• 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 / Fuji 120/4 GF at 1:1 with tubes — visuals

Fuji 120/4 GF at 1:1 with tubes — visuals

September 2, 2021 JimK 2 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100. 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 100”. Since it’s more about the lenses than the camera, I’m also tagging it with the other Fuji GFX tags.

I’ve been posting a lot recently about the 120 mm f/4 GF macro lens for the GFX. I found it a good performer at 1:2, at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with no extension tubes, but that it had really soft edges and a lot of focus curvature at MFD with 36 mm of tubes. In this post, I tested it at 1:1 with a 45 mm tube,a and found it credible on-axis but soft on the right edge of the frame.  I reported those results numerically. I know that some people like images better than charts, so here is a visual look at the phenonium, using the time honored sharpness target of a banknote. I used a 45mm tube at minimum focusing distance, which gives 1:1 magnification.

Here are full-frame images for navigation purposes. The images were created by Helicon from 150-capture sequences:

Used for center crop

 

Used for right edge and lower right corner crop

 

The crops, at about 150% magnification.

Center

 

Right Edge

 

Lower Right Corner

As well as the softness, lateral chromatic aberration is visible in the edge and corner crops.

Another f/4 shot, with three crops:

 

Full format

 

Center

 

Left edge

 

Upper left corner

And at f/5.6:

Full format

 

Center

 

Right edge

 

Upper right corner

GFX 100, GFX 100S, GFX 50S

← 3D subjects at 1:1 magnification: the cruel numbers Fuji 120/4 GF with and without tubes — visuals →

Comments

  1. Zé De Boni says

    September 3, 2021 at 7:20 am

    I was waiting to see some comments from Fuji GFX users, as I never used those cameras. My overall impression from your recent tests is of deception with general performance of Fuji GFX lens line (mostly for long focals), which made me sure that for me it was a safe decision to stay with FF at 60MP.
    I appreciate so much your testing methods, which can solve the old limitations of measuring resolution at any magnification, even at 1:1. Unfortunately this cannot be done for Sony lenses, but it would be great if you could offer such numerical comparison with another FF camera that has focus shifting, like Nikon. I also hope that some way by which slanted edge may be use to measure field curvature can be devised. That would make it possible to access how the floating elements designs are doing their jobs across all focus range, specially in macro lenses.
    The results that you have shown made me rush to get information about this 120mm macro design. First I learned that it is optically stabilized, which I usually dislike because such features require added elements or changes from straight forward designs. For high resolution systems, most of the work is done on tripods or stands, which shows that Fuji opted for a more complex and costly build, disregarding the more conventional pro use. And I am sure that this is paying its price at this level of precision of your tests.
    Amazingly, this Macro has 3 LD elements to correct CA and they advertise the floating elements focusing, which doesn’t seem to be fully operating at 1:2 without tubes. It should be showing its function of improving edge resolution by correction of field curvature across the whole focus range.
    The bad results with tubes are much as I expected, since tubes are not fit for floating elements lenses. This you may teach us, as few people understand that when you use a tube you start the focus range at a close distance, let’s say 1:2, but the internal setting of the lens is calibrated to infinite focus. Consequently you will have curved field, soft edges across all the close focus range. Best would be to have an optically active tube, a kind of macro converter designed specifically for such lenses. I learned that 50 years ago, but Fuji adopted an older fashioned simplification, with a macro limited to 1:2 maximal magnification. I bet you will get better results if you use a common tele-converter for closer work with that macro (if it ever fits that lens).

    Reply
    • JimK says

      September 3, 2021 at 7:25 am

      Focus shift shooting in Nikon cameras has too large a minimum step size for me to use it for these tests. I’m working on using a Cognisys rail.

      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

  • 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
  • Ivo de Man 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.