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 45-100/4 vs 45/2.8, Siemens star

Fuji 45-100/4 vs 45/2.8, Siemens star

February 28, 2020 JimK 3 Comments

I’ve tested the Fujifilm 45-100 mm f/4 against two other Fuji GFX zooms, the 32-64/4 and the 100-200/5.6. In this post, I’ll be comparing the lens to the Fuji 45/2.8 at f/4, f/5.6 and f/8. I’ll be looking at center and corner sharpness using a 22-inch-diameter low-contrast Siemens star target that I printed for this test.

The scene, at f/4 with the 45-100:

Fuji 45-100/4 at 45 mm, center, f/4

Target distance was 14 meters.

Test conditions:

  • The heaviest RRS legs
  • Arca Swiss C1 head
  • ISO 100
  • Electronic shutter 1/10 at f/4, 1/5 at f/5.6, and 1/2.5 at f/8
  • 2-second self-timer
  • AF-S, medium spot size
  • 3 sets of shots at each test condition
  • Developed in Lightroom
  • Picked best shot of each test condition
  • Sharpening amount 20 radius 1, detail 0 (much less sharpening than the default)
  • Adobe Color profile
  • White balanced to grey background

We’ll look at some tight crops at about 130% magnification.

Fuji 45-100/4 at 45 mm, center, f/4

 

Fuji 45 mm f/2.8, center, f/4

The prime is slightly sharper, but not enough to make a difference in real-world photography.

Fuji 45-100/4 at 45 mm, center, f/5.6

 

Fuji 45 mm f/2.8, center, f/5.6

I call that a wash.

Fuji 45-100/4 at 45 mm, center, f/8

 

Fuji 45 mm f/2.8, center, f/8

Also a push.

In the upper-right corner:

Fuji 45-100/4 at 45 mm, corner, f/4

 

Fuji 45 mm f/2.8, corner, f/4

Very close. The sagittal and tangential sharpnesses are more different in the case of the prime, which is not what I’d expect.

Fuji 45-100/4 at 45 mm, corner, f/5.6

 

Fuji 45 mm f/2.8, corner, f/5.6

The prime is a little sharper.

Fuji 45-100/4 at 45 mm, corner, f/8

 

Fuji 45 mm f/4, corner, f/8

The prime is better.

I am amazed at how well the 45-100 did in comparison tot he 45/2.8 in this test.

GFX 100, GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Fuji 45-100/4 vs 63/2.8, Siemens star Fuji 45-100/4 vs 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S, Siemens star, part 1 →

Comments

  1. Peter says

    February 28, 2020 at 5:01 pm

    Jim, I run Alpa, Phase One, Sony and Fuji systems, and have been rather disappointed with the Fuji MF lenses to be honest. If you are coming from FF, or use the 50mp body, you’ll likely be happy enough, but at 100mp, compared to a Phase or Rodenstock/ Schneider tech cam lens, they are not all that. I had the 45mm and 63mm and sold them both – poor resolution off center. I kept the 50mm and 110mm only. The 50mm because its small and ok (but note it’s a $500/600 pancake lens, and should be nothing like the $1000 they ask) and the 110mm because it’s probably their best.

    Fuji badly need to release some premium lenses for 100mp, even if they are more $. And if, as rumored, pixel shift 400mp firmware upgrade for GFX-100 is coming, then they definitely need to up their game.

    Reply
    • Christopher says

      February 29, 2020 at 10:23 pm

      So does phase one. Their BR lenses have a huge sample variation and nothin from them can beat Fuji’s 23, 110,120 or 250mm.

      It’s true that there is a big sample variation on the 45,63 and their zooms.

      However, just take a look how bad phase ones best lens the new 150/2,8 is with purple fringing… horrible.

      Reply
    • Erik Kaffehr says

      March 1, 2020 at 5:15 am

      Hi,

      The Siemens targets Jim uses in his testing clearly indicate that most Fujifilm lenses he tested on the GFX 100 ‘outresolve’ the sensor, although I would prefer to use some other term.

      If the converging spokes of the Siemens star start to bend, that is a clear indication that the lens still delivers significant contrast at the pixel level.

      More learned gentlemen than myself write that using pixel shift does not increase resolution but would counter act aliasing.

      So, it would seem that Jim’s experience is that the Fujifilm lenses are good enough for the GFX 100 and would need quite a bit more pixels for optimal resolution.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

January 2023
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Dec    

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

  • Brian Olson on Fuji GFX 100S exposure strategy, M and A modes
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on Picking a macro lens
  • Glenn Whorrall on Picking a macro lens
  • JimK on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • Hatzipavlis Peter on What pitch do you need to scan 6×6 TMax 100?
  • JeyB on Internal focusing 100ish macro lenses
  • JimK on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Garry George on How focus-bracketing systems work
  • Rhonald on Format size and image quality

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.