• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

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

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 JimK 6 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:

 

 

 

GFX 100, GFX 100S

← 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
  2. Dimy says

    May 22, 2021 at 2:05 pm

    I would be more interested in LoCa wide open and in normal camera conditions without pixel shift. That is what this lens is made for and why people are paying and carrying the weight.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 22, 2021 at 3:16 pm

      Pixel shift allows a good look at the LoCA, without the confounding effects of Bayer demosaicing.

      Reply
      • Dimy says

        May 23, 2021 at 12:21 am

        I can also reassure you that you will never see any demosaicing algorithm effects relevant to your lens :

        1. It’s software inside the camera disjunct from hardware differences!

        2. The lenses will ALWAYS have a resolution much worse by a factor over 4 than any sensor (@>50%contrast)!

        Also, if you stop down the lens from f1.7 to f4 you basically eliminate the chromatic aberrations you want to measure and make all your efforts obsolete.

        Suggestion: Don’t try to chase ghosts with Immatest . Also their results are not very much accepted/appreciated!
        Just make an image of backlit naked branches or thick wires with focus in the middle. With LoCa you will see, in the middle of the image, a Blue/green „glow“ around the branches in the foreground OOF area and the orange/red background.

        Just use the images a people can decide for themselves on a subjective basis if that is usable for them.

        Or

        If you now want comparable results for different lenses watch out to use the same magnification factor for every lens and the same sensor. Then pixel peep until you can count the crossing colors from black to white. This you can then use as objective data for LoCa.

        Kind regards

        Reply
        • JimK says

          May 23, 2021 at 8:05 am

          Just use the images a people can decide for themselves on a subjective basis if that is usable for them.

          I do that, but not with the subject that you prefer.

          https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-45-100-at-80-mm-vs-80-1-7-foliage/

          https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100/fuji-110-2-80-1-7-on-gfx-100s-foliage/

          Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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 Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.