This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

X100F vs XF 23mm F1.4 - is there something wrong with this X100F?

Discussion in 'X100F, X100T, X100S, X100, and X70' started by bophoto, Jul 16, 2017.

  1. bophoto

    bophoto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Oslo

    -Return to Top-

    Hello

    I'm currently testing a X100F, and I also have an X-T2 and a XF23mm f/1.4 lens which I've owned for a long time. In the last week, while using the X100F, I started noticing in some pictures that the images are noticeably softer on the sides (both sides and corners). I then just ran out and did a quick test against the local brick wall with the X100F and X-T2 with the 23/1.4, both at ISO 800, f/5.6 and 1/125 shutter speed, and the images were taken within 5 seconds. Both cameras were in the same position (more or less), but due to the slight difference in effective focal length, plus the X100F's distortion, the images aren't completely identical.

    Regardless of technical perfection, there is a huge and clear difference between how the X100F and XF 23mm f/1.4 performs at f/5.6. I've owned the X100T previously, and never really noticed anything like this on it... Then again, maybe the 24 megapixel sensor of the X100F shows more of the shortcomings on the X100-series lens.

    Anyway, I've attached several screen shots of my comparison in Lightroom, and also attached full resolution jpeg's that has been exported from Lightroom. Default LR sharpening settings were applied on both images, so there aren't any processing done to these images, except I had to boost the exposure by +1 on both to make the image slightly brighter. Same sensor, same settings, so that shouldn't make a difference.

    Has anyone else done a similar comparison?
    The X100F actually seems a bit sharper in the center, but in the outer zones of the image the images completely fall apart. I'm really surprised, and wondering if this is just a bad X100F.

    Zoomed Out:
    [​IMG]

    Center:
    [​IMG]

    Left Center:
    [​IMG]

    Left Bottom Corner:
    [​IMG]

    Left Upper Corner:
    [​IMG]

    Right Center:
    [​IMG]

    Right Bottom Corner:
    [​IMG]

    Right Upper Corner:
    [​IMG]

    Full resolution jpeg's can be downloaded from these links:

    XF 23mm1.4 R http://indergaard.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/XF23_1_4.jpg
    X100F: http://indergaard.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/X100F.jpg
     
  2. mikegee

    mikegee Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    472
    Location:
    Yonkers, NY

    -Return to Top-

    I don't know what you expect from X100F the XF 23mm f/1.4 is about as good as it gets. Its's so sharp my eyes almost bleed. I love it!
     
    Aby_Cat and godspeed like this.
  3. bophoto

    bophoto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Oslo

    -Return to Top-

    Well I've owned the X100S and X100T previously. And I can't remember seeing such IQ degradation away from the center of the frame at f/5.6 on those as I do on the X100F. But maybe the 16 megapixel sensor of those cameras made it less noticeable. I'm just trying to figure out if my X100F is a bad sample, or if this is considered normal. I agree, the 23/1.4 is stellar!
     
  4. wmiller549

    wmiller549 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    236
    Location:
    Lake Arrowhead, CA

    -Return to Top-

    Agreed. Did someone, at some time, suggest to you that the lens in the X100 (S,T,F) was on par with the 23 1.4? It's not.
     
  5. Solo with others

    Solo with others Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Dallas, TX

    -Return to Top-

    Another earlier thread discusses this issue that you may find of interest. X100F Sharpness
     
  6. bophoto

    bophoto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Oslo

    -Return to Top-

    Nope. But I just seem to remember the X100S and X100T performing better than this. I guess I will dig out some X100S/T backups from some years ago and see when I have the opportunity to do so.
     
  7. mikegee

    mikegee Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    714
    Likes Received:
    472
    Location:
    Yonkers, NY

    -Return to Top-

    Sorry, I thought you were excepting sharpness like the f/1.4.
     
  8. bophoto

    bophoto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Oslo

    -Return to Top-

    No not at all. But I wasn't expecting "smudged" corners like I feel I am seeing here. Looking back at some of my X100S and X100T raw files, I can see that they are also less sharp outside of the central portion of the image at f/5.6 and also f/8. It's a lot less noticeable though, since the files are 16 megapixels. So the weakness of the lens isn't as visible due to the smaller resolution it seems. I think what I'm observing is basically the same shortcomings just magnified to a much higher degree due to the extra resolution the X100F has.

    The 23/1.4 might have spoiled me also. I hadn't owned the XF 23/1.4 yet when I last owned the X100T.
     
  9. Archie Macintosh

    Archie Macintosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    The feeling and atmosphere of all of your photographs above are equally moving and memorable. What has sharpness got to do with how good your photographs are?

    Here's Henri Cartier Bresson on the subject:
    "I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique--a notion which reveals itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this trompe l'oeil technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be 'artistic'."
     
    godspeed and charlie3 like this.
  10. bophoto

    bophoto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Oslo

    -Return to Top-

    That's all nice and dandy if you only photograph people. As I said, I do a lot of landscape and architecture as well, and for those subject matters, you want reasonable across the frame sharpness.
     
    fugu 82-2 likes this.
  11. dem

    dem Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    247
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    I think you are right. You might get a marginally better results at f/8.

    The XF 10-24 might be a better investment than the X100f if architecture and landscape are main subjects.
     
    Solo with others likes this.
  12. LionSpeed

    LionSpeed Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    482
    Likes Received:
    326
    Location:
    SoCal

    -Return to Top-

    What is your current sharpness (in camera) setting for X100F?
    I set mine at +2 (sometimes +1) and this seems to be very sharp corner to corner.
     
  13. bophoto

    bophoto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Oslo

    -Return to Top-

    I don't shoot in-camera jpeg. I only shoot raw. The comparisons where made with raw files from the X-T2 and X100F. The downloadable jpeg's are exports from Lightroom with Lightrooms default sharpening for both cameras applied. Maybe LMO can make things better for in-camera jpeg's, but I rarely - if ever - use in-camera jpeg's for anything except maybe to post on social media while traveling.
     
  14. godspeed

    godspeed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada

    -Return to Top-

    Paul Levin and Archie Macintosh like this.
  15. bophoto

    bophoto Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Oslo

    -Return to Top-

    That's true. And thanks for that link. I also checked his main review of the X100F where he had made a smaller "Lens Quality" (about mid article) section, where he photographs the bushes at different apertures. It appears to me, based on his examples, that his X100F is much sharper overall in the corners than what I'm experiencing with my X100F.
     
  16. archi*dss

    archi*dss Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    627
    Likes Received:
    147
    Location:
    netherlands

    -Return to Top-

    I did some comparisons with the 23mm/2.0 and some shots of the same subject which I had taken with my 23mm/1.4 and in all cases my X100F fared much much better than yours.
    Similarly my X100s's lens was somewhat better than that of my subsequent X100t's.
    When i still used Leica (M9) i had 2 examples of the 35mm/2.0 asph one of which was better than the other (they both were perfectly calibrated as far as focusing was concerned) so it was a question of the optics.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2017
    bophoto likes this.

Share This Page