Comparing 16-80, 60/2.4 and 33/1.4 for close ups...

[Yannis1976]

I questioning a bit the usefulness of the 60/2.4 when the 16-80 is pretty good at close ups and the 33/1.4 is super sharp... So I decided to check all three of them in close ups:













All seem great to my eyes and maybe with some more cropping I can achieve the same exact view on the 33 and 16-80 lenses. And some more:













Another issue I seem to encounter with the 60mm on the XT5 is that IBIS seems much less effective!! I get blurred images even with speeds at 1/100 which seems a bit odd...

--
Yannis

Yannis Tzevelekos

Explore Yannis Tzevelekos’s 969 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

https://www.viewbug.com/member/Yannis76

 

[Claes]

If you dont see the difference, simplify for sure.

For me, the 60 is clearly better, but I might have confirmation bias, since I own one and like it. Without looking at the info, I picked out the 60 image in both your examples, easily.

The ibis works worse due to the magnification, which is a function of your focal length and the distance to the focal point.

Remember it is the camera that does the ibis, it is physics that makes it worse. The lens is not involved.

Also the 60 is tiny, that matters too.

 

[Morris0]

Thank you Yannis,

The 33mm looks great!

Morris

 

[Yannis1976]

Thank you Yannis,

The 33mm looks great!

Morris

Exactly! I have taken some shots also with the 33 and the MCEX11 and magnification is even higher with the same great IQ. Will try to pp them and post them later

 

[William the X-T5 guy]

All seem great to my eyes and maybe with some more cropping I can achieve the same exact view on the 33 and 16-80 lenses. And some more:

What really changes is the amount of background, with the longer focal length showing a narrower portion of it.

This makes background control much easier.

Another issue I seem to encounter with the 60mm on the XT5 is that IBIS seems much less effective!! I get blurred images even with speeds at 1/100 which seems a bit odd...

Yeah, this is what I found too and is why I am so insistent that a tripod is important for use with this camera. Macro work is certainly more demanding of shake reduction than pictures taken from a distance. I guess the trick is to figure out where the point between when handholding is usable for ones purpose and when needing a tripod for that purpose lies.

I've found the X-T5 has moved my bar quite a bit towards needing a tripod to get the most out of what it can do.

I can handhold my K1 and 100/2.8 macro to lower speeds than my X-T5 and 80/2.8 macro with acceptable results. It's not a perfect comparison because while the weights are very similar the balance is lens heavy with the Fuji and the angle of view of the Fuji is smaller, but I'm sure the relaxed pixel density of the K1 has a lot to do with it.

Full disclosure, I am older and probably not as steady as I was 40 years ago.

 

[Yannis1976]

All seem great to my eyes and maybe with some more cropping I can achieve the same exact view on the 33 and 16-80 lenses. And some more:

What really changes is the amount of background, with the longer focal length showing a narrower portion of it.

This makes background control much easier.

Another issue I seem to encounter with the 60mm on the XT5 is that IBIS seems much less effective!! I get blurred images even with speeds at 1/100 which seems a bit odd...

Yeah, this is what I found too and is why I am so insistent that a tripod is important for use with this camera. Macro work is certainly more demanding of shake reduction than pictures taken from a distance. I guess the trick is to figure out where the point between when handholding is usable for ones purpose and when needing a tripod for that purpose lies.

I don't think it's a tripod issue, but rather a bug of XT5 IBIS with the 60/2.4. I don't get these issues with the 16-80 or the 33...

I've found the X-T5 has moved my bar quite a bit towards needing a tripod to get the most out of what it can do.

I can handhold my K1 and 100/2.8 macro to lower speeds than my X-T5 and 80/2.8 macro with acceptable results. It's not a perfect comparison because while the weights are very similar the balance is lens heavy with the Fuji and the angle of view of the Fuji is smaller, but I'm sure the relaxed pixel density of the K1 has a lot to do with it.

Full disclosure, I am older and probably not as steady as I was 40 years ago.

 

[Yannis1976]

Distance to subject is quite close, but lens works pretty good for semi macro...













--
Yannis

Yannis Tzevelekos

Explore Yannis Tzevelekos’s 969 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

https://www.viewbug.com/member/Yannis76

 

[William the X-T5 guy]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

 

[Yannis1976]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

Yes I know, but the 80mm of the 16-80 is not shorter. Anyway will test it also with the Sigma 56mm at some point, but I see this strange behavior only with the 60mm/2.4 so far.

 

[Bob1209]

My 33mm f/1.4 R LM WR has become my workhorse. Very sharp and close focus (11.8") capability. I find myself picking up my 33mm over my 80mm macro more often, except for extreme close-up work just because it is so good and lightweight. I don't take my 80mm macro out into the field anymore; it is for studio work only now.

I also have the 16-80mm kit lens, but it sits in the cabinet now never used. Never really thought it's quality was very good (a bit soft). I am spoiled now by Fuji's new primes.

 

[Jeff Biscuits]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

Yes I know, but the 80mm of the 16-80 is not shorter.

But the 16-80 itself is stabilised. I don’t have IBIS and often shoot at 1/4sec with it.

 

[William the X-T5 guy]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

Yes I know, but the 80mm of the 16-80 is not shorter. Anyway will test it also with the Sigma 56mm at some point, but I see this strange behavior only with the 60mm/2.4 so far.

It would be an odd glitch seeing as how all the shake reduction does is read the focal length of the lens and act accordingly and your Exif is indicating the correct reported focal length.

I've never noticed the X-T5 not playing nice with my 60, nor have I seen any reports of the X-T5 not playing nice with the 60. I'd look a little deeper, and include the possibility of user error or confirmation bias.

 

[Claes]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

Yes I know, but the 80mm of the 16-80 is not shorter. Anyway will test it also with the Sigma 56mm at some point, but I see this strange behavior only with the 60mm/2.4 so far.

It would be an odd glitch seeing as how all the shake reduction does is read the focal length of the lens and act accordingly and your Exif is indicating the correct reported focal length.

I've never noticed the X-T5 not playing nice with my 60, nor have I seen any reports of the X-T5 not playing nice with the 60. I'd look a little deeper, and include the possibility of user error or confirmation bias.

If at mfd with the 60, compared to the other lenses, it is pretty much a 120 mm lens, due to the magnification being twice as high sort of.

In closeups, the magnification grade plays a large part of how sensitive it is to movement, it is not just the focal length.

 

[Poppamies]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

Yes I know, but the 80mm of the 16-80 is not shorter. Anyway will test it also with the Sigma 56mm at some point, but I see this strange behavior only with the 60mm/2.4 so far.

It would be an odd glitch seeing as how all the shake reduction does is read the focal length of the lens and act accordingly and your Exif is indicating the correct reported focal length.

I've never noticed the X-T5 not playing nice with my 60, nor have I seen any reports of the X-T5 not playing nice with the 60. I'd look a little deeper, and include the possibility of user error or confirmation bias.

If at mfd with the 60, compared to the other lenses, it is pretty much a 120 mm lens, due to the magnification being twice as high sort of.

In closeups, the magnification grade plays a large part of how sensitive it is to movement, it is not just the focal length.

This is correct, when i was using adapted glass for close ups on Mft i dialled in about 70 percent longer focal length for the IBIS to work right at macro distances.

 

[Yannis1976]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

Yes I know, but the 80mm of the 16-80 is not shorter. Anyway will test it also with the Sigma 56mm at some point, but I see this strange behavior only with the 60mm/2.4 so far.

It would be an odd glitch seeing as how all the shake reduction does is read the focal length of the lens and act accordingly and your Exif is indicating the correct reported focal length.

I've never noticed the X-T5 not playing nice with my 60, nor have I seen any reports of the X-T5 not playing nice with the 60. I'd look a little deeper, and include the possibility of user error or confirmation bias.

If at mfd with the 60, compared to the other lenses, it is pretty much a 120 mm lens, due to the magnification being twice as high sort of.

In closeups, the magnification grade plays a large part of how sensitive it is to movement, it is not just the focal length.

This is correct, when i was using adapted glass for close ups on Mft i dialled in about 70 percent longer focal length for the IBIS to work right at macro distances.

But shouldn’t that be automatically adjusted by XT5 when using an AF Fuji lens??

 

[Lettermanian]

I questioning a bit the usefulness of the 60/2.4 when the 16-80 is pretty good at close ups and the 33/1.4 is super sharp... So I decided to check all three of them in close ups:







All seem great to my eyes and maybe with some more cropping I can achieve the same exact view on the 33 and 16-80 lenses. And some more:







Another issue I seem to encounter with the 60mm on the XT5 is that IBIS seems much less effective!! I get blurred images even with speeds at 1/100 which seems a bit odd...

Thank you for this Yannis, they are helpful indeed; African Daisies are one of my favourite flowers to photograph The first shot with the 16-80 is only 21.6mp, so did you crop in post, or shoot in TC mode?

--
"I much prefer to be behind the camera than in front of it."
- Me and every other introvert

 

[Yannis1976]

I questioning a bit the usefulness of the 60/2.4 when the 16-80 is pretty good at close ups and the 33/1.4 is super sharp... So I decided to check all three of them in close ups:







All seem great to my eyes and maybe with some more cropping I can achieve the same exact view on the 33 and 16-80 lenses. And some more:







Another issue I seem to encounter with the 60mm on the XT5 is that IBIS seems much less effective!! I get blurred images even with speeds at 1/100 which seems a bit odd...

Thank you for this Yannis, they are helpful indeed; African Daisies are one of my favourite flowers to photograph The first shot with the 16-80 is only 21.6mp, so did you crop in post, or shoot in TC mode?

Everything is pp, so cropped in LR.

--
Yannis

Yannis Tzevelekos

Explore Yannis Tzevelekos’s 969 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

https://www.viewbug.com/member/Yannis76

 

[Lettermanian]

*My apologies to Yannis; I had posted these here instead of on my own post. I can't withdraw it from here now. I have reposted these samples over on my own thread :-|



These are two sample images taken with the new 16-50, at 50mm f5.6 minimum focus distance. The first is SOOC HEIF exported to JPEG to post here, high iso NR is -4, sharpening is at 0 in-camera. The second is a JPEG from the RAW file. I think DPR does apply some compression too.

Is this level of sharpness a reasonable expectation for this lens? Not said cynically; I just want to know what to expect, and wondering if the 16-80 at 80mm mfd will give slightly better results.

*edit to add: I was shooting in the evening light so the ISO is somewhat high. I will try again today in better light.


Full-size JPEG from in-camera HEIF, no pp


Full-size JPEG from RAW file, no pp

--
"I much prefer to be behind the camera than in front of it."
- Me and every other introvert

 

[Poppamies]

Coming from Pentax, I've known for a couple of decades that IBIS is more effective with shorter focal lengths.

Yes I know, but the 80mm of the 16-80 is not shorter. Anyway will test it also with the Sigma 56mm at some point, but I see this strange behavior only with the 60mm/2.4 so far.

It would be an odd glitch seeing as how all the shake reduction does is read the focal length of the lens and act accordingly and your Exif is indicating the correct reported focal length.

I've never noticed the X-T5 not playing nice with my 60, nor have I seen any reports of the X-T5 not playing nice with the 60. I'd look a little deeper, and include the possibility of user error or confirmation bias.

If at mfd with the 60, compared to the other lenses, it is pretty much a 120 mm lens, due to the magnification being twice as high sort of.

In closeups, the magnification grade plays a large part of how sensitive it is to movement, it is not just the focal length.

This is correct, when i was using adapted glass for close ups on Mft i dialled in about 70 percent longer focal length for the IBIS to work right at macro distances.

But shouldn’t that be automatically adjusted by XT5 when using an AF Fuji lens??