• 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 / Actual vs calculated depth of field for long GF lenses on the GFX 100S

Actual vs calculated depth of field for long GF lenses on the GFX 100S

June 25, 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”. Since it’s more about the lenses than the camera, I’m also tagging it with the other Fuji GFX tags.

In the previous post I showed you some data on the depth of field of normal and shorter focal length GF lenses on the GFX 100S. In this one, I’ll do the same for the longer lenses.

There is a body of opinion that somehow depth of field (DOF) calculators don’t work for GFX cameras. The proponents of that school of thought say that it’s not just a matter of picking the appropriate circle of confusion (CoC) diameter; it’s more fundamental than that. Some of them cite publications by Zeiss that say that the lens aberrations affect the DOF performance of the lens, which is undeniably true, but may or may not be applicable in the case of the GF lenses, which are with some exceptions fairly well corrected.

It occured to me that I have in my current lens-testing protocol a means to measure the actual circles of confusion produced by the GF lenses on the GFX 100S as the subject is defocused, which would allow the actual DOF to be compared to the DOF predicted by geometric optics, upon which depth of field calculators are based.

For the plots to follow, I’ve used the white-balanced raw channels as computer fodder, and used a threshold to define blur circle size that is fairly pessimistic. I take the intensity at the center of the blur circle, and define the radius of the blur circle as the distance between the center and that point where the intensity drops to one tenth of the value at the center. The blur circle data plotted above that MTF Mapper covers both sides of the line spread function or PSF, and I’m computing the radius of the blur circle both ways, averaging those two numbers, and doubling it to get the diameter of the blur circle. That gives me the red curves in the plots below. The blue curves are what geometric optics says should be the case for an ideal lens with no diffraction.

The 80/1.7 GF:

Wide open, the 80/1.7 shows near-predicted DOF in the back-focused case, and less blur than predicted in the front-focused case.

 

At f/4, the 80 gives slightly less than predicted blur  both front and back focused.
At f/8, the 80 still offers less than the predicted amount of blur.

Now for the 110, the 120, the 45-100 at 100mm, and the 100-200 at 100mm:

 

110 wide open operates nearly as predicted, but a bit sharper when back-focused.
110 at f/4 is also sharper than the tables say when back-focused.
100-200 at f/5.6 is close to textbook
120 at f/4 is blurrier than predicted when front focused,a and sharper than predicted when back focused

 

45-100 at 100mm and f/4 works as the tables say when front focused, but is sharper than that when back focused.

At f/8:

110 at f/8 looks like it’s following the rules
100-200 at 100 and f/8 looks a bit sharper than it should be when front focused, and a tad worse than that when back focused

 

120/4 at f/8 follows the rules

 

45-100 at 100mm and f/8 is sharper than expected when back-focused

And here’s a really long lens:

250/4 at f/4 is a little sharper than predicted when back focused

 

250/4 att f/8 looks about the same in that regard

 

 

GFX 100, GFX 100S, GFX 50S

← Actual vs calculated depth of field for short GF lenses on the GFX 100S Repeatability of MTF50, LoCA, and microcontrast tests →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

June 2025
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  
« May    

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

  • Hakan Yesil on Fujifilm 20-35/4 GF distortion
  • JimK on More Than Exposure: Understanding Total Light on the Sensor
  • Brandon on Adobe Super Resolution
  • Brandon on A Modest Proposal
  • Jeffrey Horton on More Than Exposure: Understanding Total Light on the Sensor
  • JimK on A Modest Proposal
  • Brandon on A Modest Proposal
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Price and Performance: Hasselblad X vs. Fujifilm GFX
  • DC wedding photographer on A Modest Proposal
  • NiceDays on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.