Is something wrong with my XF50-140

[drewdude]

I purchased a used XF50-140 and I have been using it for a few months now.. but I have always thought it to be soft compared to my other lenses. Yesterday I printed 4 image resolution charts to spread out the field, and photographed it at various apertures at three focal ranges (50, 90 and 140), as well as testing it against my 56 WR, 33 1.4, and 16 1.4. It is noticeably softer than all of them and doesn't seem to crisp up at 5.6 or 8. I am shooting it with my X-H2. What could be the issue? I am thinking of sending it off to Fuji for assessment and repair, but I fear it will run me several hundred dollars (Canadian)... should have could have purchased new, but didn't. 

The good news is the hood fits perfectly, and there is not wobble on my lens mount or tripod foot. Unfortunately it is not performing well at its primary purpose: Image quality.

I'm not sure how to share my large raw files.

 

[drewdude]

One other thing, I noticed my xf56 was decentered as well.. is this an expensive repair?

[Sleeping Dog]

Before sending it in for a, possibly, unneeded repair, I'd suggest checking several reviews of that lens. Particularly from reviewers that are notorious pixel peepers, to see if others have the same complaint and have documented the results. 

[drewdude]

Okay, the funny thing is I expected it to be on par if not better in sharpness and contrast than my xf16 considering the charts posted on Fuji and what the forums say about the XF16. However, these are my findings (all compared at 100% scale):

Sharpness:

At an aperture of 2.8 (and almost f2 as well) the Xf 16 f1.4 is sharper than the XF50-140 at the three focal ranges I tested (50, 90 and 140) across all remaining apertures (albeit not by much in the centre). I also expected the XF 50-140 to be better from centre to corners, however, the 16mm was more consistent in this regard when stopped down to 2.8 (and even f2).

Contrast:

The 16 at f2 beats out the 50-140 at f4; but beyond that, the 50-140 has more contrast than the 16.

CA:

XF50-140 handles it better across the board. CA in XF16 clears up at about f5.6.

Diffraction:

Both are still good up to f11 (on my 40mp sensor); albeit the XF50-140 is a little cleaner at this aperture.

[BobJ]

There is no way that a zoom will be as sharp as a top quality prime, no matter who makes it. However, the 50-140 is a very sharp zoom lens. The ideal thing to do would be to compare it with another 50-140. You might have a bad copy.