EricaSerena

XT2 and 16-55 focussing issues. Lens or user error?

53 posts in this topic

UPDATE:

I took my lens into the store yesterday, and took home one of their rental 16-55's to test it out at today's wedding. I've only had a quick look, but everythingI've looked at so far is PIN SHARP. So I think it's safe to say, I have a dud lens! 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, veejaycee said:

Good to know. I assume you will be given a new replacement lens?

I'm not sure. I'll take the loan lens back Monday and let them know obviously, and see what they say. It's brand new, so still under warranty. I'm just not sure if they will try to fix whatever the problem is, or just give me a new one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you are not within the EU where your contract is with the retailer and you have the right to exchange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, veejaycee said:

I take it you are not within the EU where your contract is with the retailer and you have the right to exchange.

No, I'm in Australia. I'm not sure if they'll fix it or replace. 

7 minutes ago, raagamuffin said:

Thanks for posting your experience, I will be saving up for one :) 

You're welcome. If anything not so good comes up when I cull yesterday's wedding, I'll let you know. I'm culling it tomorrow. The 30 or so pics I looked at were all fabulous though, so off to a great start ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Erica.

I had a similar problem (unsharp pictures with the focus priority on) with my 18-55, a Zeiss 32 mm and my brand new XT2 but not the 23 1.4, the 10-24 and the 55-200. Beside working great with my XT1. I tried the two "faulty lenses" on another XT2 body and the problem disappeared. As you may know Fuji has a new firmware for the XPro2 fixing the focusing problem of the 18-135. So Fuji is aware that these problems may occur in the new cameras. May I suggest that you try your lens on a different body.

Good luck.

 Gianni.

PS there are a few people reporting focusing problems with the new cameras!!!! What is Fuji saying???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really annoying to have 3 threads running on exactly the same subject with nearly the same title - what's going on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just took the plunge on the 16-55. Hoping for the best in terms of quality control.

VJC, I'm not sure what you mean.. 3 threads? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2016 at 11:33 AM, raagamuffin said:

Just took the plunge on the 16-55. Hoping for the best in terms of quality control.

VJC, I'm not sure what you mean.. 3 threads? 

How are you liking your 16-55mm? I just bought one as well but I haven't had a chance to use it for a gig yet. I have to get used to not having image stabilization in a zoom for once, I forgot how much of a crutch that can be :lol:

So far my copy seems to be super sharp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2016 at 11:17 AM, Christopher said:

How are you liking your 16-55mm? I just bought one as well but I haven't had a chance to use it for a gig yet. I have to get used to not having image stabilization in a zoom for once, I forgot how much of a crutch that can be :lol:

So far my copy seems to be super sharp.

Christopher, 

As you may already know, I shoot jpgs, so my thoughts are based on jpg output from an XT2. 

The lens is great for daylight shots, and its sharp enough (almost like the primes), I have had no issues with it in that regard. 

Its quite poor in low light, both AF wise and IQ wise, notwithstanding the fact that the XT2 already underexposes (for whatever reason) its jpgs. Its almost like the jpgs are trying to be raw files :) In any event, given the lack of IS, IMO it is almost unusable in low light (without a flash) for static subjects. 

I am slightly underwhelmed by this lens, still not sure I will keep it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Slightly underwhelmed," that seems to be what I keep hearing from others about the Fuji 16-55mm lens -_-

I was quite fond of Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom with image stabilization back in the day, it was designed for their crop sensor rather than full frame, so it was a lot smaller than a 24-70mm. In hindsight though, that was before I had embraced prime lenses, so I suppose I shouldn't expect to be wowed by this or any zoom lens anymore! They're just good for those times when a prime just can't handle an event. The trouble with AF in lowlight is interesting, I'll spend some time this weekend testing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised. I haven't used the 16-55 f2.8 but from what I've read most users swear by it rather than at it. Many of them realise the lack of OIS can be a problem but because most of us buy the 18-55mm OIS as our first Fuji lens they often keep both. For me the IQ (If better) is not far enough above that of my 18-55mm OIS to make me lose the advantages of OIS in a walkaround lens, while if ultimate IQ is my aim I will reach for my primes - and even then I sometimes wonder if the IQ is really better at common apertures and how much is imagined. Safe to say I am happy with both my OIS zoom and my primes. The problem I have is being decisive about which I should take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher, 

 

I don't mean to sound all doomsday like, the lens is quite nice. Perhaps as you say, having used the primes and seeing reviews saying that the 16-55 is as good as primes, it has been a slight letdown.  So I may be suffering from the same thing you mention about not being wowed after using the Fuji primes. 

I should mention it is great at tracking when used in good light. Actually, it is superb. 

I did take it to a wedding this past weekend and I was getting low-light shots with slight blur even at higher ISO. Of course, it could be user error.

In my case it is not as important, given my amateur status, though I hope to figure it out before/if I decide to return it (2 more weeks!).  As a professional I presume you would need great performance and hope that you are able to squeeze that out of it. 

 

 

VJC, 

IMO, in good light, it is significantly better than the 18-55 which I had (and sold). Its only in low light that I have had issues, and the last few times I've used it has been in low light. So my complaint is colored by that experience. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎24‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 4:17 PM, Christopher said:

How are you liking your 16-55mm? I just bought one as well but I haven't had a chance to use it for a gig yet. I have to get used to not having image stabilization in a zoom for once, I forgot how much of a crutch that can be :lol:

So far my copy seems to be super sharp.

I wouldn't call it a "crutch".  THe problem with digital imaging is that people soften look at their photos at high enlargement on screens, whereas in film day you just looked at the print or maybe the slide.  Any imperfections in "technique" clearly show up at 100%, where the old "1 over shutter speed" often isn't enough for absolutely critical sharpness on unstabilsed systems.  Having used a system with in body stabilisation before Fuji, I really had a hard time with the primes - even without a flapping mirror and with a fairly steady hand, nothing can compensate for stabilisation.  Having used both in body and in lens systems (and both), I would say in lens maybe has the edge, but  having it in body is such a bonus with every lens you use.  It's one of the reasons I didn't like the X system - completely unstabilised primes. Although lenses without stabilised elements are in theory better quality, I would trade a slight loss of sharpness for consistency in all light and shutter speeds, than a super sharp lens that needs really high ISO values or end ups with shaky photos - just personal preference.  For me, the 16-55mm "pro" lens not being stabilised as all was a bit of a "miss" - other people's preferences will be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always hoped Fujifilm would add in body stabilization, but I get the sense there is some limitation because of the short flange distance. Sony has pulled it off on their full frame bodies, but do their crop sensors have in body stabilization?

I guess I like that Fujifilm has stayed focused on keeping the X System truly compact, even if it means they have to compromise on features like IS. I imagine the 16-55mm f/2.8 zoom would have been so much larger and heavier with an IS system built in.

I like this Peta Pixel article that illustrates just how large Sony's FF mirrorless system has become, it illustrates the pitfalls well: http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

I found this interview with a Fujifilm product planner that explains their rationale for not having in-body stabilization: https://fujilove.com/our-highest-priority-is-always-image-quality-interview-with-takashi-ueno-and-shusuke-kozaki-from-fujifilm-japan/

TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. It means the amount of light at the corners is reduced when the sensor is shifted. We could correct it digitally, but we don’t want to do it: we don’t want to compromise our image quality.

TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?

TAKASHI UENO: To cover the larger image circle, not only mount size (and body size), but also lens size must be bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Christopher said:

I have always hoped Fujifilm would add in body stabilization, but I get the sense there is some limitation because of the short flange distance. Sony has pulled it off on their full frame bodies, but do their crop sensors have in body stabilization?

I guess I like that Fujifilm has stayed focused on keeping the X System truly compact, even if it means they have to compromise on features like IS. I imagine the 16-55mm f/2.8 zoom would have been so much larger and heavier with an IS system built in.

I like this Peta Pixel article that illustrates just how large Sony's FF mirrorless system has become, it illustrates the pitfalls well: http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

I found this interview with a Fujifilm product planner that explains their rationale for not having in-body stabilization: https://fujilove.com/our-highest-priority-is-always-image-quality-interview-with-takashi-ueno-and-shusuke-kozaki-from-fujifilm-japan/

TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. It means the amount of light at the corners is reduced when the sensor is shifted. We could correct it digitally, but we don’t want to do it: we don’t want to compromise our image quality.

TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?

TAKASHI UENO: To cover the larger image circle, not only mount size (and body size), but also lens size must be bigger.

Minolta, Sony and Pentax have had IBIS in their APS-C SLRs for nearly a decade.  Olympus have IBIS in their m43rds cameras for a few years.  Sony E mount now has IBIS in APS-C format. Their is no technical limitation.  (Sony E mount before the introduction of FF models mostly had OSS in the lenses for most models, but not all).  There is no technical issue.

Although OSS makes lenses a little larger, there are plenty of lenses for smaller formats which include OSS but are not large.  The systems aren't heavy, but require a little space.  That the Fuji 16-55mm is both large and heavy for an APS-C lens is claimed to be because of it's quality, which may be true, but the big 2 have pro grade lenses with OSS systems.

I agree that the A7 series have become larger with the inclusion of IBIS in body, and the m43rds cameras are hardly small for their tiny sensor size.  To hold an original A7 camera and then compare to the mk2 cameras makes the difference obvious.  At least the mk2 cameras are closer to the size of film SLRs than many of the full frame DLSR behemoths, where marketing dictates that they have to be large and heavy to prove their "professional " credentials, even when they have APS-C sensors inside them too.

Fuji may claim "image quality" is the issue, but really what they say is a technical oversight in the original specification - a pity.  It is a major benefit for all types of photography, though I'd settle for in lens stabilisation in zooms.  Nobody claims 70-200mm telezooms with OSS systems are "low quality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christopher, 

So I was browsing through my settings and I noticed that I had DR at 200, which was pushing my ISO much higher in low light. I fixed this and now the IQ is definitely better (as expected), even if the missing OIS causes some blur. 

At this point, this should almost be a separate thread. (Sorry EricaSerena for hijacking your thread (threadjacking?) !). 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually have DR set to 200 as well, thanks for the heads up. I often forget about that.

I'll be using it for a ballroom event this weekend, so I can finally test it out in the real world along with my lighting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that face and eye detection do not work in continuous tracking mode. 

Best setting for tracking a face would be Zone focus mode or a wide single point the multi tracking area would pick up the larger area say like the chest or legs moving. With the AF set to case 1 or at best case 2 to ignore obstacles. 

Im still experimenting with mine though but these settings are what I use in my Canon cameras.

I have the same set up as you with the XT2 and 16-55. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LazarouINC,

I don't think face/eye detect works in AF-C, I believe I have tried it in the past. 

I use setting 2 as well to ignore obstacles. 

I have a pretty good hit rate, but still working on improving it with the 16-55. We should compare notes in a few weeks. (Its cold here and it gets dark early to go out and shoot other than on weekends !)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An update for everyone. I know it's been a while, but I only finalised this issue today. To give you a quick run down... I had focussing problems with my 16-55mm. The camera store I purchased it from sent it back to Fuji in Oct/Nov. It came back with them saying there was nothing wrong with the lens despite the hundreds of soft photos. I sent it back again on Jan 6th again with raw files so they could see there was definitely something wrong with it. It got sent off with my XT2 as well. My gear has been with Fuji ever since, and just now I've found out the lens has actually been replaced under warranty, and is now ready to be collected with my camera body. So it looks like they got it wrong the first time, and it's now taken them 6 weeks to find the issue. I still don't know what the problem wass exactly, (I'll see if I can get more info when I collect everything), but yeah, obviously it was the lens and not me or the focussing modes I was using! Grrrr... happy to be receiving a new lens though! I'll definitely give it a good test run this weekend with 2 weddings :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update.

I've heard other stories like this recently and the lens has been hard to find new so maybe Fuji are checking all the existing unsold 16-55 f2.8 lenses for these faults. The most complained about problem has been misaligned elements leading to softness on one side or the other of the frame.

I'm pleased you have yours back after being so patient but neither the problem nor the time taken to accept it and to rectify it is a very poor advertisement for Fuji.

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