• 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 50S / Fuji 32-64/4 at 64 mm focus shift and autofocus accuracy

Fuji 32-64/4 at 64 mm focus shift and autofocus accuracy

February 7, 2018 JimK 1 Comment

This is a continuation of a series of posts on the Fuji GFX 50S.   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 50S”. 

A few days ago, I published a study of the focus shift and autofocus errors of the Fuji GFX 50S using the Fuji 45 mm f/2.8 lens. I repeated the test with the 110 mm f/2, and the 63/2.8. Now, I’ll do the last lens in this series, the 32-64 mm f/4. I find it difficult to run these tests on lenses as short as the 23 mm f/4, so I’ll have to skip that one.

At 64 mm:

I’ve plotted the three Adobe RGB color channels. The graph presents displacement of the image projected on the sensor from the desired green-channel focal plane, not the error in the object field in front of the lens. The reason for doing this is to allow easier comparison of lenses of different focal lengths at various target distances. Negative numbers indicate front-focusing. The image-plane shift is in micrometers (um). The separation of the focal distances of the three color planes is because of the longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) of the lens. There were ten exposures at each f-stop. I’ve plotted lines indicating the average (aka mean or mu) of the sample set bolder and added thin lines above and below the means that are one standard deviation (sigma) away from them. The focus shift is away from the camera as you stop down. That means this lens, at this focal length and at this distance, is undercorrected for spherical aberration.

One thing to notice is that the Longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) goes from blue-front-focusing to blue-back-focusing as you stop down, and at f/5 of f/5.6, the lens is apochromatic.

Let’s look at the diameters of the circles of confusion (CoCs) implied by the above  focus errors:

If you focus this lens wide open and stop down to between f/5 and f/8, you’ll see a bit over one pixel pitch worth of blur. We’ll get to the optimum focusing strategy in a bit, but first, let me show you the above set of curves for luminance only:

In this case, there’s not much difference between the luminance curves and the green -channel ones.

Here is the focus strategy graph using luminance as the focus metric:

Focusing at f/5.6 and stopping down has a worst-case focus shift blur of less than one pixel pitch. Focusing tat f/8 is probably fine for that stop and anything narrower.

Turning to autofocus, using just AF-S — I’ve curtailed the AF-C curves with this camera since they are so similar to the AF-S ones. The spot size was one larger than the minimum, or two smaller than the default. 

 

 

These are quite reasonable errors.

 

Next up: performance at 44 mm.

GFX 50S

← Fuji 63/2.8 focus shift and autofocus accuracy Fuji 32-64/4 at 44 mm focus shift and autofocus accuracy →

Trackbacks

  1. Fuji 32-64/4 at 32 mm focus shift and autofocus accuracy says:
    February 8, 2018 at 8:30 pm

    […] 63/2.8. Yesterday, I posted the results of testing the last lens in this series, the 32-64 mm f/4. I performed the tests at 64 mm focal length. Earlier today I did the same at 44 mm. Now I’ll finish with the 32 mm […]

    Reply

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

  • NiceDays on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Christer Almqvist on Diffraction and the Airy disk diameter
  • Paul R on Price and Performance: Hasselblad X vs. Fujifilm GFX
  • JimK on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Jack Hogan on Diffraction and the Airy disk diameter
  • Jack Hogan on Do Raw Developers Use the Embedded JPEG as a Color Reference?
  • Štěpán Kaňa on A Modest Proposal
  • John Vickers on Mitigating lighting banding in GFX ES images
  • JimK on A Modest Proposal
  • K on Hasselblad XCD 38/2.5 on X2D 100C, LaCA

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.