rchrd

So I just got a new x-e3 and tried the same 3 lenses on them. I am getting better results and the corners are good enough at 2.8. I think the sensor was off a bit on the other camera? Still, it did not improve as much as I hoped for. Leica quality is not a myth and their lenses are much better than these XF 1.4 flagships. I am not trying to be a snob when I say that, it is simply the truth in my experience. But of course, I wasn't expecting Leica quality at this price point, so I am happier I am getting more fair results for this price point. However, I am going to sell the 35mm Fuji and get the Zeiss Touit. I have seen direct comparisons and the Zeiss is sharper at the corners. Definitely worth the extra money. I will say, those Fuji colors are not a myth either and better than Leica's. lleo: I have heard somewhere that fuji quality control is not so good. Your experience, my experience, that the other poster on this thread with that weird bendy corner on his lens seems to support this claim.

Milandro: Where can you get the update? I tried searching and couldn't find it. What camera do you use now? I am going to return the camera for a new one to eliminate sensor alignment or bad software/hardware as the issue...

it looks like the picture in the original post is already processed...it is not the in camera preview. that looks pretty unsharp to me, and with that shutter speed, any movement shouldn't make it that blurry. were the eyes in the center of the image?

Found some lens reviews, and it looks like this might be normal for Fuji. It is so misleading that you have to stop down that far. I guess 1.4 on a spec sheet helps them sell lenses. 35mm 1.4: "In the lab the 35mm f/1.4 impressed us with extraordinarily peak sharpness, minimal distortion, and very good chromatic aberration controls. Its one major flaw is the heavy field curvature, so focusing in the center throws subjects in the corner pretty far out of focus." http://lenses.reviewed.com/content/fujifilm-fujinon-xf-35mm-f14-r-lens-review "The center performance is already great but the outer image region is quite soft both at f/1.4 and f/2. The center quality is outstanding at f/2.8 and the borders/corners are at least lifted to a good level. The peak performance is reached around f/5.6 with a very good quality across the image field." http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/746-fuji35f14?start=1 23mm 1.4: "At f/1.4 it is capable of delivering a very good center performance combined with good albeit not stellar borders/corners. Stopping down improves the quality slowly but steadily till reaching a peak quality between f/4 and f/5.6." This is what I have found in my experience. Though I think the 23mm is worse than the 35mm. So pretty much, this is a 2.8 lens, and just in case you need extra low light performance, you open to 1.4 and center your subject... single point focus and recompose would be bad to do at wide apertures. You will have to compose first and then focus if you want an uncentered subject. Guess that touch to focus screen on the X-E3 is the most quick method.

Thanks guys. I hope more people post photos so I can see if this is a normal phenomena. I upload two leica shots on the webpage if anybody wants to compare. They are not the same shots but at least you can see the consistency across the image. It doesn't look like there is butter on the edge of the lens... Mike G: I have read plenty of reviews before switching to Fuji, and it did not seem that the blur would be this bad. I have shot Leica, Voigtlander, Canon, Panasonic, etc and it was never bad enough that my eye would be drawn to it like it has with these lenses. Milandro: I was thinking it might be a sensor misalignment also. It gets better as you stop down, so this might suggest it isn't a problem with the sensor. Still you have to go past 2.8 before it starts to clear up. It almost seems like fuji was like "we need 1.4s on our spec sheets across the board, even if the quality is bad at 1.4" I just looked up the Zeiss lens and the reviews say fuji is about the same quality or even better. That is surprising. But the Zeiss looks much sharper across the image and at the edges in these comparison shots: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/05/23/lens-comparison-zeiss-32mm-f1-8-vs-fujifilm-35mm-f1-4-x-mount/ Maybe people don't know how to review lenses and there is too much fuji fanboyism happening...

In normal photos, everything is not on a flat plane like it is on a brick wall so field curvature becomes more noticeable. I have shot Leica, Voigtlander, and Canon f/1.4 lenses and their natural lens defects never caught my eye like this. Fuji has a good reputation and makes Hasselblad lenses, so that is why I am startled that this is happening to the degree that it is. Maybe I got two bad lenses? Or maybe I am overly judgmental and this is normal for Fuji? Or maybe there is something wrong with the camera or settings? MikeG: thanks for that brick wall photo. It is really helpful!!!! Yeah, I think I read somewhere that Lightroom corrects for the corner distortion. It looks like your lower left corner is more blurred than the other corners. What is the focal length of your lens? I love the fuji sensor and image colors. I would like to stick with fuji. Are there any auto focus lenses out there made by another company?

So I just moved from Leica to Fuji X-E3. I just tried out the 23mm and 35mm f1.4s, and there is a crazy amount of blur at the corners, especially for the price of those lenses. I was wondering if you guys can check these straight out of camera jpgs and tell me if this is normal fuji quality or there is something wrong with both lenses. www.richardavinson.com/fuji The Fuji sensor is clean and the camera is new. Both lenses are clean as well. If any of you can post pics of a brick wall with your lens, that will be helpful!