Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Allan Bell

Stumbled across possible cause 55-200 fuji lens blur.

Recommended Posts

Just browsing the web and came across this http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/fujifilm-55-200-3p5-4p8/4 on DPReview.

 

It would appear that Fuji's distortion correction algorithm for this lens, particularly at the longer focal lengths, is stretching the image in the centre (center) thus causing a blurring/OOF effect.  It is only slight but shows up quite well at 100%.

 

If the distortion correction is turned off then the centre of the image sharpens up at the expense of pincushioning of straight lines at the edges.

 

You pays yer money and takes your choice but it would appear that switching off distortion correction would at least, in part, reduce the problem of being failed for SoLD.

 

What do others think?

 

Or would it be better to dump said lens.

 

Anyone know if this occurs with other makes of lens when distortion correction is used?

 

Allan

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno I have just had a batch using this lens pass IQ but hadn't heard of the issue previously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using the Sony 55-210 e-mount lens with my NEX cameras, and I haven't noticed this problem. However, I do find that downsizing is sometimes necessary with distant images shot at long focal lengths. Haven't had any QC failures, though. Judging by the review that you linked to, it looks as if the image stabilization of the Fuji is better than Sony's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just browsing the web and came across this http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/fujifilm-55-200-3p5-4p8/4 on DPReview.

 

It would appear that Fuji's distortion correction algorithm for this lens, particularly at the longer focal lengths, is stretching the image in the centre (center) thus causing a blurring/OOF effect.  It is only slight but shows up quite well at 100%.

 

If the distortion correction is turned off then the centre of the image sharpens up at the expense of pincushioning of straight lines at the edges.

 

You pays yer money and takes your choice but it would appear that switching off distortion correction would at least, in part, reduce the problem of being failed for SoLD.

 

What do others think?

 

Or would it be better to dump said lens.

 

Anyone know if this occurs with other makes of lens when distortion correction is used?

 

Allan

 

Never really had any major problems with the lens that meant dumping it. There were a couple of occasions when it returned SoLD shots but the majority of them were ok. The only reason this lens has now been relegated is due to the purchase of the 50-140. This is very sharp even at f/2.8 @ 140mm.

 

I'd say there would be only two reasons to offload the 55-200.

 

1. You want the 50-140.

2. Don't trust the copy of the 55-200 you have and want to try a new one.

 

As john says, the 55-210 for the Sony was had issues with rendering distant objects at the long end. As I was using it as a landscape lens with a lot of the frame in the distance, I ended up with a lot of SoLD shots with it. It was one of the reasons I jumped ship, needed a good long lens. 

 

That Sony 55-210 I found better in manual mode than AF. If you used manual focus you could get really sharp shots. I suffered a couple of sin bins with that lens in AF.

 

The 50-140 would certainly cut out the SoLD but, there is that weight increase. I don't mind taking the hit because of the increased IQ and the ability to shoot at 1/4sec @140mm but I doubt it would appeal to everyone.

Edited by Duncan_Andison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 50-140 lens is a different animal to the 55-200 in that it does not have the reach of the 55-200 so the distortion correction would not be as aggressive. Assuming that the 50-140 even needs to have any distortion correction applied at all that is.

 

I cannot check that out as I do not have the 50-140 lens.

 

I looked at Sony, before falling on the Fuji side of the fence, and did not like various aspects thinking the Fuji route was for me. Now having second thoughts.

 

If Fuji had a long prime lens then I might carry on with them and stick to primes only avoiding zoom lenses. But I still like the convenience of zooms although having to take into account their shortcomings in all makes not just Fuji.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 50-140 lens is a different animal to the 55-200 in that it does not have the reach of the 55-200 so the distortion correction would not be as aggressive. Assuming that the 50-140 even needs to have any distortion correction applied at all that is.

 

I cannot check that out as I do not have the 50-140 lens.

 

I looked at Sony, before falling on the Fuji side of the fence, and did not like various aspects thinking the Fuji route was for me. Now having second thoughts.

 

If Fuji had a long prime lens then I might carry on with them and stick to primes only avoiding zoom lenses. But I still like the convenience of zooms although having to take into account their shortcomings in all makes not just Fuji.

 

Allan

 

See if you can hire or borrow one to see how you get on with it.

 

I personally prefer Fuji Lenses. Other than the 24mm Zeiss I found a lot of the Sony APSC lenses to be lacking but, that was just my experience and opinion. The best thing is to try one for yourself to see how you find it. If nothing else, it will settle or confirm the nagging doubt you have and leave you to concentrate on photography. Otherwise, it will always be in the back of your mind.

Edited by Duncan_Andison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan, you're correct about AF issues with the Sony 55-210 at the long end -- there's a strong tendency to back-focus. I've learned to use the flexible spot auto-focus feature (or sometimes MF) on my NEX cameras and the results are far better. This relatively  inexpensive lens can deliver very good results in bright light. As mentioned, I've yet to have a QC failure with it, but I have canned a fair number of shots, which I might have done with a more expensive lens as well. However, you're probably correct about the Sony 55-210 not being a great lens for landscape photographers. The resolution often isn't there. It's fine for general shooting, though.

 

Allan, do you use some kind of spot-focusing? I'm not familiar with Fuji equipment.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan is right about the 50-140.  You just don't have to worry about SoLD with it. (why does everyone say SoLD when it should be SaLD??? Soft ond Lacking Definition? Nope... and isn't spelled with an o. When it is Soft and Lacking Definition?)

 

But then...I feel that way about my 18-135, too.  Neither of these lenses have never disappointed me.  I have always tried to go with the best of the Fuji offerings, the latest lenses. Pricier, but worth it in the long run. Even the kit 18-55 is sharp.

 

Wish we lived on the same continent, same town, Allan, I'd give you a loan of my 50-140 so you could see if it is a lens you could work with.  Frankly, if I can stand the size/weight, I think you have bigger muscles than I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Duncan is right about the 50-140.  You just don't have to worry about SoLD with it. (why does everyone say SoLD when it should be SaLD??? Soft ond Lacking Definition? Nope... and isn't spelled with an o. When it is Soft and Lacking Definition?)

 

 

It's Soft or Lacking Definition....

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Duncan is right about the 50-140.  You just don't have to worry about SoLD with it. (why does everyone say SoLD when it should be SaLD??? Soft ond Lacking Definition? Nope... and isn't spelled with an o. When it is Soft and Lacking Definition?)

 

 

It's Soft or Lacking Definition....

Oh, Geoff, thanks for clearing that up. It's been bugging me forever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan is right about the 50-140.  You just don't have to worry about SoLD with it. (why does everyone say SoLD when it should be SaLD??? Soft ond Lacking Definition? Nope... and isn't spelled with an o. When it is Soft and Lacking Definition?)

 

But then...I feel that way about my 18-135, too.  Neither of these lenses have never disappointed me.  I have always tried to go with the best of the Fuji offerings, the latest lenses. Pricier, but worth it in the long run. Even the kit 18-55 is sharp.

 

Wish we lived on the same continent, same town, Allan, I'd give you a loan of my 50-140 so you could see if it is a lens you could work with.  Frankly, if I can stand the size/weight, I think you have bigger muscles than I.

 

Thank you for the very kind offer of the loan of your lens. If we were closer I would be pleased to accept.

 

I traded in the 18-55 lens for the 18-135 but wish I had kept it now as it produced excellent IQ.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distortion characteristics of the 55-200 are described here: http://www.photozone.de/fuji_x/879-fuji55200f3548?start=1

 

About it, Klaus Schroiff writes: "The Fujinon shows medium pincushion distortions from 90mm onward. While this isn't overly impressive, it isn't too bad either. The 55mm doesn't show any relevant distortions even in RAW mode."

Edited by DDoug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.