XF 80mm - Pictures

[lightpainter]

XF80 on X-T2 (RAW), tripod, electronic shutter, self timer

Developing steps applied:
- sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw 10 (sharpening settings 40 / 1,0 / 100 / 40 in the ACR details tab)
- demosaicing with Iridient X-Transformer (RAW Process: „more detailed“; sharpening: "none")
- in ACR saturation +10-15

- any digital auto-correction has been unchecked/omitted in Iridient/ACR
- via Photoshop CC saved to TIF/JPG
- no further sharpening applied to the pics with original size (see links below)
- output sharpening in PS CC via unsharp mask applied to the smaller pics embedded here for direct view (Amount 50% / Radius 1 Pixel / Threshold 1 Level)
- slight cropping of the pics with the bismuth crystal and the bulbs


Original size, 5-9 MByte-JPGs (click):

Bismuth crystal, @ f5.6
Coffee beans, @ f8
Vintage bulbs (er, including dust...), @ f5.6


downsized:

Bismuth crystal, @ f5.6

Coffee beans, @ f8

Vintage bulbs (er, including dust...), @ f5.6

Veeery nice lens (...quite big though :eek:)

.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by lightpainter

[woodlander]

Thanks for posting. I have been thinking about getting one of those, but the size and weight are holding me back.

[milandro]

I also find (in all the pictures that I have see to date, that I don’t like the “ out of focus” part rendering, as shown here in the coffee bean picture, of course it is a matter of personal preference but I truly dislike it.

[mdm]

I also find (in all the pictures that I have see to date, that I don’t like the “ out of focus” part rendering, as shown here in the coffee bean picture, of course it is a matter of personal preference but I truly dislike it.

 

I second that.

[konzy]

Hey guys,

 

I made a quick & dirty review with a few pictures (+exifs). You might want to check it out! I think I'll add the RAW files too.

 

The out of focus area surprised me too. It's kind of swirly, less than these old Russian lenses, but still quite visible. The bokeh is onion-shaped on the edges. Meh. I'm not sure if I dislike it, or if it's just different and I'll get used to it eventually. I'll see! Anyway, for portrait photographers, that could be a deal breaker.

 

Below are a couple examples of the onion and the swirliness.

 

Regarding image quality, though, it's excellent! I still need to master the autofocus, especially in the 0,25-0,5m area, and test it again with the X-T1 firmware update I just installed. But so far, I'm impressed! Can't wait to test the lens on moving targets – bees, butterflies and spiders.

 

Note: I used Iridient X-Transformer to process the RAF files, then a few adjustments in Lightroom (curves and Astia film simulation).

 

Cheers!

 

Konzy

 

f/2.8 1/500 sec 80mm ISO 500

 

 

f/3.2 1/450 sec 80mm ISO 400

 

 

f/2.8 1/200 sec 80mm ISO 640

 

 

f/5.6 1/250 sec 80mm ISO 1600

Edited December 9, 2017 by konzy

[konzy]

Here is another example at minimum focus distance, and 3 apertures: f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6

 

 

 

[milandro]

I still regard the bokeh as “ muddy”.

[lightpainter]

I still regard the bokeh as “ muddy”.

 

I’d call it Zeiss-ish, even more than that, which isn’t necessarily good. The XF80 has a veeery steep transition zone, leading very fast to quite strong (“muddy”) blur. This, along with strong contrast, is part if the 3D-pop fingerprint of Zeiss lenses. I also prefer a smoother transition with a smoother fading background (more Leica-ish; miss the days of my Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 100/2.8). Interestingly, the Zeiss Touit 50 Macro is less typical Zeiss-ish (less 3D pop) than the XF80 is in this discipline.

 

.

[milandro]

whatever it is , Zeiss or not, is unpleasant to me

[lightpainter]

whatever it is , Zeiss or not, is unpleasant to me

 

We got your point, and I second that. That was mine

 

.

Edited December 10, 2017 by lightpainter

[milandro]

one point is that with these lenses there is really no way to know how the lens performs “ per se” as we are observing lenses which feature and automatic digital correction.

 

In other words anything observed in the pats that we don’t like might be the result of an artefact created either optically or digitally.

[lightpainter]

one point is that with these lenses there is really no way to know how the lens performs “ per se” as we are observing lenses which feature and automatic digital correction.

 

In other words anything observed in the pats that we don’t like might be the result of an artefact created either optically or digitally.

 

Good point. Boon and bane. More boon I think, though. You can't twaek a lemmon beyond lemmon-limits. At the end of the day, what is of interest is the final result that is possible with a certain lens (or chain of tools & methods). And comparisons are still possible, since all these possibilities apply to all lenses - IF the applied methods are documented.

I should have mentioned, and add it here and to post #1, any auto-correction has been unchecked/omitted in Iridient/ACR when developing the RAF-files in post #1.

Edited December 20, 2017 by lightpainter

[milandro]

well, you may have omitted the LR corrections but not the corrections that Fuji makes the lens make even on the RAW.

 

In other words there is no way to know the exact rendering of any Fuji ( Zeiss for Fuji too) lens because those corrections happen on the raw file  not only the jpeg.

[lightpainter]

well, you may have omitted the LR corrections but not the corrections that Fuji makes the lens make even on the RAW.

 

In other words there is no way to know the exact rendering of any Fuji ( Zeiss for Fuji too) lens because those corrections happen on the raw file  not only the jpeg.

 

So what?

What is exact in real life then, other than having lenses in front of image sensors that produce raw files (according to the programmers' algorithms, yes)?

Again, that is what applies to all lenses in the digital era. Just choose your favorite after comparison.

I don't care of analyses on lab benches with whatever llight detection systems because I don't attach my lenses to such systems.

As for the XF80, its obvious poor rendition of bokeh hardly depends on these things. And it's resolution is hard to beat, whichever correction is applied.

 

.

Edited December 10, 2017 by lightpainter

[milandro]

My point is that the bokeh artifacts could be digitally induced.

 

There is no way to even know if this is the case or not. 

 

Enjoy your lens.

[lightpainter]

My point is that the bokeh artifacts could be digitally induced.

 

There is no way to even know if this is the case or not. 

 

Enjoy your lens.

 

Cat-eyes, swirl and DOF transition ???

 

.

[Hermelin]

Didn't think they could make a lens sharper than the 90 f/2 but it appears they have 

[lightpainter]

Shark tooth (~22x22mm), focus stack from 183 frames @ f/5.6 using Zerene Stacker.
(XF80 on X-T2 (RAW), development of RAF files proir to stacking as described in post #1)

Original size, ~10 MByte JPG (click)

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by lightpainter

[quincy]

me likey... a bit too dark though.

[lightpainter]

me likey... a bit too dark though.

.

This tooth is that dark and the bone part is almost black.

I've also an ivory-colored one here but I'm waiting for some light equipment to do that more tricky one too.

 

.

[milandro]

Cat-eyes, swirl and DOF transition ???

 

.

 

the problem is that on other camera we can still mount it to a film camera and shoot at picture to see the lens production as is. On Fuji this is impossible, all you have are files which are altered digitally by the camera. All matter of parameters come out off camera altered and not as the physical optics have produced.

[quincy]

.

This tooth is that dark and the bone part is almost black.

I've also an ivory-colored one here but I'm waiting for some light equipment to do that more tricky one too.

 

.

 

Just a matter of taste anyway.

 

Did you refocus or did you move the camera?

And do you like your new lens? I'm still torn between this and simply getting the Sigma 180/2.8 Macro + any adequate body (don't know yet if 5Ds R, D850 or one of the APS-C ones)

[lightpainter]

Just a matter of taste anyway.

 

Did you refocus or did you move the camera?

And do you like your new lens? I'm still torn between this and simply getting the Sigma 180/2.8 Macro + any adequate body (don't know yet if 5Ds R, D850 or one of the APS-C ones)

.

I refocused the lens. With such a long distance the DOF had to ‘travel’, compared to the short working distance, moving the camera would have changed the perspective considerably (also refocusing did, but not that much).

 

 

Yes, I do like the XF80 – with caveats.

For close-up/macro work it beats the Zeiss Touit 50 Macro by a slight margin. Nothing to write home about though. Despite its size, I prefer the XF80 for its longer reach and faster AF, and for its OIS at times.

I’ve hoped for XF90 bokeh with contrasty background at farther distances though. Instead, it’s rather like the XF50-140 here. Bummer. Albeit being a tad sharper than the XF90, the XF90 would still remain my 1st choice when it comes to portrait or landscape (within this range of focal length).

 

The Sigma 180/2.8 macro I used on the D810. Sold it in favor of the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro - because of the bokeh. The 180’s rendering of strong highlights, especially in the transition zone, looks terrible to me. Heavily ring shaped and with onion patterns.

I’ve used the Sigma macros 105 OS, 150 Apo OS, 180 Apo OS and the Nikkor 105 VR (all on the D800 or D810). To my eyes, the XF80 is easily sharper, with AF only a bit slower (on X-T2 3.00).

Based on the same angle of view on sensor level (different magn. ratios), on the APS-C x-Trans X-T2, the really very sharp XF80 provides no benefit with respect to enlargeability compared to, e.g., the Sigma 150 Apo OS on full frame D810 (prints from Epson 3880). Actually, I’d clearly still give preference to my D810 shots owing to the overall clarity and tonality. Based on the same magnification ratio on sensor level, the XF80/X-T2 can beat the Sigma150/D810, when using sophisticated x-trans demosaicing. Sure the D810 can go further given the right glass (some of my old shots with the Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 135mm f/2 on D810 still wipe the floor with Fuji-X - on large prints…).

 

PS: After many years of using the D800 & D810, I must admit that I don’t like x-trans. Don’t see any advantage, only workflow hassle (from raw). I prefer the Fuji-X System as a whole over the FF bulk though (yes, XF lenses can be bulky too). Miss the DR and pushability of the D810 files but, other than that, the IQ compromises are rarely relevant (large prints), esp. with lenses like the XF90 or XF80. If I go back to a larger format than to medium format (provided I hit a jackpot…).

 

.

Edited December 30, 2017 by lightpainter

[quincy]

First: Thank You for your detailed answer. I appreciate that, especially since it's not that common on the internet these days.

 

So you say the focal length of the XF80 changes when adjusting focus? That's interesting, because I thought one of their development goals was exactly to avoid this behaviour (by using two floating focusing groups etc.). meh...

The main reason I wanted a telemacro was working distance, and the 220 mm from front lens to subject the Sigma 180/2.8 gives you is unbeatable anyway. I guess I'll try the XF80 with teleconverter, but if it doesn't convince me completely I think it's time for a dedicated macro solution.

 

About xtrans CFA: the obvious thing I like most about it is it's lack of aa-filter. That obviously also works with a classic bayer pattern, they simply don't do it (that often). But another point that's not so obvious is the lack of color noise in dark areas. I see that every time I work with files I got from friends (be it Nikon, Canon or Sony), they always have color patterns in dark areas of the image. My Fuji simply doesn't. And this also should be a result from the xtrans CFA, because it has each of the three color informations in each row and column, whereas in standard bayer pattern red and blue each are just in every second row and column. (by the way, I use Capture One anyway, so I never had problems with demosaicing)

Edited December 20, 2017 by quincy

[lightpainter]

First: Thank You for your detailed answer. I appreciate that, especially since it's not that common on the internet these days.

 

So you say the focal length of the XF80 changes when adjusting focus? That's interesting, because I thought one of their development goals was exactly to avoid this behaviour (by using two floating focusing groups etc.). meh...

The main reason I wanted a telemacro was working distance, and the 220 mm from front lens to subject the Sigma 180/2.8 gives you is unbeatable anyway. I guess I'll try the XF80 with teleconverter, but if it doesn't convince me completely I think it's time for a dedicated macro solution.

 

About xtrans CFA: the obvious thing I like most about it is it's lack of aa-filter. That obviously also works with a classic bayer pattern, they simply don't do it (that often). But another point that's not so obvious is the lack of color noise in dark areas. I see that every time I work with files I got from friends (be it Nikon, Canon or Sony), they always have color patterns in dark areas of the image. My Fuji simply doesn't. And this also should be a result from the xtrans CFA, because it has each of the three color informations in each row and column, whereas in standard bayer pattern red and blue each are just in every second row and column. (by the way, I use Capture One anyway, so I never had problems with demosaicing)

.

Yes, also the XF80 shows visible focus breathing at very close distances. You can't avoid this effect completely within a reasonable budget, especially at closer distances. Cine lenses need to do so, and do but, also not at close distances, and at about 10-100 times the price...

 

As for x-trans: I actually had annoying color noise in dark (pushed) areas with the 5D & 5DII. With the D800 & D810 this was practically no longer a problem. In fact, I find these Nikons even better than the X-T2 as soon as dark areas are pushed.

 

.