• 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 / Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

October 6, 2022 JimK 14 Comments

There are many landscape photographers looking at the new Fuji 20-35/4 and saying, “It’s about the same weight and size as the 23mm f/4 GF prime. Why don’t I ditch my 23 and go with this more versatile lens?”

What’s wrong with that idea? For sharpness and distant subject field curvature, not much.

I started with a tree 100 meters away in the center of the image.

 

20-35 GF at 23mm, center, f/4

 

23 mm GF, center, f/4

I panned the camera so that the tree fell on the right side near the edge. I made pictures focusing in the center, and also without refocusing from the point where the tree was sharpest in the center. I made two sets of images, and picked the sharpest ones. The Fuji manual focusing at high magnification with peaking is good enough that both sets of images were about the same sharpness.

I used the side instead of the corner a) because it was easier,  and b0 because I thought it was more realistic for landscape photography, where the subject distance at the corners of the image is usually not the same as to the center.

Details:

  • GFX 100S
  • 2-second self timer
  • ISO 100
  • Manual focus
  • Low red peaking
  • Maximum magnification
  • RRS legs, C1 head
  • Developed in Lr CC with defaults except for
  • Adobe Standard Profile
  • Sharpening amount 20, radius 1, detail 25
  • Daylight color balance

Here are some crops at about 250% magnification.

 

At f/4:

20-35 GF at 23mm, center, f/4

 

23 mm GF, center, f/4

About the same. If anything, the prime is softer.

20-35 GF at 23mm, side, not refocused, f/4

 

20-35 GF at 23mm, side, not refocused, f/4

I don’t see a lot of difference here. The 23 prime has a bit more snap.

At f/5.6:

20-35 GF at 23mm, center, f/5.6

 

23 mm GF, center, f/5.6

Again, not much difference in the center.

20-35 GF at 23mm, side, not refocused, f/5.6

 

23 mm GF, side, not refocused, f/5.6

Not that different.

20-35 GF at 23mm, center, f/8

 

23 mm GF, center, f/8

Not much difference.

20-35 GF at 23mm, side, not refocused, f/8

 

23 mm GF, side, not refocused, f/8

The 23 has more contrast.

And finally, at f/11:

20-35 GF at 23mm, center, f/11

 

23 mm GF, center, f/11

A bit more contrast with the prime.

20-35 GF at 23mm, side, not refocused, f/11

 

23 mm GF, side, not refocused, f/11

Again, a bit more contrast with the prime.

 

 

 

GFX 100S

← A tale of two lens shades Fujifilm 20-35/4 GF distortion →

Comments

  1. Troy says

    October 6, 2022 at 10:53 am

    Thank you for this. Any more comparisons greatly appreciated

    Reply
  2. Gregory Lane Johnson says

    October 6, 2022 at 11:10 pm

    Hey Jim, I like this test! Amazed at the results. I assume there was no wind blowing those branches around! LOL. I like that outdoor test.
    I’m amazed that the zoom approaches my beloved 23, which I’m shooting with right now in Sardinia, with my new 100s, which I like a lot more than the big 100.
    I’m getting the zoom. Wish I had it now.
    Thanks,

    Greg

    Reply
    • JimK says

      October 7, 2022 at 6:13 am

      I do these tests early in the morning, before the wind comes up. The fastest shutter speed was 1/1000. The slowest was 1/125. Enjoy Sardinia, Greg!

      Reply
    • JimK says

      October 7, 2022 at 8:20 am

      Greg, you like the Q2, right? At the risk of depleting your bank account, you might consider the X2D. It handles a lot like a big Q2.

      Reply
  3. Sasha says

    October 7, 2022 at 5:54 am

    Thanks 🙂

    Reply
  4. Gleb says

    December 15, 2022 at 11:22 am

    thank you very much! For a great job! You’re great.
    I and many other GFX users would be very grateful if you could do a similar test, but only in terms of detail and distortion at the corners and edges of the photo. Thanks again!

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 15, 2022 at 12:20 pm

      There are already images at the right edge of the frame in landscape orientation.

      Reply
  5. Erik says

    December 30, 2022 at 9:17 am

    Hey Jim, it what areas if any you think the 23 excels vs the zoom? Obviously, not in these two. But, perhaps the zoom has more distortion uncorrected. Anything else? I’d really love a prime 35mm for the GFX. That seems to be the weakest focal length for this zoom.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      December 30, 2022 at 9:34 am

      Contrast. Flare. But for most people the zoom will do just fine.

      Reply
  6. Ivo de Man says

    April 27, 2025 at 5:04 pm

    I read several times how you proceeded for the “not refocused”shots, but couldn’t be sure… Did you first have the tree in the center, focused on it, and then panned (turned) the camera to get the tree at the border? Something you wrote generated some confusion: “…the subject distance at the corners of the image is usually not the same as to the center”… This is true, but is also true if you consider the image borders… What is on the border is usually farther than what is in the center…

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 27, 2025 at 9:10 pm

      An ideal rectilinear lens has a flat focal plane, so off axis subjects are brought into focus further away than on axis ones.

      Reply
    • JimK says

      April 27, 2025 at 9:11 pm

      Yes, the method used was focus and recompose.

      Reply
      • Ivo de Man says

        April 28, 2025 at 2:10 pm

        If you focus and recompose, the tree so won’t be anymore in the focal plane… A 23mm lens has an approximate 87.4° horizontal field of view, the half being 43.7°… You may have panned a bit less, let’s take 42°. If you panned the camera 42° , when looking in the tree direction, the intersection with the focal plane will be 135m away (=100m / cos(42°) )… However the tree still is 100m away… Can’t this affect the outcome of your tests?

        Reply
        • JimK says

          April 28, 2025 at 3:07 pm

          Do the DOF calculations, and you’ll see. I did them before I ran the test.

          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

  • 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.