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 100S / Fuji 20-35/4 vs 32-64/4 landscape field curvature

Fuji 20-35/4 vs 32-64/4 landscape field curvature

October 7, 2022 JimK 2 Comments

I’ve received several requests to test the 20-35 against the 32-64 at 32 mm for field curvature.

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

20-35 GF at 32mm, center, f/4

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, 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.

20-35 GF at 32mm, center, f/4

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, center, f/4

The 32-64 is a little sharper.

20-35 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/4

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/4

The 20-35 is better.

20-35 GF at 32mm, center, f/5.6

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, center, f/5.6

About the same.

20-35 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/5.6

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/5.6

The 20-35 is better.

A reader suggested that the 32-64  f/5.6 edge picture above looks to blurry when compared to the f/4 image. I went back and dug up the other shot:

32-64 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/5.6

It’s a little better, but it’s still not quite as good as the 20-35.

20-35 GF at 32mm, center, f/8

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, center, f/8

About the same. The 20-35 has more contrast.

20-35 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/8

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/8

The 20-35 is better.

20-35 GF at 32mm, center, f/11

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, center, f/11

About the same.

20-35 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/11

 

32-64 GF at 32mm, edge, not refocused, f/11

The 20-35 is better.

 

 

 

GFX 100S

← Fujifilm 20-35/4 GF distortion Interim thoughts on the Hasselblad X2D 100C →

Comments

  1. Troy says

    October 7, 2022 at 12:36 pm

    Wow not what I guessed. Thanks again

    Reply
  2. Uwe says

    October 8, 2022 at 12:20 am

    Thanks, Jim!
    That’s a very interesting comparison. It looks to me that Fujifilm spent really big effort into the design of the 20-35.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • 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

  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.