• 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 / The Last Word / Leica WATE & 18 mm SE on Fujifilm GFX 50S

Leica WATE & 18 mm SE on Fujifilm GFX 50S

May 24, 2017 JimK 3 Comments

This is the 59th in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here.

In the last post, I showed the results of some informal testing with the Leica 16-18-21 mm f/4 Tri-Elmar-M ASPH on the Fuji GFX. Now I’ll show you how that lens does at 18 mm. For comparison, I’ll include the Leica 18 mm f/3.8 Super-Elmar-M ASPH.

Coverage testing:

WATE f/4

 

WATE f/5.6

 

WATE f/8

 

WATE f/11

No color casting. A lot of falloff. Crops 4:5 and squarer should be OK with a little work.

SE f/3.8

 

SE f/5.6

 

SE f/8

 

SE f/11

What’s that black triangle in top middle left? Oops! That’s a piece of gaffer tape that I used to cover up the silly window that Leica cuts into the lens hood. You can ignore that. And yes, I did leave the hood on, for the same reason I left the hood on the WATE in this and the previous test. If anybody wants to try for a bit more coverage and is willing to risk their lens by removing the hood, have at it.

The black stripes at the sides, top and bottom are almost certainly due to the hood. however, after I’d done these captures, I did take the hood off and looked at the coverage using the EVF. There are still pretty hefty circular occlusions at the corners. 

I’m going to show you some very tight crops; here’s how to use them. The dimensions of the GFX sensor are 8256×6192 pixels. If we make a full-frame print from the GFX on a printer with 360 pixels per inch native driver-level resolution, like the Epson inkjet printers, we’ll end up with a 23×17 inch (58×44 cm) print. The 318×246 pixel crop you’re looking at will end up 0.8333×0.6833 inches (2.12×1.74 cm). Let’s imagine that you or your viewers are critical, and will look at the 22×17 inch print from about 18 inches (conventional wisdom is that the distance would be a little greater than that, or 28 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 253% 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 7 times 0.8333, so in order to view the crops the way they’d look from 18 inches on the print is to view them from 7 times as far away, or 10.5 feet.

Everything here scales proportionately. If the image on your screen is bigger than 6 inches, increase your viewing distance by the ratio of your image height to 6 inches. If you think your viewers are going to almost get their nose to that print and look at it from six inches, divide that 10.5 feet by 3, and look at the image on the monitor from three and a half feet away.

On a 30 inch 4K display, a 1:1 presentation of these crops will be about 4 inches, so to simulate the effect of viewing the print from 18 inches, you’ll want to back up to about seven feet. A couple of feet for a 6 inch print viewing distance. On a 17 inch laptop 4K display, a 1:1 presentation of these crops will be about 2 inches, so to simulate the effect of viewing the print from 18 inches, you’ll want to back up to about three and a half feet. A foot for a 6 inch print viewing distance. 

In the upper-center:

WATE f/4

Certainly acceptable.

WATE f/5.6

Good.

WATE f/8

Fine.

WATE f/11

Also fine.

Now the Super Elmar:

SE f/3.8

Good.

SE f/5.6

Excellent.

 

SE f/8

 

SE f/11

OK, now for the acid test the upper left corner of a point as far off axis as halfway between the upper left corners of a 1:1 and a 4:5 crop (brightened to partially compensate for falloff:

 

WATE f/4

Not too shabby. Certainly acceptable for many pruposes.

WATE f/5.6

Quite good.

WATE f/8

Excellent. Remember, this is a zoom lens.

WATE f/11

Still very good.

With the Super Elmar:

SE f/3.8

Ugh.

SE f/5.6

A bit better, but still smeared.

SE f/8

Getting there.

SE f/11

Now it’s OK.

If you already have the 18 SE, you might want to give it a try at f/8 or f/11 on the GFX. If you don’t already own one, do not go out and lay down your cash thinking its a good match for the GFX. By the way, the 18 SE also has problems on the a7RII. The issue is a mismatch between the lens design and the sensor stack thickness on both those cameras. It works much better on the Leica M cameras and on the Kolari thin-stack modified a7xs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Last Word

← Leica WATE on Fujifilm GFX 50S @ 16 & 21 mm Photography & technique →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    May 25, 2017 at 3:40 pm

    There’s a very strange texture in the peripheral shots of the Super-Elmar, like it’s a photograph of a monitor. Any reason for this?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 25, 2017 at 3:58 pm

      To me the leaves don’t look all that different from the way some nearly-symmetric lenses look on the a7x. Those lenses were formulated for zero sensor stack thickness, and the steep rays don’t like the Sony or the GFX stack. In the case of the SE, we’re also using the lens outside the coverage that it was designed for, but I think the sensor stack is the long pole in the tent.

      But the texture you’re talking about is in the sky, right? I looked at the Lr images, and the texture is not there, but because the blus sky didn’t excite the red channel, and I boosted the exposure for those dark corners, there’s a fair amount of noise. When the images are blown up as much as they are, the noise from each pixel in the file affects several pixels in the JPEG output. It’s possible that there is some pernicious interaction with the JPEG compression. I don’t really know, but in the file there’s not a semi-regular pattern like there is in the web image.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fujifilm GFX 50S: Really Right Stuff First Look and More | Fuji Addict says:
    May 26, 2017 at 11:20 am

    […] The Last Word – Leica WATE & 18 mm SE on Fujifilm GFX 50S […]

    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.