the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / GFX 100 / Fuji 120/4 GF at 1:1 with tubes

Fuji 120/4 GF at 1:1 with tubes

September 1, 2021 JimK Leave a Comment

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. But I didn’t test it at 1:1 because I couldn’t find my 45 mm extension tube.

The day before yesterday, I found it. So now you]ll see how the lens performs at 1:1 — MFD with the 45 mm tube.

But first, I had to change my target. I had been using two backlit industrial single-edged razor blades, the kind made to go in cutting instruments like box cutters, at right angles. But it turned out that at 1:1, the thickness of the blades meant that I had to make too many images to get both edges in focus. So I switched to blades meant for shaving.

Here’s the setup.

Here’s the test procedure:

  • GFX 100
  • Foba camera stand
  • C1 head
  • 1 45mm Fuji extension tube
  • Lens focused to close to as near as it would focus
  • ISO 100
  • Electronic shutter
  • 10-second self timer
  • f/4 through f/11 in whole-stop steps
  • Exposure time set by camera in A mode
  • Focus bracketing, step size 1, 150 exposures
  • Initial focus short of target
  • Convert RAF to DNG using Adobe DNG Converter
  • Extract raw mosaics with dcraw
  • Extract slanted edge for each raw plane in a Matlab program the Jack Hogan originally wrote, and that I’ve been modifying for years.
  • Analyze the slanted edges and produce MTF curves using MTF Mapper (great program; thanks, Frans)
  • Fit curves to the MTF Mapper MTF50 values in Matlab
  • Correct for systematic GFX focus bracketing inconsistencies
  • Analyze and graph in Matlab

The results:

The vertical axis is MTF50 in cycles per picture height. Higher is sharper. The horizontal axis is f-stop.

  1. The leftmost blue columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, in the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  2. The red columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, in the center of the image, with a horizontal edge. In a perfect world, these columns would be the same height as the corresponding blue columns.
  3. The yellow columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, at the right edge of the image, with a vertical edge.
  4. The purple columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, at the right edge of the image, with a horizontal edge.

It’s pretty obvious that the performance suffers greatly with the 45 mm tube at the edges, especially for the vertical, or tangential, edge.

This test does not include the effects of focus curvature, which are calibrated out by the test methodology.

Let’s compare those results with the ones for the same lens at MFD with no tubes, which gets us 1:2 magnification.

  1. The leftmost blue columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with no tube, in the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  2. The red columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with no tube, in the center of the image, with a horizontal edge. In a perfect world, these columns would be the same height as the corresponding blue columns.
  3. The yellow columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, in the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  4. The purple columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, in the center of the image, with a horizontal edge. In a perfect world, these columns would be the same height as the corresponding blue columns.
  5. The green columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with no tube, in the center of the image, with a vertical edge.
  6. The light blue columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with no tube, in the center of the image, with a horizontal edge. In a perfect world, these columns would be the same height as the corresponding blue columns.
  7. The brick red columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, at the right edge of the image, with a vertical edge.
  8. The right blue columns are for the 120/4 at minimum focusing distance (MFD) with a 45 mm tube, at the right edge of the image, with a horizontal edge.

The edge performance at 1:1 is far worse than that at 1:2.

Some caveats:

The shaving blade may be a bit sharper than the industrial onoe, which would favor the 1:1 shots in this test. I will explore this.

The f-shots indicated are the indicated ones, not the effective ones. I’m guessing that the effective f-stops in the 1:2 case are half to two-thirds of a stop narrower than the indicated ones, and the effective f-stops in the 1:1 case are one and a half to to one and two-thirds of a stop narrower than the indicated ones.

One note: the Fuji focus bracketing feature does not pay any attention to the effective f-stop, even though it has enough information to compute it. Therefore, the steps are smaller than they have to be.

 

There appears to be significant lateral chromatic aberration (LaCA) at 1:1. Here’s a close look at a tangential edge in the sharpest image in the f/4 series:

 

The radial edge is fuzzy, but doesn’t have the spectacular chromatic effects.

 

GFX 100, GFX 100S, GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Two ways to get to 1:2 with the GFX 3D subjects at 1:1 magnification: the cruel numbers →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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 Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.