Discussion in 'X100F, X100T, X100S, X100, and X70' started by Ktang, Mar 5, 2017.
Live and learn.
Canon Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.8 Autofocus Lens Soft Focus
I don't see how they could be designed similarly. The rear element of the x100 is much closer to the sensor than the 23 was designed for so that alone would mean they are different however I'm not a lens designer. As far as sharpness up close you have to stop down. Even stopping down to F4 the DOF is quite narrow at minimum focusing distance. Here's one example of a close up with the x100s.
Full frame shot:
100% crop from the above:
That floats my boat. YMMV though. Hope this helps. Happy shooting.
One more example on the importance of stopping down this lens for close up work:
Full frame shot at F2:
100% crop shot at F2. Very glowy, soft:
Same shot stopped down to F8:
Hope this helps.
OK, I've done some tests. At macro distances lens is indeed soft. However, much of if depends on FOCUS. Believe it or not, but I was able to get rid of "glow" by manually focusing. I'm talking about that F2. At normal distances lens is SHARP wide open. Of course, it's not 23mm 1.4(which is the sharpest 35mm-equivalent I've ever tested), but it's sharp for my standards.
What is ironic is that many photographers are looking for this vaporous effect in close-up to the largest aperture, which tends to "float" the elements. (Especially because of the very sharp area of sharpness).
And when a lens produces it "naturally", other photographers complain.
What an amazing world. ;-)
I like the softness in that car close-up.
Kind of like camera manufacturers striving for as clean an image as possible but then users buy software to mimic grain.
There can be lens variation.
My first X100 was this soft and was replaced.
My second X100 was sharper but the blade in the viewfinder got stuck and was also replaced.
I still have my third X100 which was as sharp as the second and my X100S was sharper still thanks to the XTrans Sensor.
With all of them F2 is soft , F4 is sharp and the closer you focus sharpness falls ( not talking Depth of Field ).
The original DPReview of the X100 covered the quirky lens quite nicely.
Respectfully I can't agree with your statement "With all of them F2 is soft." I'll offer my "opinion". I think F2 is indeed sharp, at least to my standards which I know can vary from person to person. YMMV.
Some photos to illustrate why I feel that way. Full or cropped photos followed by 100% crops. X100s camera.
I guess it boils down to what one calls "soft". I put these here so that people making a decision on a camera purchase can have some additional information whether to buy or not to buy. Happy shooting.
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"
I've been shooting my X100F wide open at very close distances(like 20 cm from my son's face in utter low-light at 8000 iso) and I was quite pleased with it's performance. We rarely print these days, but we pixel-peep on every photo we take. Try printing photos from X100F and looking at them at normal viewing distances. You'd be surprised.
You might be looking at a DOF issue. DOF at F2 and 4 inches has to be extremely small...
Hold on while I look it up!
Yeah... 0.05 inches 0.12 cm..
I had a X100 and X100S and both were sharp at F2.0. I received an X100F and it was so soft at F2.0 that I sent it back. I have not received another X100F yet to see if it is a design issue or I just had a bad copy.
"soft wide opened in close-up situations".
I'm a bourgeois. See prices of the equipments!
Could not agree more as I illustrated in post 23 in this thread.
Dana Harbor by Dave Kavlich, on Flickr
Poor little girl, cannot afford a new pair of trousers, has to wear the old rotten ones, can even not afford a pair of socks, although it seems to have been really cold at the harbour two days ago and she was obviously freezing. You should have helped her out instead of testing the sharpness of your new F at f4 ...
The area I live in is very affluent.
I don't think it was a matter of economics.