• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Fujinon XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 03 February 2016 - 01:28 PM

Well, the only person deciding which is lowlight and which is DoF centric, is you, Klaus. I say, DoF is by far less important than speed of a lens. DoF is nothing to be used with some precision. if I want everything sharp from  that stone to a branch 65 cm behind the stone - and I want it really sharp and not just sort of less blurry than the rest of the picture; i have to go either Scheimpflug or focusstacking, everything else I see as cooking fog.

 

I think, this is my main concern about that equivalencing business. Depending on lens type, aperture and focal length we get different bokehs, different to compare and to rate, at least I never saw a rating in points, numbers or even of a rough five star range, when it comes to different blurrs at different apertures. So, if you don't have a DoF rating scale (maybe you do and I just didn't pay attention to it), I simply see no reason why prioritizing DoF against speed should be valid. Speed is important  - it can make a difference bewteen "handheld" and "tripod necessary".

 

I don't know acting photographers closing the aperture for 1 1/3 stop more because that makes soooo much a difference in the resulting picture. That can effect only be seen in the final print, not on the camera LCD or in the viewfinder. I don't k now if any of us could detect the difference of 1 stop more or less in terms of DoF, but one stop faster makes a difference to me.

 

I also was looking at the other offers, the 70-200/4 and /2.8 and the Olympus 40-150 (which again is equivalented as 80-300 on FF). I think the offernings are roughly comparable in terms of price - the Nikon 70-200/4 comes without a collar, add that cost and you pay more or less the same - although it's not necessary or helpful, that Nikon collar. Due to the soft plastic tube, the stiff collar holds a soft tube which wobbles and is not helping to camera shake.



#22 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 03 February 2016 - 01:32 PM

Thanks for the review. Vignetting seems a little high for such a lens @ f2.8 as well as corner resolution at the long end but maybe these are good trade offs given that the lens appears to be nearly apo. Seems an interesting contrast to the m4/3 version but it is a bit on the heavy side.

 

760 gr on the Olympus side, 995 gr on the Fujinon? Or were you're looking at some other lens?



#23 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,542 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 03 February 2016 - 02:18 PM

He says the Fuji is a bit on the heavy side..



#24 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,257 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 February 2016 - 02:21 PM

Well, the only person deciding which is lowlight and which is DoF centric, is you, Klaus. I say, DoF is by far less important than speed of a lens. DoF is nothing to be used with some precision. if I want everything sharp from  that stone to a branch 65 cm behind the stone - and I want it really sharp and not just sort of less blurry than the rest of the picture; i have to go either Scheimpflug or focusstacking, everything else I see as cooking fog.

 

Speed = max. f-stop correlated with acceptable sensor noise

 

Whether I shoot

f/2.8 at 1/500sec @ ISO 400 (APS-C)

or

f/4 at 1/500sec @ ISO 800 (Full format)

is utterly irrelevant. The SPEED is 1/500sec in both cases. The result is the SAME (assuming the identical field of view, a perfect lens and comparable megapixels).

 

The speed of the lens alone is meaningless. A lens alone doesn't take pictures. I can have a look through the lens with my naked eye and enjoy (?) the "original" speed of the naked lens. That's it. What use case is that ?

The system of camera + lens (+ human) takes pictures. 


  • Brightcolours likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#25 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 03 February 2016 - 03:19 PM

"Speed" was an unlucky choice of term from my side. "Fast lenses" are a common expression and my "speed" is referring to the max. aperture. Which also has an impact on focus precision or the ability of the focus unit to see something to focus at in lowlight conditions. But of course, f/4 or f/2.8 don't make that superhuge difference. Nikon i.e. says something about the aperture and which AF-sensors are compatible with f/8. What they don't specifiy so clearly is, when even f/4 is too dark.

 

So, with the disadvatage of a CDAF system needing more light to focus quick and precise, fast lenses are welcome to improve AF.



#26 IvUs

IvUs

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 03 February 2016 - 08:13 PM

What the reason was for mechanical quality penalty?



#27 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,257 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 February 2016 - 09:25 PM

What the reason was for mechanical quality penalty?

 

It "rattles" when shaking it.

And it's too big and heavy compared to the rest of the gang.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#28 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,257 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 03 February 2016 - 09:42 PM

"Speed" was an unlucky choice of term from my side. "Fast lenses" are a common expression and my "speed" is referring to the max. aperture. Which also has an impact on focus precision or the ability of the focus unit to see something to focus at in lowlight conditions. But of course, f/4 or f/2.8 don't make that superhuge difference. Nikon i.e. says something about the aperture and which AF-sensors are compatible with f/8. What they don't specifiy so clearly is, when even f/4 is too dark.

 

So, with the disadvatage of a CDAF system needing more light to focus quick and precise, fast lenses are welcome to improve AF.

 

Well, compared to the Sony 70-200mm f/4 (on an A7x) even the AF argument isn't valid neither in terms of C-AF nor P-AF which are both located on/obtained from the image sensor. The 1 f-stop advance of the full format sensor and identical equivalent DoF (on the sensor planr) compensate the f/4 vs f/2.8 effects here as well.

 

The AF sensitivity argument is only valid on DSLRs because the AF photodiodes in the viewfinder are identical on APS-C and FF DSLRs (comparatively speaking). 


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#29 borisbg

borisbg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 431 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 03 February 2016 - 11:42 PM

This topic is getting really hot!

None algebra question:

Hi Klaus, how the current set up compares with OM-D + 40-150mm f2.8? I mean on the field.



#30 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,257 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 04 February 2016 - 08:58 AM

Well, the Oly has some bokeh problems whereas the Fuji is quite nice there.

So just in terms of the end result I'd prefer the Fuji.

On the other hand I prefer the construction of the Oly.

 

However, to play the equivalence game again - these are different lens categories.

The Oly is a "80-300mm f/5.6" vs the Fuji "75-215mm f/4".


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#31 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 04 February 2016 - 09:11 AM

I think the word "equivalence" should be banned as it's an instant flame bait.  :blink:

My 2 cents though: shallow DOF is the bane of my existence.  :mellow: Well, maybe not so tragic, but I don't like being forced to stop down a lot just to get a meaningful part of the subject (or a group thereof) in focus. That something isn't blurred into an unrecognizable mess doesn't mean it's rendered in a useful way; half-soft image (or parts thereof) is still that - soft and therefore not beneficial to displaying the subject (if it falls into such an area). Therefore shallow DOF shouldn't be peddled as an universally desirable effect.

 

Not that there's that much difference (that you would be able to see in a blind test) one stop apart, or between APS-C and FF crops shot at the same aperture (and so being one stop apart, by this logic). Therefore: peace.  :rolleyes:

 

P.S. I may be a little thick but does anybody really calculate the scene in that way - starting with "I need a precise focal length X and aperture Y, if I can't get that it all goes to hell"? I start out by looking into the viewfinder and deciding if I like what I see, if it's too narrow I don a wideangle, if it's too wide I don a telephoto. If I don't get enough DOF I try to stop down (but more often than not I just shoot, I don't usually get gross errors). That my 16mm f/4 lens becomes (or doesn't become) a "21mm f/5.2" or whatever else means zilch to me - I don't think in these terms, I just shoot. :)


  • JoJu likes this

#32 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,542 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 04 February 2016 - 10:12 AM

I think the word "equivalence" should be banned as it's an instant flame bait.  :blink:

My 2 cents though: shallow DOF is the bane of my existence.  :mellow: Well, maybe not so tragic, but I don't like being forced to stop down a lot just to get a meaningful part of the subject (or a group thereof) in focus. That something isn't blurred into an unrecognizable mess doesn't mean it's rendered in a useful way; half-soft image (or parts thereof) is still that - soft and therefore not beneficial to displaying the subject (if it falls into such an area). Therefore shallow DOF shouldn't be peddled as an universally desirable effect.

 

Not that there's that much difference (that you would be able to see in a blind test) one stop apart, or between APS-C and FF crops shot at the same aperture (and so being one stop apart, by this logic). Therefore: peace.  :rolleyes:

 

P.S. I may be a little thick but does anybody really calculate the scene in that way - starting with "I need a precise focal length X and aperture Y, if I can't get that it all goes to hell"? I start out by looking into the viewfinder and deciding if I like what I see, if it's too narrow I don a wideangle, if it's too wide I don a telephoto. If I don't get enough DOF I try to stop down (but more often than not I just shoot, I don't usually get gross errors). That my 16mm f/4 lens becomes (or doesn't become) a "21mm f/5.2" or whatever else means zilch to me - I don't think in these terms, I just shoot. :)

You mean to say that shallow DOF is not for you. That is fine. 

Weird thing: people take equivalence explanations as "this camera is better than that camera". But it never is about that.

 

Also a weird thing: not understanding that equivalence is handy when you go from one format to another format. So, you shoot APS-H. For you, a certain lens means "wide angle" and a certain lens means "portrait". You know that 16mm means "pretty wide angle", so you put that lens on your camera when you want to use a pretty wide angle. 

 

Now suppose your girlfriend one day decides to give you a present, a Olympus OM-D EM-5, because in her idea you should have a small camera for when you can't take along your big DSLR. And you do not want to seem ungrateful and really want to use it. But you want a pretty wide angle lens to go with it. What do you do? You get an EQUIVALENT focal length lens. So you have to calculate in order to get an equivalent lens And it turns out that on that Olympus a 10mm lens is equivalent to that 16mm on your APS-H camera. So you know what to get.

 

That is handy to know, right?

 

And then the DOF question. Not for every photographer shallow DOF is something to use. We get that, everybody thinks on a different level, has a different style, has different subjects and different sensibilities and sensitivities. Understanding equivalence goes both ways. If you know from experience that f5.6 gives you the DOF you want for street photos with say your 24mm lens on your APS-H body, it is easy to know that if you want to use that gifted OM-D EM-5 in the same situations that an equivalent aperture is f3.5 or f4.

 

A bit silly to say that the difference between APS-C and FF DOF wise is only 1 stop. It is more than 1 stop, more like 1 1/3rd stop. And if 1 stop is so silly, why do people buy f2.8 lenses instead of the cheaper and lighter f4 lenses. Why are f1.4 primes being bought over f2 or even f1.8 primes. Why is there a market for the f1.2 primes when there are f1,8 primes.

Answer: 1 stop difference in DOF is a big step.

 

Don't make everything about "me" (meaning you, not me) in discussions, it is fine when something is not for you, and it is fine when it is for someone else. I get that, I get that that some people like EVFs, and I get that I like OVFs. In discussions, I then point out that for ME OVF is preferred, but that for others that may be different. 

For ME,  shallow DOF is a tool I often use for my photography. I am not alone in that. So for me, shallow DOF is something to take into account, while for other photographers (you for instance) it is not. That is fine. Does that mean that it should not be discussed and explained? Of course not.

Shallow DOF in my photography:

 

 

 

 

ED255F572E94472FA60C8863A73A8A22.jpg

28BCFD31D5CA4112A2BC0BB5D3965EBF.jpg

D567A6DE7AE54412A3403768F24E9570.jpg

7CEDB78876BE46F5974DB4484AFC416F.jpg

6060C0444829428AA427291736D60290.jpg

 

8DE91F04E0CC47B68BD04EC759436139.jpg

It is an important stylistic tool, that I use and need to understand both on full frame 135 format and APS-C. Understanding that the crop factor both influences the FOV and the DOF with is something every photographer should understand. So they can get the image they envision even when they use cameras with different format sensors.

5189F8FD46AC45E9AF5AA1BBE71B20E8.jpg

BBCC24122E0F46038D2BBABC18E2A90F.jpg

7F4A02F6DC5E4926A6B26716D59EFC30.jpg

D8FDA6A9A89B4E76BCA2BD7E94B0DBC0.jpg


  • popo and Rover like this

#33 chrismiller

chrismiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 204 posts
  • LocationCambridge, UK

Posted 04 February 2016 - 10:24 AM

Nice mx5!


  • Brightcolours and IvUs like this

#34 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,257 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 04 February 2016 - 10:26 AM

I think the main problem with equivalence is that people think this makes their equipment inferior.

No, no, f/2.8 just can't be "f/5.6" - it's f/2.8!

Of course, it's f/2.8 in the specific scope of the system and it will remain so regardless of equivalence discussion.

Equivalence is about equalizing the scope.

 

I like my Fuji lenses and my MFT lenses regardless of these discussions. And my Fuji 56mm f/1.2 APD is a great lens for shallow DoF as well. So ... stay cool ... and be happy  :D

 

Just don't ignore reality.  :P


  • popo, Brightcolours and JoJu like this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#35 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 04 February 2016 - 10:49 AM

Reality is the camera I have with me and the lens in front of it. Comparing systems by ignoring the advantages of it and reducing other parameters scientifically so they could fit to a different system makes not much sense to me. There are limits of miniturization and other limits of being able to transport a large unit, not to mention to handheld it or to drag attention by pointing a bucket of glass at someone.  ^_^ Also, it's only working downwards - blowing up an APS-C sensor to FF is plain stupid, the pixels just won't increase.

 

If I look how good a certain lens is - and keeping in mind that PZ always tests only one copy - I'm not interested how good an incompatible lens might be compared to the one I'm interested in an for which I own a host body with the right mount



#36 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,542 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 04 February 2016 - 12:24 PM

Another hypothetical case to explain the value of understanding lens equivalence, so far removed from most people's personal situations that it is hard to feel offended by it or be defensive about their own gear.

 

Suppose there is a photographer who specialises in flower photos, suppose it is his expression of art. There is this young, budding enthusiast photographer who is taken away by the feel and style, so he writes that photographer asking if he would mind to explain how he gets that look, because the young budding enthusiast would like to go in that direction. The enthusiast mentions that he is using a Nikon D5500.

 

C425977993DA4CBF831C128353DB0F2C.jpg

9500CB3894B24A488CE68B57A89B3C62.jpg

The flower photographer, understanding lens equivalence, replies to the budding enthusiast. He explains to him that he himself uses a 135 format full frame camera with a old fashioned 500mm f8 mirror lens to get that specific look. He explains to the young, budding enthusiast that he does not have to buy the same camera as himself, but that he can get the same look by buying a used Tamron SP 350mm f5.6 mirror lens. He goes on to explain why that is an equivalent lens: 

 

500mm divided by the crop factor of your D5500 gives:

500 / 1.5 = 333mm

They will have a similar aperture size:

500 / f8 = 62.5mm

350 / 5.6 = 62.5mm

 

Now the young budding enthusiast can go and try to emulate the look of the photos he admires from that flower photographer, knowing he can have a similar FOV and DOF with a similar lens equivalent on his camera to the lens/camera combination the flower photographer uses.

 

Having been explained lens equivalence, the young budding photographer will have an easier task to use equivalent lenses to other photographers he admires in other fields, like 135 format using 50mm lens shooting photographers like Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson.



#37 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 04 February 2016 - 04:49 PM

Finally, there's some common ground: everybody is different. :) Besides, I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or not, but I don't mix different systems in my workflow - the most I had at one given time were 1.3x and 1.6x cameras. Therefore, I did juggle lenses around to get "a lil' wider" or "a lil' longer" than I would otherwise have, but I was never making a big deal of DOF.

 

I had and have fast lenses (f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms - all right, I'm down to one of each now) but most of the time I was using them for working in low light, not for any special defocus effects. I have a 85/1.4 in my sights that may be more in line with what you say, but I'll use it for low light again, because I wouldn't know what to do with it otherwise.  :D

 

 


Now suppose your girlfriend one day decides to give you a present, a Olympus OM-D EM-5, because in her idea you should have a small camera for when you can't take along your big DSLR.

Ah. If only.  <_<

 

 


And you do not want to seem ungrateful and really want to use it. But you want a pretty wide angle lens to go with it. What do you do? You get anEQUIVALENT focal length lens. So you have to calculate in order to get an equivalent lens And it turns out that on that Olympus a 10mm lens is equivalent to that 16mm on your APS-H camera. So you know what to get.

 

Since I can't use my Canon lenses on it, what's the point? I'll need to get a dedicated set of lenses anyway, and they have their own nomenclature. Luckily I know the multiplier in the case of µ4/3, but if you had been speaking of medium format (it'd take a rrrrreally rrrrrrich girlfriend, I agree), I would've been totally at sea. Therefore, I feel little need for calculations - it'd be easier to just memorize the (approximate) multipliers and just act by feel.

Besides, juggling the aperture numbers is opening a can of worms because there are a few quite odd concepts evolving - especially if you start bringing noise into that equation as some people do...


  • JoJu likes this

#38 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,542 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 04 February 2016 - 05:47 PM

Finally, there's some common ground: everybody is different. :) Besides, I'm not sure if I'm in a minority or not, but I don't mix different systems in my workflow - the most I had at one given time were 1.3x and 1.6x cameras. Therefore, I did juggle lenses around to get "a lil' wider" or "a lil' longer" than I would otherwise have, but I was never making a big deal of DOF.

 

I had and have fast lenses (f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms - all right, I'm down to one of each now) but most of the time I was using them for working in low light, not for any special defocus effects. I have a 85/1.4 in my sights that may be more in line with what you say, but I'll use it for low light again, because I wouldn't know what to do with it otherwise.  :D

 

 

Ah. If only.  <_<

 

 

Since I can't use my Canon lenses on it, what's the point? I'll need to get a dedicated set of lenses anyway, and they have their own nomenclature. Luckily I know the multiplier in the case of µ4/3, but if you had been speaking of medium format (it'd take a rrrrreally rrrrrrich girlfriend, I agree), I would've been totally at sea. Therefore, I feel little need for calculations - it'd be easier to just memorize the (approximate) multipliers and just act by feel.

Besides, juggling the aperture numbers is opening a can of worms because there are a few quite odd concepts evolving - especially if you start bringing noise into that equation as some people do...

Klaus already pretty eloquently explained why equivalent f-values does not open a can of worms (other than maybe internet forum troll-worms), not even where noise is concerned  :P



#39 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 04 February 2016 - 08:45 PM

Well then... I rest my case :) If there was ever a case, 'fkorz. I'm just so amused that people here and at dpreview.com spend untold time and effort debating it and agonizing over the question (and its implications). I'm a simple man - just aim, press the goddamn shutter button and in roll dem pics. :)



#40 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,214 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 04 February 2016 - 08:55 PM

Everbody needs a hobby, Rover. Haven't you heard about equivalencing championships? Especially the one with the virtual DoF ruler, simply the only reason to own a smartphone: To host a dozen apps calculating DoF in fractions of millimeters.  B) and other calculators for noise levels. A big step from hunting mammoths, I'd say.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de