the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / GFX 100 / Fuji 80/1.7, 110/2 chromatic aberrations compared

Fuji 80/1.7, 110/2 chromatic aberrations compared

March 25, 2021 By JimK 2 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100S. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “GFX 100S”.

I have a long and tedious test I use to check for longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA). The test involves a backlit razor blade, a computerized, motorized focusing rail, and a lot of messing around. It also has the disadvantage that is needs to be performed at short focusing distances, which may not be representative of the most common use cases. When I performed that test on the Fuji 110 mm f/2, it did great.

Imatest has a chromatic aberration test that, while incapable at distinguishing between LoCA and lateral chromatic Aberration (LaCA), can be performed at longer distances — I used about 14 meters for this test for the 110 and 8 meters for the 80 — and is much faster to run.

The protocol for the test:

  • f/4
  • C1 head
  • RRS legs
  • Sinusoidal Siemens star for focusing.
  • Slanted edge above it
  • Electronic shutter

The new result, developed in Lightroom 10.2 with sharpening turned off, and white balance to the gray of the slanted edge.

Here’s what the Imatest results were for the 80 mm f/1.7 lens used with 16-bit pixel shift on the GFX 100S.

 

And here’s what it looks like for the 110/2:

 

 

 

← Fujifilm GFZ 100S pixel shift with the 110/2 Fujifilm 80 mm f/1.7 field curvature for landscape use →

Comments

  1. Alan says

    April 12, 2021 at 9:03 pm

    Do you think the 80/1.7 will be much better at f/2 or f/2.8?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 12, 2021 at 9:07 pm

      The test was performed at f/4.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

April 2021
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  
« Mar    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Shutter shock in the GFX 100s
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Shutter shock in the GFX 100s
  • JimK on Shutter shock in the GFX 100s
  • Christopher Hauser on Smallrig GFX 100S L-bracket
  • Erik Kaffehr on Shutter shock in the GFX 100s
  • JimK on Fuji 80/1.7, 110/2 chromatic aberrations compared
  • Alan on Fuji 80/1.7, 110/2 chromatic aberrations compared
  • Rico Pfirstinger on Smallrig GFX 100S L-bracket
  • JimK on How fast is the GFX 100S electronic shutter?
  • Nakamori_C on How fast is the GFX 100S electronic shutter?

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.