• 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 / GF 35-70 and 32-64, foliage, corner

GF 35-70 and 32-64, foliage, corner

January 1, 2022 JimK 1 Comment

 

In the previous post, I compared the Fuji 35-70 GF against the 32-64 GF using foliage as the subject. I looked at the center of the images there; now I’ll look at the corner performance.

I set up the GFX 100S as follows:

  • RRS 4-series Versa legs
  • Arca-Swiss C1
  • 2-second self timer
  • ES
  • ISO 100
  • AF-S for three shots, picking the best sharpness in post
  • Wide open,  f/5.6, f/8, f/11
  • Manual shutter speed selection

 

I developed the images in Lightroom with

  • White balance set to Daylight
  • Adobe Color Profile
  • Sharpening: amount 20, radius 1, detail 0

If you’ve seen these here before, just jump to the images. If not, I need to spend some time telling you how to interpret them. They’re at roughly  250% magnification, enlarged to 700 pixels high on export from Lightroom. If you just want a rough idea of the differences, just look at the images as displayed in-line in the posts. However, if you wish to compare these images in detail, you should view these images by clicking on them to see the source files, then set your browser for 100% zooming. Even better, download them and make Photoshop stacks.

No matter what you do, these crops are all going to look horrible. I’m blowing them up so much so that they will represent the original file after JPEG’s discrete cosine transform has had its way with them. If you want to get a good idea of what the images would look like printed, get far away from your monitor. No, farther than that. Put a bunch of the images up on the screen and back up until the best one starts to look good. Then look at the others. There’s another reason why these images won’t look like the best thing the camera/lens combination can deliver. They’re demosaiced with Lightroom. Lightroom is not awful, but for a particular image, there are usually better raw processors. I use Lr because it’s a de facto standard, because I know it well, and because it’s got good tools for dealing with groups of images.

Here’s how to use these highly-magnified crops. The dimensions of the GFX 100 sensor is 11648×8736 pixels. If we make a full-frame print from the GFX 100 on a printer with 360 pixels per inch native driver-level resolution, like the Epson inkjet printers, we’ll end up with a 32.4×24.3 inch print. The 399×309 pixel crop you’re looking at will end up roughly 1.2×0.8 inches.  Let’s imagine that you or your viewers are critical, and will look at the 32×24 inch print from about 24 inches (conventional wisdom is that the distance would be a little greater than that, or 40 inches (the diagonal), but you did buy a high-resolution camera for a reason, didn’t you?).

The next step is dependent on your monitor pitch, which you may or may not know. Turns out, you don’t have to know it. Just take the crops and view then at 1:1. How high are they? Get out your ruler and measure, or just guess. Let’s say they are 6 inches high. 6 inches is about 6 times 0.9, so in order to view the crops the way they’d look from 24 inches on the print is to view them from 6 times as far away, or 12 feet.

At 35mm, in the upper left corner, at a distance of about 100 meters:

35-70 at 35mm, f/4.5

 

32-64 at 32mm, f/4.5

The 35-70 isn’t near as sharp as the 32-64.

35-70 at 35mm, f/5.6

 

32-64 at 32mm, f/5.6

At f/5.6, the 35-70 improves a lot, and isn’t all that far behind the 32-64.

35-70 at 35mm, f/8

 

32-62 at 35mm, f/8

Now it’s pretty much a wash.

35-70 at 35mm, f/11

 

32-64 at 32mm, f/11

F/11, the great equalizer.

At 45 mm:

35-70 at 45mm, f/5

 

32-64 at 45mm, f/5

The 32-64 image isn’t sharp at all. None of the three images in the set were. Is this a focusing issue? I think it probably is.

 

35-70 at 45mm, f/5.6

 

32-64 at 45mm, f/5.6

About the same.

35-70 at 45mm, f/8

 

32-64 at 45mm, f/8

Also about the same.

35-70 at 45mm, f/11

 

32-64 at 45mm, f/11

At 63mm:

35-70 at 63mm, f/5.6

 

32-64 at 35mm, f/5.6

Not that different.

 

35-70 at 63mm, f/8

 

 

32-64 at 63mm, f/8

Close.

 

35-70 at 63mm, f/11

 

32-64 at 63mm, f/11

Very close.

 

 

GFX 100, GFX 100S, GFX 50S

← GF 35-70 and 32-64, foliage, on axis MTF50 and microcontrast of Fuji 35-70 GF →

Comments

  1. Henry says

    September 7, 2024 at 9:32 pm

    Hmm from this and the previous looks as though the 32-64 edges out in the centres but the 35-70 seems a little more consistent across the frame

    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 Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.