Jump to content

35mm comparison

lleo

By lleo
in Fuji X Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

lleo Community Regular

lleo

Posted
Posted

Camera on tripod. f/1,4 vs f/2.

It's quite clear one of the two is not really 35mm

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
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted (edited)

the focal length in all lenses is always been and always will be an approximated value.

 

Clearly one is approximated per excess and another per defect of 35mm or the angle of view can be slightly different even at the same focal length.

 

The same slight difference of angle that you have s “ discovered” is clear to see also on the pictures by Fuji itself. Curiously they too had a 35 1.4 which produced a darker image than a 35mm 2 and this shows also that , as it is always been, these values are approximated too.

 

XF35F1_1-4_35_STD.jpgXF35F2_2_35_STD.jpg

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites
lleo Community Regular

lleo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I already saw the pics by Fuji. However I tend not to believe too much to "official" photos taken by companies since there's always the doubt regarding the business. Which lens do they want to sell more at that time? So, take those kind of pics not as the "holy truth".

I also think those pics are kinda fake. Not been taken who knows how, but surely not in the correct way.

My ones are much more trusty. I tried to change the lens as soon as I shot the first pic, with self timer at 2 secs, and you can see there isn't a huge difference in light as in the ones taken by Fuji.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mistik-ka Newbie

Mistik-ka

Posted
Posted

actually I see the exact same smaller fiend and aperture differences.

 

Anyway there are no revelations there that Fuji didn’t dislclose

 

I don't recall them disclosing the different fiends in their lenses. When I stumble upon one from time to time it always comes as a surprise.  :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted (edited)

this is not a distortion but a difference of field view (or angle or view).

 

As I wrote before,  the nominal focal lens is always an approximation (and it is always been throughout the history of photography)

 

They have published this pictures that I’ve shown above and the difference in angle of view is to see in plain sight. And, to me they are absolutely consistent with OP’s pictures above.

 

They show one lens having a little wider field of view (and a difference in exposure consistent in both examples, Fuji’s and Op’s).

 

So they have never made any mystery of this.

 

The declared ( in the lens specifications by Fuji) angle of view of the 1.4 is 44.2º and the one of the f2 is a 44.1º and this is clearly what we see in their pictures too.

 

One is minutely wider than the other. That’s it. No big deal.

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites
lleo Community Regular

lleo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi, Maybe it is image correction either in camera (jpeg) or in whatever software you may use (Raw). There would be more lens distortion to correct in the f1.4 than the f2 I would think.

 

Bill, if I remember well, the f/1.4 has the correction of the distortion directly inside the lens (the optical scheme), while the f/2 has it through the in camera software

Link to post
Share on other sites
lleo Community Regular

lleo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

actually I see the exact same smaller field and aperture differences that your pictures have.

 

Anyway there are no revelations there that Fuji didn’t dislclose

 

It's about the light, not the field of view. It's impossible for one lens being as much darker as the other, compared to the pictures I took. Unless one of the two as an issue. But haveing seen the sky, I rather think they took the picture while the sun was covered by a cloud. A mistake not to do if comparing lenses or cameras or other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
milandro Grand Master

milandro

Posted
Posted (edited)

But your original comment was about the angle not about the light difference ( which is present and consistent in both your and their picture alike).

 

However we are repeating ourselves.

 

We made our point. I have no reason to argue with you.

 

People can judge for themselves.

 

 

Camera on tripod. f/1,4 vs f/2.

It's quite clear one of the two is not really 35mm

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites
lleo Community Regular

lleo

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Not arguing but it seems to be in school with "...my pen is better than yours..." or "...my solution to the problem is better than yours..."

I guess it's clear when I posted my pictures you haven't posted yours yet, or am I wrong? So I couldn't see the light stuff.

Then, once you posted those samples, I noticed it and I wrote that.

It's as simple as that. But, related to the next posts, let me know because every time I'll post one I might add "...this is my post, but Milandro will surely arrive with the right one".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Giampaolo Masserano
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By Giampaolo Masserano · Posted

      I use a TECHART ring to mount Canon EF lenses on the GFX 50S-II and 100S-II, maintaining image stabilization and autofocus. The only limitation are lenses with a small rear element diameter that make it impossible to cover medium format. Fast lenses like the EF 85/1.2L or the 100-400L, however, work great.
    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
×
×
  • Create New...