Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 R
In Zürich, currently. But I am going to move back to Germany next month - hope my lens will be repaired by then  Big Grin
Hmm - in your Fuji section you now changed from an X-PRO1 via an X-E1 to an X-T1. Nothing wrong with that, since it is stated what you did. Still I am wondering - in other systems you stick with old, outdated bodies for long periods to keep consistency. Did you check you are getting the same numbers using e.g. the X-E1 and the X-T1?
Yup. No differences in terms of MTFs.

No surprise here, it is essentially the same AA-less sensor (plus/minus phase detection AF).


I would have upgraded the cameras on the other systems but the output is different.

We'll upgrade to a new Nikon APS-C body during the next tests. And Canon will see a new APS-C body once the EOS 7D II will emerge. 


It is rather pointless to update MFT at this stage. An AAed 16mp sensor towards an AA-less one is not that hot. It's just a linear factor though so it would be viable to do so.

Eventually we'll move to a new body but not prior of next year. In the meanwhile we are using different bodies for the sample images though.


Sony is up to date. 


Samsung - no progress.


Pentax - is on hold.

Klaus, I'm new to the forum but wanted to ask which RAW convertor is used for the Fuji tests? Have compared Imatest results when comparing Adobe Camera RAW to PhotoNinja or SilkyPix? As a Fuji X-E1 and X-T1 owner, I find that PhotoNinja does a noticeably better job demosaicing  the Fuji RAF files. 

It's C1 in case of Fuji.

Just a quick update regarding the service of Fujifilm in Switzerland (actually, I think Fujifilm International ultimately handled the service request):

- it took them more than 8 weeks to come to the conclusion that my 56mm lens was damaged beyond repair

- I got offered a replacement unit at about 20% discount


I'm not an expert, but I have some doubts about whether the lens really was beyond repair. The lens was dropped from about 80-100cm and the mount broke off. It sounds worse than it actually looked as the lens is only held together by a few plastic pins internally. Very similar to the lenses shown in this article of Roger Cicala:

Optics seemed unharmed, so to me, it looked like Fuji could relatively easily replace the bayonet-part of the lens and be done with it. Well, seems I was wrong. 

Ultimately, the damage was caused by me being careless, so I don't blame Fuji for anything here and I think the 20% discount on the replacement unit is quite a fair deal. 

However, I do think that >8 weeks is way too long, especially since no repairs were done. Concluding, my experience with Fuji's service is a bit of a mixed bag  :mellow:

Sounds familiar.

Actually I don't think that the Fujinons are meant to be services.

So far I only heard of replacements but never of repairs.

I could be wrong here, of course.

If you call the centering quality "ok", do I read it right, in assuming you mean there is potential in either direction (better - worse)?

Yes. However, usually you will not see tests of decentered lenses - that is unless the 2nd sample is just as bad as the first one. I mention this in the review then.

Nice review as usual Smile


I recently sold my K-5 and several lenses, but keeping my manual focus ones (and the Tokina 400mm f/5.6), and bought the X-T1. This lens is quite expensive, but seems well worth it, and it's the one I want the most for my new camera Tongue


Will you be testing the Samyang 12mm f/2? It did really well on, and compared to the Carl Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 it looks very good, better in some areas, surprising considering the very big price difference.


I have the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for K-mount, will test it on the X-T1 with a normal adapter and a lens turbo (manual speed booster, not from Metabones), but the Samyang is still attractive regardless, smaller, can be used with filters.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)