. It happens. But rarely.

It has never happened to me and no one has bought more Fuji glass than me so I guess I've been very lucky.

I am not talking about this post by the OP. I'm talking in general. I have seen several "decentered" lens test claims that were a DOF, atmospheric or camera stability issue.

I'm a pixel peeper and if I had a decentered lens I would know it because I know what right looks like with the world's best glass. I also know what right looks like when it is not the world's best glass but very good zoom glass at a great price like the 18-55 and 55-200.

The problem is, there is no objective standard for what a decentered lens is or what the results look like. It is subjective and sometimes we see something that might not be a problem for someone else or is really not a problem at all in actual shooting situations.

Sorry to be a bit harsh, Greg, but I really don’t get the point of your long and wordy lecture on decentering. If you want to help, then focus on the images that were attached to the post and comment on them. If you feel that the lens is operating within specs, then say so. If you feel the testing was not done adequately, suggest a better method.

Otherwise, a long tome on the definition of the term “decentered” does little to help the OP. So, please, offer up some specific advice and/or observations based on his examples, a better test methodology, or just consider bowing out. I think the OP is simply trying to determine whether his lens is operating within spec or if there is something else at play here. Let’s focus on that.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 

[elfroggio]

The "proper way" of testing is outlined by Roger Cicala of lensrentals: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ntered-lens-an-old-technique-gets-a-makeover/

This will not only show you if it is decentered but also which side/where it is decentered if any...

I use the "Canon 60 spokes" chart printed on my HP laser printer. BTW, Canon is not about Canon cameras but the chart is for Canon printers. There's another one for Epson printers: https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/printable-siemens-star-targets/

 

[Greg7579]

Sorry to get your hackles up Jerry. You speaking as a mod or just a regular commenter?

I was expressing my very strongly held opinion (which is absolute truth by the way) after years of seeing posts like this and extensive experience with the equipment.

I'm talking about camera equipment here and the mostly urban myth of decentered lenses.

What... you want me to try to dig into these images and decentered lens testing metodology? I don't care about those copies. They could have rolled down a staircase yesterday for all we know.

Im talking about the diagnosis and the term decentered, which is the most abused term in all of cameradom.

No offense to the OP, as I said in my post. Who knows.... Maybe he found an actual decentered lens with those shots.

What do you think Jerry? Decentered lenses?

 

[michaeladawson]

Sorry to get your hackles up Jerry. You speaking as a mod or just a regular commenter?

I was expressing my very strongly held opinion (which is absolute truth by the way) after years of seeing posts like this and extensive experience with the equipment.

I'm talking about camera equipment here and the mostly urban myth of decentered lenses.

What... you want me to try to dig into these images and decentered lens testing metodology? I don't care about those copies. They could have rolled down a staircase yesterday for all we know.

Im talking about the diagnosis and the term decentered, which is the most abused term in all of cameradom.

No offense to the OP, as I said in my post. Who knows.... Maybe he found an actual decentered lens with those shots.

What do you think Jerry? Decentered lenses?

The expert has spoken. Case closed.

 

[Greg7579]

Sorry to get your hackles up Jerry. You speaking as a mod or just a regular commenter?

I was expressing my very strongly held opinion (which is absolute truth by the way) after years of seeing posts like this and extensive experience with the equipment.

I'm talking about camera equipment here and the mostly urban myth of decentered lenses.

What... you want me to try to dig into these images and decentered lens testing metodology? I don't care about those copies. They could have rolled down a staircase yesterday for all we know.

Im talking about the diagnosis and the term decentered, which is the most abused term in all of cameradom.

No offense to the OP, as I said in my post. Who knows.... Maybe he found an actual decentered lens with those shots.

What do you think Jerry? Decentered lenses?

The expert has spoken. Case closed.

Thanks a lot Mike.

I've always respected your opinion, so humor me. Tell me what you think about the post and those lenses. You think those lenses are decentered? What do you think is going on here?

Or do you think Fuji would consider them OK and within tolerance and therefore the lenses just aren't that good to begin with?

How common do you think decentering really is with new and undamaged Fuji glass? Was the lens damaged or is it a bad copy? Could it be spacing, tilting, other damage or misalignment?

Fuji NJ can easily check decentering and they can fix it. The have the equipment and can completely rebuild a lens if they want to. Apparently they did not and said something about a focus problem.

I will say that fuji is bad about not offering detailes about repairs. Sometimes they just write one sentence. But I always call the and dig. I have sent in a lot of lenses. Usually because I drop them.

 

[SiFu]

Hello!

Not trying to disturb your very own perception, but in fact "the non-decentered-lens" is a myth. Some variation always seems to take place from each copy of a lens to the next.

If you ever find the time you might want to check out the extensive LensRentals tests to see how "equal" lenses are accross the range.

The ill effects show themselves less pronounced whenever more DOF comes into play, but if you ever find and optically measure that white whale of a perfectly "centered" lens, please report back.

Best,

Alex

--
carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero

 

[Jerry-astro]

Sorry to get your hackles up Jerry. You speaking as a mod or just a regular commenter?

I was expressing my very strongly held opinion (which is absolute truth by the way) after years of seeing posts like this and extensive experience with the equipment.

I'm talking about camera equipment here and the mostly urban myth of decentered lenses.

What... you want me to try to dig into these images and decentered lens testing metodology? I don't care about those copies. They could have rolled down a staircase yesterday for all we know.

Im talking about the diagnosis and the term decentered, which is the most abused term in all of cameradom.

No offense to the OP, as I said in my post. Who knows.... Maybe he found an actual decentered lens with those shots.

What do you think Jerry? Decentered lenses?

I'll start by answering your question. I'm not sure there's enough information here to answer the question being discussed. Without sufficient data, I'm not one to make guesses, and my hackles are just fine, thanks. I was simply offering some advice about keeping the discussion on track and not diverting it into areas where, TBH, neither of us have sufficient information or expertise to really root cause the OP's problem. I was simply suggesting that a long treatise on decentering wasn't necessarily relevant or useful since there simply wasn't sufficient information to know whether this is the issue at hand or not.

So, long answer to a short question: just an opinion, not moderation per se.

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

 

[Rightsaidfred]

Hi guys

Many thanks for your opinions and discussion.

Let me try an intermediate summary.

Number one: it is not so important for me how we call the deviations we see here.

• Jerry: „a long tome on the definition of the term “decentered” does little to help the OP.“
• Greg: „could it be spacing, tilting, other damage or misalignment?“
• Jerry again: „I think the OP is simply trying to determine whether his lens is operating within spec or if there is something else at play here. Let’s focus on that."

YES! That’s the topic. However you call it, decentration, spacing, tilting, damage - not so important! In fact, and that's why I also added the handheld land shots as two "real photo" samples, with my lens at 200 mm, subjects in the left corners are not exactly sharp. Full stop. And, as a matter of fact, both lenses show different sharpness in the four corners which can be seen from the land shot, from the church tower, and from the test chart. I also did a 'tree test' which I did not include here because the tree test tends to get criticized. @ elfroggio (link to lensrentals site), yes I know that site. I did this, too but I find my quick test (the church tower in this case) more meaningful. Cf. the discussion I cited in my OP on the attempt of an 'SOP' for lens testing.

Number two, and that's the main point here: yes my hypothesis is that both copies are within the spec of the XF 55-200 mm.

• Greg: „The problem is, there is no objective standard for what a decentered lens is or what the results look like. It is subjective and sometimes we see something that might not be a problem for someone else or is really not a problem at all in actual shooting situations.“
• SiFu: „in fact "the non-decentered-lens" is a myth. Some variation always seems to take place from each copy of a lens to the next.“

I fully agree with your statements, and I think that's the point here. It is similar to what I also said in an earlier discussion contribution. You cannot expect perfection from a lens, least of all from a zoom lens. You can certainly expect a sharper spec from a $10k cine lens than from a $700 zoom lens. But what do I need to accept as a customer and what's too much, that's the big question!

My proposal is that Fuji considers both copies I reported on here OK and that what we see here, the-however-we-call-it, is normal tolerance. Look: these are two randomly selected copies of the XF 55-200 mm. Mine has been checked by Fuji and obviously been found OK. My friend’s was not checked. Both show quite some level of however-we-call-it. They behave a bit differently but not entirely differently, it's not like one was perfect and the other one was bad. And no, Greg, you can be sure none of them has rolled down the staircase.

But I can tell you that I definitely would not accept this level of however-we-call-it with a 200 mm prime lens!

Greg: „I will say that fuji is bad about not offering details about repairs. Sometimes they just write one sentence.“ => Yes that’s what they did in my case. A very brief statement. It is not even clear to me whether they just analyzed and found it OK or whether they really adjusted something.

Why did I post this comparison in the forum?

I am curious about further opinions. I am interested if others with more experience would agree and say yes, this clearly the usual level of tolerance, or no, this is clearly way beyond usual tolerance and us two guys are just unlucky and got two really bad copies at the edge of or outside the spec.

Again, my proposal is that it's deviation within the normal range. What helped me most in my own benchmarking is that I got the chance to test a second copy of the same lens on the same (my) body at the same time under the same conditions.

Best,

Martin

 

[baobob]

With my 18-135mm at 135mm there is sometime a decentring effect

One way to migeate it quite wel is to quickly and firmly turn the zoom ring to the max since on this lens after 100mm there is a stiff point

I also noticed that the decentring visible effect is variable according to the light and the distance of course

I always now play with the zoom ring several times before shooting in order to reduce misplacement of the front elements

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Sorry to get your hackles up Jerry. You speaking as a mod or just a regular commenter?

I was expressing my very strongly held opinion (which is absolute truth by the way) after years of seeing posts like this and extensive experience with the equipment.

I'm talking about camera equipment here and the mostly urban myth of decentered lenses.

But that's admittedly only your OPINION.

What... you want me to try to dig into these images and decentered lens testing metodology? I don't care about those copies. They could have rolled down a staircase yesterday for all we know.

Im talking about the diagnosis and the term decentered, which is the most abused term in all of cameradom.

OPINION.

No offense to the OP, as I said in my post. Who knows.... Maybe he found an actual decentered lens with those shots.

Interesting. Maybe it's not an urban myth? Which is it?

What do you think Jerry? Decentered lenses?

Have you ever noticed how a truly helpful contribution is fashioned?

It is short on opinion, short period, just getting to the point with practical advice. That obviates a need to go on and on, as well as the need to express with a boastful bloated sense of one's self to desperately be taken seriously.

--
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Fred,

This is not about you, so don't take offense please.

I know there are decentered lenses out there in the wild from all brands. It is a popular topic on all boards. It even happens on the MF Board.

This is my personal opinion, and I am not saying the lenses you checked are not decentered.

But here is my long-held belief, and not just about Fuji.

At least 80% of all decentered lens claims are exaggerated, misconstrued or just outright bogus. They are usually the mental fantasy of someone that has limited experience with a variety of lenses and mostly don't know what they are doing or what they are looking at after a poorly executed test (usually at a flat chart). Or they are sometimes the contrived result of someone who is very experienced but has an agenda. (Not you.)

The internet is loaded with "tests" for decentered lenses and everyone is paranoid from the constant bad copy and decentered lens chatter on all the boards.

I have talked to Fuji, Canon and even Leica techs who cringe when I mention the word "decentered". They just chuckle and start telling stories. They claim very few lenses sent in are actually decentered or have any problem at all.

I know there are bad copies of all brands of lenses out there, and there are people who I respect on this Board who have had a decentered lens or a bad copy of a Fuji lens that they returned. It happens. But rarely.

It has never happened to me and no one has bought more Fuji glass than me so I guess I've been very lucky.

I am not talking about this post by the OP. I'm talking in general. I have seen several "decentered" lens test claims that were a DOF, atmospheric or camera stability issue.

I'm a pixel peeper and if I had a decentered lens I would know it because I know what right looks like with the world's best glass. I also know what right looks like when it is not the world's best glass but very good zoom glass at a great price like the 18-55 and 55-200.

The problem is, there is no objective standard for what a decentered lens is or what the results look like. It is subjective and sometimes we see something that might not be a problem for someone else or is really not a problem at all in actual shooting situations.

All I know is, whenever something even a tiny bit negative is said about Fuji hardware, you get all hot and bothered as if you were personally attacked. It happens time and time again, and the topic then becomes about you. That's rather disruptive.

--
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.

 

[Greg7579]

The "proper way" of testing is outlined by Roger Cicala of lensrentals: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ntered-lens-an-old-technique-gets-a-makeover/

This will not only show you if it is decentered but also which side/where it is decentered if any...

I use the "Canon 60 spokes" chart printed on my HP laser printer. BTW, Canon is not about Canon cameras but the chart is for Canon printers. There's another one for Epson printers: https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/printable-siemens-star-targets/

I have seen this very good article many times over the years and it has been linked on many discussions about decentered lenses on DPR.

On the MF Board, people talk about this topic all the time, and there are actual scientists that hang out there and discuss this stuff in detail. Star charts are as common there as Rolling Stones posters in the 70s.

One must be careful when doing a star chart test. Star chart wall shoots have resulted in more false positives over the years when it comes to decentering claims than anything. It can be a great quick check. Or not....

The article is very good because of the diagrams and explanation about what decentering is and isn't. Everyone here on this thread should read it.

It seems like ten years ago I read that article. How old is it?

 

[Greg7579]

Bob, on your two posts, are you speaking as a moderator? This is not the old Greg and Bob situation where we can go back and forth because you are a Mod now and that makes me uncomfortable.

On your other response, you said it was just my opinion. Of course it is just my opinion. It was an opinion post. This is a camera equipment discussion forum that deals in people's opinions about gear.

You hit me pretty hard (for a Mod) by saying I blindly defend Fuji anytime someone says something about it. That hurts, because I am very careful about that these days and actually don't even feel that way. If one were to (for some reason) audit my last 2000 posts, you would have great difficulty supporting the claim that I am a crusading defender of Fuji.

The OP was not attacking Fuji. It was not defending Fuji. I wasn't even talking about Fuji.

But I do like Fuji and I put my money where my mouth is.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended you in my decentered discussion.

Two of the tree mods jumped on me for my comments about decentered lenses in general.

 

[Greg7579]

With my 18-135mm at 135mm there is sometime a decentring effect

One way to migeate it quite wel is to quickly and firmly turn the zoom ring to the max since on this lens after 100mm there is a stiff point

I also noticed that the decentring visible effect is variable according to the light and the distance of course

I always now play with the zoom ring several times before shooting in order to reduce misplacement of the front elements

Bob, I have heard for years that there are many lenses that will display decentered effects on star chart and other tests but the lens is not decentered. That is especially true of super zooms. I am not an optical scientist. I just like to tread about photography gear and it has been talked about a lot.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Bob, on your two posts, are you speaking as a moderator? This is not the old Greg and Bob situation where we can go back and forth because you are a Mod now and that makes me uncomfortable.

No need to worry on that account. You might forget what I've advised you through PM's. Rest assured, my personal opinion will not affect your standing (which, as you know already, has been tenuous for a long, long time).

On your other response, you said it was just my opinion. Of course it is just my opinion. It was an opinion post. This is a camera equipment discussion forum that deals in people's opinions about gear.

Yet, you contradicted yourself.

You hit me pretty hard (for a Mod) by saying I blindly defend Fuji anytime someone says something about it. That hurts, because I am very careful about that these days and actually don't even feel that way. If one were to (for some reason) audit my last 2000 posts, you would have great difficulty supporting the claim that I am a crusading defender of Fuji.

You may feel that way, but your posts indicate otherwise.

The OP was not attacking Fuji. It was not defending Fuji. I wasn't even talking about Fuji.

But I do like Fuji and I put my money where my mouth is.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended you in my decentered discussion.

I'm not offended.

Two of the tree mods jumped on me for my comments about decentered lenses in general.

Maybe that's something you should consider reflecting upon in private.

There's no need to discuss this further, I'm putting this behind me and moving on - IF YOU WILL ALLOW IT by doing the same. If you have any issues with me, take it up with my co-mods or DPR Administration.

Thank you.

--
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

The OP was not attacking Fuji. It was not defending Fuji.

Right.

I wasn't even talking about Fuji.

Well, it was about two copies of an XF zoom lens but yes, the question is ultimately independent from a brand. We can understand it in the way 'what tolerance can I expect from a zoom lens.'

But I do like Fuji and I put my money where my mouth is.

Me too. It's my only current camera system (after yrs with Pentax). I like the Fuji system for a lot of good reasons! But I also use it with manual lenses from Venus Optics (Laowa) and most recently, also KamLan.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I offended you in my decentered discussion.

Two of the tree mods jumped on me for my comments about decentered lenses in general.

C'mon let's stop this and just get back to the topic

Would be cool if a few experts replied to my intermediate summary.

Cheers,

Martin

 

[Bobo Hodls]

C'mon let's stop this and just get back to the topic

Would be cool if a few experts replied to my intermediate summary.

Indeed. Good suggestion, Martin (echoing Jerry's initial suggestion too).

--
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't."
------ Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
@ bobtullis.com & flickr.com/photos/bobtullis
.
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration.