Jump to content

Sharpness 56mm 1.2


jabecker85

Recommended Posts

Hello Fuji-X-Shooters,

 

I have bought the Fuji 56mm some days ago and I must say that I'm disappointed with the sharpness wide open. I have read numerous reviews and most of them praise the great sharpness, especially wide open. Since the sharpness of my test-images lack the sharpness I have seen in the image samples in all reviews, I have lent me another 56mm to see if the lack of sharpness is due to production variation. Unfortunately, they differ in sharpness, but just ever so slightly that this variation can't be the difference.

 

To be sure about the sharpness, I have conducted another test yesterday. Before swapping to Fuji mostly, I had Canon equipment and still have my 6D with the 85mm 1.8 (which isn't famous for extreme sharpness wide open). I have made comparable shots with both setups (X-T1 + 56mm 1.2 and 6D + 85mm 1.8), cropped them to 100% and attached them to this post.

 

I would like to know:

 

(1) Is this the (lack of) sharpness I can expect from the the 56mm 1.2 concerning your experience? If so, why do all the reviews tell me it is extremely sharp wide open?

 

(2) Or did I accidentally get two crappy lenses, which I think is possible, but unlikely.

 

(3) My last guess is, that the lack of sharpness is due to my postprocessing. I used Adobe Lightroom 5.7 to convert the RAW-Files into DNGs, both with the Canon and the Fuji. I have heard of the problems with sharpness due to the bad RAW conversion of Lightroom, but didn't expect it to be that bad.

 

What do you think?

 

I have attached three files. The two ending with -1 and -2 are crops of the eyes of the Fuji image done with the sharper of the two 56mm. The one ending with -3 (the sharp one ;)) is from the Canon.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Edited out the APD and non APD version of 56mm lenses due to a confusion on my part.]

 

Now about Lightroom, you need to turn down a lot of the noise reduction features, like Luminance down to 0 and even that way there are still some left overs here and there. Nothing really THAT bad.

 

PhotoNinja does a much better job at converting the Fuji RAF files than Lightroom. Although there have been some progress made since LR 6.x version. Not perfect yet but we are slowly (very slowly) getting there. The 5.7 version was decent enough for most of my needs, it wasn't the sharpest but since I got used to LR ever since I started shooting I didn't wanted (read, too lazy) to change to another software editing tool or change my workflow from my Nikon days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes, undeniably your shot with the Canon 85mm is very much sharper than the other two.

 

 

Why that is remains to be ascertained.

 

It could be a matter of Lightroom conversion, which would immediately demand to see whether the same can be observed with an in-camera conversion.

 

If the incamera conversion shows the same results, then this is not a software problem but an hardware one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your ideas. I have tried the in-camera conversion with standard sharpness. The image is attached (ending with -5). Furthermore, I have done a quick sharpening with Lightroom on one of the images in my first post. It is attached as well (ending with -4). In my opinion the raw conversion in-camera has done a very nice job and the picture is way sharper and comparably sharp to the canon image (although still not that sharp). The sharpening in Lightroom was okay as well, but not that nice like the in-camera conversion. On the one hand it's good to know that the problem seems to be mostly a software one, although its bad for me because I truly don't want to switch Lightroom for any other raw converter :(

 

What I still would like to know: Does somebody here have the 56mm non-APD version and can confirm or decline that the sharpness in my pictures is typical for a lightroom conversion of a Fuji Raw done with the 56mm 1.2? Or would you say that apart from the software issues described above, the lens could be part of the sharpness problem as well? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, there are 2 versions of the XF 56mm F1.2, one standard, relatively cheaper and the second, the APD version, a lot more expensive.

 

Usually ppl refers to the APD version where it's really sharp even wide open. The standard version is a tiny bit softer wide open but it's sharp enough for almost anything you would use it for, including A1/A0 size prints.

 

Now about Lightroom, you need to turn down a lot of the noise reduction features, like Luminance down to 0 and even that way there are still some left overs here and there. Nothing really THAT bad.

 

PhotoNinja does a much better job at converting the Fuji RAF files than Lightroom. Although there have been some progress made since LR 6.x version. Not perfect yet but we are slowly (very slowly) getting there. The 5.7 version was decent enough for most of my needs, it wasn't the sharpest but since I got used to LR ever since I started shooting I didn't wanted (read, too lazy) to change to another software editing tool or change my workflow from my Nikon days.

I've never heard of any indication that the APD version is sharper than the standard version?  Could you point out where this info is coming from?

 

My standard version is very sharp wide open.  Stopping down the aperture sharpens things up only slightly.

 

To the OP....when you sharpened in lightroom did you have the 'detail' slider at or near 100%?  Try Amount 35%, Radius of 1.5-2, and detail to 100%.   Your images shot with the 56mm should mirror what you see with this Canon 1.8 you are shooting with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of any indication that the APD version is sharper than the standard version?  Could you point out where this info is coming from?

[...]

 

My deepest apologies, it seems that I got confused about some articles about the bokeh, both lenses are equally sharp. I will go edit my first post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed, there is no literature or test to substantiate an inherent sharpness difference from one 56mm over the other.

 

Again, in my mind, the only way to level the playing field is to shoot only with in-camera raw conversion and compare. 

 

If the image ending with 5 is converted by the camera I would seriously consider returning this copy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least the XF 56 does not show as much CA as the Canon!

But to get serious: This looks strange to me. I've looked at your images and noticed some things.

First: The iris in the Canon image is about 137 pixels in diameter, while the irides in the Fuji images are about 107 pixels in diameter. And while bigger images usually look better, and I'm confident that this fact is a part of the difference in perceived sharpness (but for sure not THAT difference), there is also another thing about it: The linear resolution of the 6D is about 12% higher than the X-T1's, but the iris is about 30% bigger. So you were closer when shooting with the Canon than you were with the Fuji.
 
Which brings me to the second point: I don't know how many images you took with the 56 or how the whole images look since you gave us only those crops, but could it be possible that the focus was not on the eye? I'm not implying that you are not able to focus right, but we all know about the quirks of the Fuji bodies regarding focusing. It would help if you tried to shoot something static. I know that's not the same as photographing real faces, but it will take the human factor out of the equation for this lens comparison.
 
In the end, I guess it's a combination of all those factors. Different resolution, different distance to subject, RAW developer handling the files different, and so on. You might download the free trial of Capture One to see if the Fuji images get better. But if it does not get better, I'd return the XF 56mm F1.2 R, because even pictures taken with my XF 27mm F2.8 at f/2.8 are sharper than what you showed.

P.S.: I don't see the images 4&5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like out of camera sharpness = 0 for XF 56mm 1.2 (non-APD version). I was aware about sharpness level before purchasing the lens. Ultra-fast apertures usually sacrifice some sharpness due to so wide light field. XF 56mm is not the exception, it's sharpness is bit reduced wide open but is still great and delivers a lot of details.

You can take a look at the test sharpness chart on photozone.de , it's quite representative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 56 1.2 APD had focus and sharpness issues when I first got it. Images always seemed slightly soft and out of focus. I had to send it back twice. Now it's tack sharp even at 1.2. Your sample image looks like the issue I had at first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the reviews say it's sharp 'especially wide open' they just mean it's relatively sharp wide open compared to its peers. The optimum sharpness will be found when stopped down a couple of times.

 

Photozone.de suggests centre sharpness peaks at f/4 and edge sharpness f/5.6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imho the images taken with your 56 are simply not in focus :) or pherehaps you di not shoot with super-steady hands. Fuji bodies do not have stabilization. Maybe your subject changed her pose slightly. Try with something static and shooting with a tripod or placing the camera on a table and let us know ;)

 

Inviato dal mio Nexus 5 utilizzando Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, thank you for your ideas and recommandations. Although all shots were done from a sturdy tripod with manual focus (both) zoom (both) and focus peaking (Fuji) to focus the eye, I can't rule out the possibility that a) my model moved (this is the reason for the different resolution, but shouldn't have influenced the sharpness because I used a flash to light the model) and B) that my Focus was perfect. That's why I will do some shots of static things this week and post the crops here :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not motion blur, that's obvious. My concern rather had to do with the approx. 6 mm of DOF, of which perhaps 2 mm are really sharp. If you focus manually and your subject moves just slightly forwards or backwards when you press the shutter button, this would be the result you get, even with the sharpest lens. If the OP decides to do test shots on static subjects, I'd recommend also trying the autofocus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not motion blur, that's obvious. My concern rather had to do with the approx. 6 mm of DOF, of which perhaps 2 mm are really sharp. If you focus manually and your subject moves just slightly forwards or backwards when you press the shutter button, this would be the result you get, even with the sharpest lens. If the OP decides to do test shots on static subjects, I'd recommend also trying the autofocus.

I second the autofocus for wide open shooting. I have had better results too on the 56 1.2 APD with it on and at smallest point, instead of relying on peaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that could be an issue, jabecker85 was perfectly able to nail a sharp shot on the Canon with a 85mm F1.8 on FF camera where DoF is shallower. Or just about as much from a F1.2 cropped format.

 

But a good point is raised, where was the focus set on those test shots ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted the sharpness to be directly on the eye. The problem with manual focus and focus peaking was the very small amount of light which makes focus peaking difficult in my opinion.

 

But to answer most of the questions, I have done some new shots. All shots were done with a tripod. The ones with the 85mm had to be done a little bit farer away due to the minimal focus distance

 

Fuji

 

The shot with -1 is the raw file with focus peaking (I have done one with autofocus as well, but it less sharp. Due to the higher amount of light, focus peaking was easy) with LR 5.6 as raw-converter (unsharpened) and at f1.2

 

The shot with -2 is the same picture with incamera jpg at f1.2

 

Canon

 

The shot with -3 is the same shot with the Canon 85mm 1.8 at f1.8

 

Fuji

 

The shot with -4 is the raw file with focus peaking with LR 5.6 as raw-converter (unsharpened) and at f1.2

 

The shot with -5 is the same picture with incamera jpg at f1.2

 

Canon

 

The shot with -6 is the same shot with the Canon 85mm 1.8 at f1.8

 

 

These shots clearly show that you were right: The Fuji is nearly as sharp as the Canon and the incamera jpg shows that the software clearly is a problem. Maybe I will try the Capture One trial this weekend.

 

Hopefully I will be more successful with my next portrait but it is good to know that the problem is not the lens but the photographer ;)

 

What do you think? Do you think the same?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, it looks ( and I am referring especially to the ones with the bar-code)  like the images with the Canon are slightly sharper , shot 3 is the sharpest of them all.

 

However the strange thing is that both lenses show a very limited and somewhat oddly shaped sharpness area.

 

Even in shot 3 the area where things are sharper is the middle of the shot but with a slight preponderance of the right side where the number 406.1 and part of the bar code (until the stripe past the 3 digit)  are sharp and then there is a rapid fall-off sharpness.

 

With as different total sharpness, the same distribution is repeated in the other shots.

 

Which makes me wonder whether something would be amiss in the body or the lens mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The third image in the posting is actually shot with Fujifilm. Hover over the images with your mouse to see the image titles, it confused me at first when I read the posting. The Canon shots always seem to be those with a lot of chromatic aberation.

 

I guess the sharpness falloff has to do with the cardboard being bent, because it is the same with two different cameras and two different lenses.

 

To conclude, I must say I'm surprised by the results now. When I saw the images in the first posting, I was sure there had to be something wrong, because the XF 56 had to be better than what we saw there. But as it seems now, the out of camera jpegs are even superior to the Canon images. I knew that the Fujinon lenses are pretty good, but I mean, look at the last two images in the posting (of the christmasbauble). Yes, the 5th one might be a bit oversharpened in the camera, but it's a lot better than the 6th image (I suppose these are 1:1 crops again). I expected the XF 56 to be close to the Canon 85/1.8, but this looks like it is beating the Canon workhorse lens! Perhaps those images are a bit unfair towards Canon now?

 

I would really try the Capture One trial. The lens is probably not the problem. As a starting point for sharpening, try to set the sharpening amount to 180, clarity to 5 and structure to 7. Gives me good results with fur and feathers (XF55-200).

Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps you should repeat this test witha copystand and some text and colors on a flat surface. To simplify reading the images, put a piece of text saying which camera and lenses are used i which photograph or just add text to each pictures I found it very difficult to understand which is which form the accompanying text.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the raw conversion in Lightroom: if you don't sharpen, you are leaving yourself at the mercy of some stupid defaults that Adobe has set for sharpening that often do not work for the xtrans sensor. 

 

The in-camera conversion does way more than just sharpening, it also adds clarity.

 

Try this for a test on your raw in Lightroom:

 

Sharpening:

Amount: pick a value between 25 and 45

Radius: 1

Detail: 100

Mask: 10

 

Then set clarity to about +10

 

You should get a result much closer to the out of camera JPEG. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...