• 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 100S / DOF asymmetry with Fuji 80 and 110 GF lenses

DOF asymmetry with Fuji 80 and 110 GF lenses

June 12, 2021 JimK Leave a Comment

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 continuing to refine my low-contrast slanted edge testing. I’m not ready for a comprehensive explanation and report, but it is still my intention to test all the the Fujifilm GF lenses on axis. But I did notice something today that I think may interest people. The 110/2 GF and the 80.1.7 GF aren’t peas in a pod. We knew that already. The 110 is better corrected, and sharper. The 80 has more LoCA. Is there anything else that systematically distinguishes the two?

Turns out there is.

It’s the way that the depth of field falls off in front of and behind the in-focus subject.

A picture — or in this case, a graph — is worth a thousand words. Cast your eyes on this one:

You are looking at the white-balanced raw MTF50, measured in cycles per picture height, versus the displacement of the image field from the point of best focus, where that point is defined as the place where the WB  MTF50 is the highest. The displacement is measured in micrometers (um), in the image field (on the sensor side of the lens). The target distances were selected to give the same magnification for both the 110 and the 80 mm lens. Negative displacement indicates that the lens is front-focused. Positive displacement means that the lens is back-focused.  Ignore the hump on the right side of the red curve; that is the result of the GFX 100S focus bracketing system momentarily getting confused.

Theres is something strange about the blue curve for the 80 mm lens. It falls off more rapidly than you’d expect when it is back-focused, and slower than you’d think when it’s front focused.

Of we normalize the vertical axis of the curves to their peaks, we can see this even better:

Now back-focusing produces about the same effect in the two lenses, and front focusing produces sharper images with the 80 mm lens.

How much of this is related to longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA), which the 80 posses in large amounts? We can take most of the LoCA out of hte picture by just looking at the raw green channel:

Well, that’s quite a surprise! The 110 isn’t any sharper than the 80 for green light. The front-focusing/back focusing differences remain, but are far smaller in green light.

Normalization makes little difference, as you’d expect.

Now for the red raw channel:

Not only is the 80 subject to LoCA (which you can’t see in this plot), it just doesn’t image red light nearly as sharply as the 110.

Normalized:

The asymmetry of the 80 mm lens’ DOF falloff on either side of the focus plane is much greater for red than for green light.

 

For the blue raw plane:

Again, the 80 isn’t as sharp as the 110. The 80 really likes green light.

Normalized:

Greater DOF when the 80 mm lens is front-focused than when it’s back focused.

Now, let’s consider how this plays out in the field. If I focus on a subject in the middleground, everything behind that subject is front-focused. If I focus on a subject in the middleground, everything in front of that subject is back-focused.

So the 80 has more DOF behind the subject than you’d expect, and less DOF in front of the subject than you’d expect.

GFX 100S

← Fuji GFX 100S focus bracketing doesn’t return to starting position reliably Copying watercolors with the GFX 100 →

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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.