Fuji X Lenses

[armand]

....
First, fuji LMO  is off on tier lenses such as zeiss. Bear in mind that the fuji lenses are "good" because LMO take care of a lot of things. 

....

LMO works in jpegs only as far as I know so that's not really the reason the Fuji lenses are well regarded. Just saying.

[Ken Bennett]

LMO works in jpegs only as far as I know so that's not really the reason the Fuji lenses are well regarded. Just saying.

Well, yes, but, most raw converters automatically apply the lens corrections for the Fuji lenses. You don't have any choice in the matter, unlike with DSLRs. So it works on raw files, too, in practice.

That said, I really like all my Fuji lenses.

[Hulyss]

Well, yes, but, most raw converters automatically apply the lens corrections for the Fuji lenses. You don't have any choice in the matter, unlike with DSLRs. So it works on raw files, too, in practice.

Yes this is how it work. Armand seems not up to date

[Chris Kern]

. . . most raw converters automatically apply the lens corrections for the Fuji lenses. . . .

One notable exception: Photo Ninja, which otherwise does an excellent job demosaicing X-Trans files  I queried the company about that back in November and was told they had asked Fuji for the information required to decode the lens-correction data in the maker's notes, but had not as of then received it.  Photo Ninja does offer end-users a facility for building their own lens profiles, however.  Not something I'd be inclined to bother with, myself, but I was quite favorably impressed with the quality of the TIFFs emitted by the product, modulo the lack of automagical lens corrections.

[armand]

Yes this is how it work. Armand seems not up to date

Not so fast! 
LMO is not the same thing as the default optical corrections that are applied in a raw converter.
LMO deals with diffraction and makes the lenses look sharper, the corrections applied in a raw converter apply to the optical distortion and have nothing to do with sharpness, if anything it makes it worse in the corners (reduces resolution) when correcting.
As far as I know none of the raw converters ( maybe the Silkypix provided by Fuji) apply LMO.

[Chris Kern]

LMO is not the same thing as the default optical corrections that are applied in a raw converter.
LMO deals with diffraction and makes the lenses look sharper . . .

I know Fuji says this,

LMOs have been employed to overcome typical “diffraction phenomenon” which occur within all optical lenses when high frequency fine images become blurred when the aperture narrows. Eg: when small subjects such as tree leaves are shot using a small aperture, the focus point ends up with aberrations or becomes blurred due to the light spreading out in a ripple effect. By compensating for the optical characteristics of the lens, the blurred focus point is corrected. [fujifilm-x.com/development_story/en/developer/lens_modulation_optimiser/]

but I wonder what LMO is doing under the hood in addition to applying optical corrections based on the maker's notes metadata.  I suspect the additional magic is just deconvolution sharpening, which many of the raw converters offer—at least as an option—in their sharpening controls.

[armand]

I know Fuji says this,

but I wonder what LMO is doing under the hood in addition to applying optical corrections based on the maker's notes metadata.  I suspect the additional magic is just deconvolution sharpening, which many of the raw converters offer—at least as an option—in their sharpening controls.

Well yeah, but you can do that sharpening on any image taken with any lens.
From what I'm reading LMO is probably some form of sharpening which is applied (optional) to the jpegs only. I don't think it's a bad thing if you only shoot jpeg, as I suppose it's more efective to do this sharpening at the moment of conversion to jpeg than after. If anything this should a Fuji advantage for jpeg shooter as there seems to be only advantages from it.

However my reply was to the comment that because Fuji applies LMO their lenses are better regarded. As I shoot just raw (since LR got their colors right) I don't get the benefit of LMO and most people who really talk nicely about Fuji lenses shoot raw also. Truth is many of the Fuji lenses are quite nice.

PS. the software correction of optical distortion is applied more and more, on m43, Fuji, Leica APS-C, etc.

[armand]

Just as there was a discussion about bokeh differences between the 60 and the 56 in another post I found this comparison: http://www.prophotonut.com/2015/01/05/fuji-x-series-portrait-lenses-compared-inc-56-apd-50-140-zoom/

As far as I can see the "quality" of the bokeh seems similar between their lenses and it depends more on the DOF of a particular lens, so I guess there is a Fuji look. I can't say I'm thrilled with it but looks ok, in my limited experience you need to pay attention to the background if you really want nice bokeh. A comparison with some Nikon lenses might be interesting.

[barryfitzgerald]

Results are mixed the newer 56mm F1.2 looks quite good but not amazing either esp considering the lens speed
I think my Minolta 70-210mm and Tamron 90mm F2.8 would wipe the floor with all of them for smoother rendering I've been quite disappointed with Fuji's blur quality not something I'd care about much on a standard zoom but some of these lenses are designed for portrait work. Some are not bad none are great that's a bit strange

Maybe I'm fussy but then if a 30 year old lens can do smooth rendering why can't a £1400 2014 one?

[Hulyss]

The blur quality is somehow linked to the size of the sensor. You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor, or you really need to shoot a bit close range with studied backgrounds (not to messy). Fighting with bokeh on APS-C is a vast waste of time.

[barryfitzgerald]

The blur quality is somehow linked to the size of the sensor. You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor, or you really need to shoot a bit close range with studied backgrounds (not to messy). Fighting with bokeh on APS-C is a vast waste of time.

Really that's not my experience at all
We're not talking about "razor thin DOF" but the quality of rendering of the out of focus areas the problem seems to be the outlining which I can see on all the lenses (to various degrees) it's not hard to achieve a smashed out background on APS-C esp not for a head/shoulders shots.

DOF on FF will be less as you are close to the subject (with the same focal length) but the differences are not massive for this type of shooting

[Hulyss]

Really that's not my experience at all
We're not talking about "razor thin DOF" but the quality of rendering of the out of focus areas the problem seems to be the outlining which I can see on all the lenses (to various degrees) it's not hard to achieve a smashed out background on APS-C esp not for a head/shoulders shots.

DOF on FF will be less as you are close to the subject (with the same focal length) but the differences are not massive for this type of shooting

For head and shoulders, yes.

[armand]

The blur quality is somehow linked to the size of the sensor. You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor, or you really need to shoot a bit close range with studied backgrounds (not to messy). Fighting with bokeh on APS-C is a vast waste of time.

So what you are saying is that on Nikon full frame the 85 mm F/1.8G cannot produce "good" bokeh?

[armand]

And a second question for you Hulyss: let's say you take a 200 mm F/2 lens and you mount it on a D750 and on D7100. Then you shot the same subject from the same position, which one will have more blur/less DOF?
Bokeh should be the same with the same lens, right?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So what you are saying is that on Nikon full frame the 85 mm F/1.8G cannot produce "good" bokeh?

Huh!? How did you derive that from what he was saying?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... you shot the same subject from the same position, which one will have more blur/less DOF?
Bokeh should be the same with the same lens, right?

Everything will be the same (blur, DOF, bokeh). What will change is that, in case of a crop sensor, the  main subject will be bigger, i.e., fill the frame more.

[armand]

Huh!? How did you derive that from what he was saying?

Maybe I was too subtle for an outsider to this discussion. I was referring to the fact that on Fuji the 56 mm F/1.2 has the exact DOF and FOV as the Nikon 85 mm F/1.8G on full frame, so when he said that

You can't dream much about bokeh on an APS-C sensor

I extrapolated.

[armand]

Everything will be the same (blur, DOF, bokeh). What will change is that, in case of a crop sensor, the  main subject will be bigger, i.e., fill the frame more.

Again, maybe I'm too subtle these days, I should spell out clearly what I mean.
Of course the FOV will change, but if you go to any DOF calculator, such as this one: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html , and you pick let's say a 200 mm F/2.8 lens, that you will focus to let's say 100 feet or 100 meters (for the sake of simplicity), then change between APS-C and full frame and see what happens to DOF.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I should spell out clearly what I mean...
... but if you go ... and see what happens to DOF.

So say what you mean, instead of sending me somewhere "to see what happens." Make your point.

[armand]

So say what you mean, instead of sending me somewhere "to see what happens." Make your point.

DOF it's not the same.
I had the feeling some would like to verify this so that's why I only gave that link in the beginning, not to cause any extra effort.

Now if you can explain it I would appreciate it.