• 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 / How much sharpness do you lose with the 1.4x TC on the Fuji 250/4?

How much sharpness do you lose with the 1.4x TC on the Fuji 250/4?

May 1, 2021 JimK 4 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’ve been involved in discussions about how much sharpness is lost when you put the Fuji 1.4X teleconverter behind the Fuji 250 mm f/4 GFX lens. There are two schools of thought.

  • With a perfect converter, you’d see a 28.6% reduction in MTF in cycles/pixel or cycles/picture height in the image field at the sensor. Since the TC isn’t perfect, you’d see more than that.
  • The 250/4 is so darn good that the sensor is causing most of the blur, not the lens. so, if you make the image larger with a TC you’ll see less than a 28.6% loss in MTF.

There’s a third school of thought that says maybe the TC is designed to remove the effects of lens aberrations, so you won’t see a 28.6% reduction in MTF even not considering the effect of the sensor.

I’m a fan of the first alternative, but I’ve certainly been wrong before, so I tested.

The scene, with the 250/4 on a GFX 100S and no TC:

 

Test conditions:

  • RRS carbon fiber legs
  • C1 head
  • Target distance 85 feet
  • ISO 100 and 125 (I must have slipped. The ISO hads to get well into the triple digits before it affects these slanted edge results much)
  • Electronic shutter
  • 2-second self timer
  • f/4, f/5.6, and f/8 indicated
  • With TC and without
  • 1/10, 1/5, 0.4 second with no TC
  • 1/5, 0.4, 0.8 second for 350 mm case (with TC)
  • Focus bracketing with a step size of 1
  • Develop in Lightroom 10.2
  • Sharpening amount 0, radius 1, detail 0
  • White balance to gray of chart
  • Same minor exposure adjustment applied to all images
  • Rest of settings at default
  • Analyse in Imatest

In the captions to the images that follow, all apertures are indicated apertures, and the focal length is the effective focal length. To get he working f-stop, make the f-stop for the 350 mm images one stop narrower. To make it more confusing, the f-stops in the EXIF fields and therefore in the Imatest charts are effective f-stops.

 

250 mm f/4

 

350 mm f/4

MTF50 has gone from 0.194 cy/px to 0.109 cy/px. That’s a loss of 44%, which is greater than the perfect converter on perfect sensor case.

 

250 mm f/5.6

 

350 mm f/5.6

MTF50 has gone from 0.208 cy/px to 0.135 cy/px. That’s a loss of 35%, which is greater than the perfect converter on perfect sensor case.

250 mm f/8

 

 

350 mm f/8

 

MTF50 has gone from 0.177 cy/px to 0.150 cy/px. That’s a loss of 15%, which is less than the perfect converter on perfect sensor case.

In this case, both main schools of thought get to be right part of the time, and wrong part of the time.

While we’re at it, let’s look at chromatic aberration.

250 mm f/4

 

 

 

350 mm f/4

 

250 mm f/5.6

 

350 mm f/5.6

 

250 mm f/8

 

350 mm f/8

In all cases, chromatic aberration is quite low.

GFX 100, GFX 100S

← Which is sharper on-axis, the Fuji 23/4 or 30/3.5? Nikon 180-400/4 on GFX 50R in infrared →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    May 1, 2021 at 10:00 pm

    I would have expected to see higher MTF 50 values for the GF 250/4 with no extender.

    Some thought?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 2, 2021 at 5:39 am

      Given the lens’s reputation, I would have expected better results, too.

      Reply
  2. Erik Kaffehr says

    May 3, 2021 at 11:44 am

    Hi Jim,

    It would be interesting to see how things work out with your Nikon zoom 180-400/4 with it’s built in tele converter.

    BTW, nice to see you posting again on The Last Word.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 3, 2021 at 11:48 am

      It’s more difficult to conduct that experiment with the GFX 100S, since focus bracketing doesn’t work with that lens. I could run a test on the Z7.

      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.