• 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 / Low contrast slanted edge MTF testing: Fuji 80/1.7 GF on GFX 100S

Low contrast slanted edge MTF testing: Fuji 80/1.7 GF on GFX 100S

May 17, 2021 JimK 1 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”.

A few days ago, I tested the Fuji 250/4 GF and the Rodenstock 180/5.6 HR Digaron S on the GFX 100S on axis with a low contrast target. The Rodenstock was the clear winner. Later, I analyzed exposures made by someone else using a similar, but not identical target, and found that his 250/4 was behaving much like mine. He said he was going to test all of his GF lenses at the same magnification with his target. I thought that seemed like a good idea, and I’m going to do the same, starting with the Fuji 80 mm f/1.7 GF lens I’m testing today. I will be using the GFX 100S for all the tests.

I used a matte target for this test. I suspected that it’s not sharp enough to stress the lens at the distances I’m using. I reprinted the target on F-finish paper and repeated the test. I’ll show you both results here.

Here are the distances I’ll be using:

Here’s the scene with the matte target:

Here’s what it looks like with the baryta target:

Here’s the test protocol:

  • RRS carbon fiber legs
  • C1 head
  • Target distance 85 feet
  • ISO 100
  • Electronic shutter
  • 10-second self timer
  • f/1.7, f/2-16 in whole-stop steps
  • Exposure time set by camera in A mode
  • Focus bracketing, step size 2
  • Pick sharpest one in Imatest
  • Develop in Lightroom 10.2
  • Sharpening amount 0, radius 1, detail 0
  • White balance to gray of chart
  • Some minor exposure adjustment
  • Rest of settings at default
  • Analyze in Imatest

You can learn a lot from looking at the raw data in the exposure series; this is with the matte target.

The fourth stop tested, f/4, is the sharpest stop, with f/2.8 and f/5.6 being about as sharp.F/2 and f/8 are next and about the same. Then comes f/1.7, followed by f/16.

I’ll show you the Imatest MTF plots for the best image at all 8 f-stops in order as I stopped the lens down, matte first, and baryta second:

f/1.7:

 

 

Definitely higher MTFs for the baryta target.

f/2:

 

 

Slightly higher for the glossier target.

f/2.8:

 

The same.

f/4:

 

The matte target is actually sharper.

f/5.6:

 

Again, the matte is slight sharper.

f/8:

 

Matt slightly sharper.

f/11:

 

Matte slightly sharper.

f/16:

 

 

Matte slightly sharper.

I feel better about using the matte target, except for the f/1.7 shot, which was significantly sharper with the baryta target. Maybe the step size of 2 is too large. I’ll try 1 next time.

Chromatic aberration in the same order for the matte target:

 

A fair amount of CA at f/1.7 and f/2, but not much after that as you stop down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GFX 100S

← Are DOF calculators useful? — part 2 Focus drift with the 110/2 GF on the Fujifilm GFX 100S →

Comments

  1. David Berryrieser says

    May 17, 2021 at 10:12 pm

    Happy to see that there is very little difference between the matte and glossy targets. One less thing to worry about.

    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.