Are Fuji Lenses Really That Good?

[zeratulmrye]

I just saw our dear admin arguing with some kind of Fuji fanboy on twitter right now, and they started this war, that's why I'm posting this thread.

Fuji lenses are totally overrated. They're craps actually. 

1: Bokeh

 

Fuji tends to overcorrect spherical aberration to increase the sharpness, but this comes at a price of nervous bokeh. Some photographer may think that bokeh is subjective and cannot be objectively measured, well, if you have followed Professor Hank Dietz's academic work, you will know that's not true. I suggest everyone just read this article here:

http://bokehtests.com/styled/index.html

It provides an excellent explanation about how good bokeh should be like. If you shoot an out-of-focus LED light (please put it behind your focus point since background bokeh is obviously more important than foreground), usually you will get four kind of results, as shown in the following picture:

 

 

C: Perfect bokeh. Only very few lenses can achieve it, like the Minolta 135 STF of course.

A: Good bokeh for normal lenses.

B: Nervous bokeh

D: Something even worse than B.

 

And then check out the review on lenstip for XF56:

http://www.lenstip.com/420.7-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_56_mm_f_1.2_R_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

 

Category D, for sure. It's not that bad in the center, but at the corner, overcorrected spherical aberration and poorly controlled coma (coma is actually Fuji's weak spot) quickly comes into play. Honestly, this is the worst bokeh I've ever seen for a 85mm equivalent lens, unbelievably bad. Sigma Samyang Nikon Canon and Sony A-mount lenses are all doing better than this. Here are some real world comparison:

 

http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=1492084

 

This website is in Deutsch but the pictures are self-explaining. Nikon 85 1.4G (even at F1.8, so it's fair comparison) easily beats Fuji's crap out. 

 

Some other real world comparison, with Canon:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55695253

 

The scene is not that challenging but still Canon 85 1.8 is clearly the winner here, especially for scene No.3.

 

Even the APD filter cannot save the day:

 

http://www.fujivsfuji.com/56mm-f1pt2-vs-apd/

 

Again, worst bokeh for 85 equiv ever. I'm not exaggerating anything. I knew this fact for a long time but never really talked about it on the internet. But what those FUJI fanboy said on twitter kinds of pissed me off. SONY FE system did not have an 85 F1.8 equivalent, but that story ends since the BATIS is coming now.

 

BTW, XF35 also belongs to category D (check Lenstip) in some very complicated scene even SEL35 can beat it, even though it is only F1.8. XF23 is much better than XF35, but still not the best bokeh lens on the market, as you can seen in the comparison that Admin has posted:

 

http://admiringlight.com/blog/sony-zeiss-fe-35mm-f1-4-vs-fuji-xf-23mm-f1-4/

 

 

 

2: Sharpness

 

In terms of sharpness, FF lens vs APS-C lens is more like Chuck Norris beating a three years old kid. Why am I comparing Fuji lens to FF lenses? Well, just to show you guys how much the sensor size matters. Besides, the Fuji lenses are almost as expensive as FF lenses so maybe this is not that unfair at all.

 

Some guys do not like MTF numbers so I'll just show some chart shots which are more straightforward and convincing.

 

XF10-24: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2037/objectif-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-10-24mm-f4-r-ois-flash-test-8.html

FE16-35: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2011/objectif-sony-vario-tessar-t-fe-16-15-mm-f-4-za-oss-flash-test-8.html

 

I told you so. It's like beating a three years old kid.

 

XF35: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2022/objectif-fujifilm-fujinon-xf-35mm-f14-r-flash-test-8.html

FE55: http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1800/objectif-test-sony-55-mm-f18-fe-zeiss-mires-3.html

 

I cannot watch this poor kid crying anymore. 

 

Large circle of image gives huge advantage. Those 8x10 guys can shoot only with a pinhole, the image is not that sharp but it will definitely surprise you that how good a camera without a lens can do. If you try that with your tiny (compared to 8X10 of course) FF or APS-C camera and you will get some blurry crap as everyone would expected. Size matters, simple fact.

 

3: Equivalent Aperture

 

Some people believe that APS-C F1.2 is "faster" than FF F1.8, well, that's also bullshit. The shutter speed is indeed faster for same ISO setting, but that's meaningless since FF sensor has better signal-to-noise ratio at the same output resolution. Richard Butler who works for DPReview has posted some articles about equivalent aperture. I knew this long before he wrote these articles because I used to work in the image sensor industry. I'm not a native English speaker so I'll just put some simple words on this issue:

 

1: For the same F-stop (regardless of the sensor size), you have the same exposure, which is the amount of photons you collected per area. PER AREA, it's important so I have to repeat it.

2: The total amount of light is the product of the exposure and the sensor area. Do some simple math and a clever guy can easily figure out that it's the equivalent aperture that determines the total amount of light that you collected.

3: The dominant noise source in the sensor is the shot noise, which is the result of the discrete nature of photons. The strength of shot noise is always determined by the total amount of light, or equivalent aperture, as long as you have resized the photo to the same resolution, no matter what's the native resolution your sensor has.

4: Read noise/electrical noise from the sensor itself also affect the SNR in theory, but it's basically negligible in nowadays CMOS sensors. In CCD, read noise is still an issue.

 

In conclusion, if you resize your F2.8 1/100s 36MP photo from A7R to 16MP, it will have similar image quality as an F1.4 1/100s 16MP M43 photo or an F1.8 1/100s 16MP APS-C photo.

 

Most of you may know that equivalent aperture also determines the relative diameter of the circle of confusion and the diffraction limit, so I'll skip this part. An APS-C F1.2 is essentially an FF F1.8 in nearly every aspect regarding optical performance: SNR, bokeh, and diffraction. More importantly, APS-C lenses are usually heavier, larger and more expensive than their FF equivalents, and the sharpness is significantly lower (I'm not just talking about FUJI, it is a common issue for all APS-C or M43 lenses from all brands).  I'm sure you guys can find some counterexample, but statistically my point is quite firm, just do the comparison yourself. So personally I'm never a big fan of those fancy high-end APS-C lenses (for example, Sony E24 vs Sony FE35), I buy APS-C lenses actually because some of them are low-end, they have small equivalent aperture that those FF lenses didn't have, which leads to good portability. Besides, the APS-C body is cheap and light, and that's all. "High spec" APS-C lenses make very little sense. Every time SONY announces a new lens, one Fujinon or any other high-end APS-C/M43 lenses with similar spec just become trashed. So after all, It's ridiculous for a manufacture who only have an overpriced APS-C product line with unreasonable "high" spec to brag about their optical quality. Come to full format first, and then we can talk.

[Guest PenGun]

 Another bokeah nut, did I spell it wrong? Fuji makes some very fine lenses, among the best APS-C lenses ever made. I used to own a 14mm 2.8 and it was amazing. I sometimes wonder why I went FF, then I look at my printer.

 

 You have some serious misunderstandings in your astroturfing of blur.

 

 That you would create an account on a Sony forum to diss Fuji lenses speaks to a serious problem somewhere.

[Golem]

 Another bokeah nut, did I spell it wrong? Fuji makes some very fine lenses, among

the best APS-C lenses ever made. I used to own a 14mm 2.8 and it was amazing. I

sometimes wonder why I went FF, then I look at my printer.

 

 You have some serious misunderstandings in your astroturfing of blur.

 

 That you would create an account on a Sony forum to diss Fuji lenses speaks to a

serious problem somewhere.

   

He's just another test-lab-oriented results-ignoring internet expert. Not a

photographer. Just a gear head. I read these geeks for entertainment so

I never bother to follow the links they provide. It's not really the accuracy

or quality of his content that tells me the content is useless .... you can

smell uselessness in his presentation, in his tone/attitude, and the fact  

that he's a first-post-noob posting a lengthy diatribe. 

  

Interesting point about hijacking an inappropriate forum to bash Fuji. I'd

not thought about that til you mentioned it cuz, like ... entertainment !  

  

And a big "+1" regarding bokeh geeks. Somehow they've all agreed that

defocused areas should look mushy or airbrushed. Perznally, I prefer the

effect that they scorn and call "nervous bokeh". It looks photographic and

thaz appropriate in photographs, if you ask me, which I admit you did not. 

 

   

`

[zeratulmrye]

He's just another test-lab-oriented results-ignoring internet expert. Not a

photographer. Just a gear head.

  

And a big "+1" regarding bokeh geeks. Somehow they've all agreed that

defocused areas should look mushy or airbrushed. Perznally, I prefer the

effect that they scorn and call "nervous bokeh". It looks photographic and

thaz appropriate in photographs, if you ask me, which I admit you did not. 

 

Thank you for your friendly and informative and very logical reply, Golem. We gear head do listen to your precious opinion. I do not do optical design myself but my colleagues do, they did a survey several years back to investigate people's taste on bokeh. Unlike you gifted pro photographers who knows good bokeh from bad at first glance, we're just bunches of gear head who can only figure it out by endless stupid scientific tests.

 

They provided bokeh samples of several lenses shooting the same scnenes to 20 pros and around 100 amateurs, not telling them which lens is being used of course. Well, only one of the pro likes nervous bokeh, and several amateurs, I dont remember the number but definitely one-digit. So it's easy to understand why all manufactures are trying to make creamy bokeh since they must have done the same survey themselves. But we also respect the choice of the 5% guys (not sarcasm), if you like nervous bokeh, go for Fuji, they're like the nervous king on the market, and I apologize to you if this post makes you upset (maybe that's not necessary because as you said you enjoyed reading this post very much). 

 

Oh by the way... I'll bet 5 cent that you didn't even know Fuji bokeh is nervous before. Maybe you should thank me for providing the info.

[Steve C]

I'll only say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you like it, or if,as a commercial photographer your client likes it then that is all that matters.

Charts,science and data have nothing in common with artistic view.

I like Fuji, I think my Xpro-1 is a beautiful thing, I also like my XA-1 and of course, my A7 does amazing things with my old,non Sony lenses.

[zeratulmrye]

I'll only say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, if you like it, or if,as a commercial photographer your client likes it then that is all that matters.

Charts,science and data have nothing in common with artistic view.

I like Fuji, I think my Xpro-1 is a beautiful thing, I also like my XA-1 and of course, my A7 does amazing things with my old,non Sony lenses.

 

Sure, most clients have no idea if the bokeh is good or not, as long as it is bokeh, they are happy. Actually, MOST photographers also have no idea if their gear is really good or not, they don't know MTF or CA or whatever, they never did any serious comparison, and that doesn't stop them from making good pictures. Bad gears doesn't hurt that much, it is the creativity, composition and post processing etc. that really matters.

 

But still, bad gears are bad gears, that fact doesn't change. Technically speaking, Fuji lenses are quite mediocre at best.

[Guest PenGun]

Sure, most clients have no idea if the bokeh is good or not, as long as it is bokeh, they are happy. Actually, MOST photographers also have no idea if their gear is really good or not, they don't know MTF or CA or whatever, they never did any serious comparison, and that doesn't stop them from making good pictures. Bad gears doesn't hurt that much, it is the creativity, composition and post processing etc. that really matters.

 

But still, bad gears are bad gears, that fact doesn't change. Technically speaking, Fuji lenses are quite mediocre at best.

 Bullshit, pure and simple.

[foto-fanatic]

Hey, mediocrity is the credo mode of progressive society, so maybe in that sense fuji lenses are excelling at mediocrity, thus making there lenses exceptional?

 

HAHA

p.s.

I had a fuji xe-1 and an 18-55  a while back, got some pretty nice sharp images from it, and every time a took a shot of flowers, the boquet was sensational!!!  

 

Well i got some very nice photos out of that camera and lens, search for "mediasorcery with the xe-1" on fuji forum if it behooves you.

There were some situations where the 18-55 produced crinkle cut bokeh, but it was only at some focal lengths if i remember right.

[Guest PenGun]

Hey, mediocrity is the credo mode of progressive society, so maybe in that sense fuji lenses are excelling at mediocrity, thus making there lenses exceptional?

 

HAHA

p.s.

I had a fuji xe-1 and an 18-55  a while back, got some pretty nice sharp images from it, and every time a took a shot of flowers, the boquet was sensational!!!  

 

Well i got some very nice photos out of that camera and lens, search for "mediasorcery with the xe-1" on fuji forum if it behooves you.

There were some situations where the 18-55 produced crinkle cut bokeh, but it was only at some focal lengths if i remember right.

 The kit zoom was good but the 35 1.4 and the 14 2.8 are both stellar lenses.

[D700]

 Bullshit, pure and simple.

 

The whole starting post is BS ...

Every new lens that Fuji announces is unique and delivers great results ...

 

I would suggest the TO to post his "derailment" here:

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/

[foto-fanatic]

^Yes i agree, there pretty good if not great, the truth is in the image, not charts.

 

The fuji system is great there a lovely handling camera too very logically laid out and functionally sound.

 

@ pengun you are right!!

 

Do people ever get tired of bitching on cameras, its like kids in a schoolyard, my toys better then yours.

The way people talk, you would think they would be happy if some cameras were never even invented or produced for consumers.

 

It's frightfully disconcerting to have to admit, but on the nets, it really is the great new age of the wilfully ignorant moron. 

[Kirkp]

I don't see any reason for the drama in the OP. But the first link illustrating the effects of spherical aberration on bokeh are useful. A few months ago I discovered that taking photos of a string of mini-lights at several distances behind the plane of focus at different aperture settings helped me assess how the bokeh of the lens would look. "Point Spread Funtion" is the optical term.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function

[Lefty]

 It's frightfully disconcerting to have to admit, but on the nets, it really is the great new age of the wilfully ignorant moron. 

 

 

The mouse is the source of all evil. If people still had to figure out how to use the command line to get on line the web would be a lot nicer place. Pan-X and Dektol forever!

[Golem]

`  

  

Seems kinda silly to process Pan-X in Dektol .... 

   

-------------------------------------------------------------- 

   

Never mind the willfully ignorant morons, we

are inundated by willfully ignorant experts !

  

A word of caution to Internet Experts: 

 

Declaring your credentials blows your cover. I

know for an absolute fact that among us are

those having incredible credentials combined

with well rounded experience who, perhaps

due to what well rounded experience teaches

them, never ever leak a word about who they

really are. OTOH, they are as obvious to each

other as they are invisible to most. 

 

  

` 

[Golem]

........................ We gear head do listen to your precious opinion. I do

not do optical design myself but my colleagues do, they did a survey

several years back to investigate people's taste on bokeh. .............

 

Oh by the way... I'll bet 5 cent that you didn't even know Fuji bokeh is

nervous before. Maybe you should thank me for providing the info.  

    

  

Last thing first. Thank you. It's good descriptive term. Me likey.

  

OK, you did a survey. IOW, you have stats. Need I say more ? 

  

` 

[foto-fanatic]

Hey i'm sorry i was a bit harsh i guess it becomes tiring when people treat corporations like football teams.

At the end of the day, we are talking about a work of art, although the better the equipment the better the result can be, that doesn't account for aesthetic awareness or subjective tastes etc.

 

There is an irony with the sony in that it will take almost any brand of lens hehe.

Some guy on here posted something about 11 bit files, im sure most of us knew about that before we bought, i did.

 

That doesnt bother me at all, im not counting the bits when i peruse a beautiful photo.

Any modern sensor big and small and even older ccd ones can produce fantastic results what say?

[Golem]

.......................................

 

Some guy on here posted something about 11 bit files, im

sure most of us knew about that before we bought, i did.

 

........................................

  

That remark was from Maxdog. He's just a troll, but with an agenda.

He posts outrageous nonsense, but tends to include a link to some

useless page that he's shilling ... to up that page's hit count. 

  

` 

[foto-fanatic]

Ok Golem it sounds like you have his mojo dialled in what a stupid pastime?

[Golem]

Ok Golem it sounds like you have his mojo dialled in what a stupid pastime?

  

And he's not unique. Consider the OP of this thread. Here's the

key statement:

   

"Fuji lenses are totally overrated. They're craps actually."  

   

You can be 101% certain that persons who are helpful and who

actually KNOW what they're talking about NEVER use language

like that. It doesn't matter what the content of any post might be,

when the warning label on the package, a post being a package

of information, is telling you that the contents is untrustworthy. 

   

` 

[Romeo Bravo Photo]

While I don't agree with the OP's delivery, I have to agree with his main point.

I have read SEVERAL reviews about how amazing Fuji XF lenses are, and how creamy the bokeh is (especially the 56/1.2), but my eyes see something different.

Do some people just not see it?  The nervous bokeh in some of the samples actually make me a little nauseous.

 

[Golem]

Don'tt concern yourself over bokeh or DoF.

They're the flaming paper bag on the porch

with the load of dog schidt inside :-) 

 

No one who contributed to the aesthetic

development of photography over it's long

history bothered themselves with that silly

BS. Now that photography's long history is

ending, the dregs run around fussing over

imaginary issues.