When we reviewed the original Fujifilm 'Finepix' X100 back in 2010, we noted that the lens offered excellent sharpness within a normal shooting range, but with noticeable haziness and loss of contrast within a meter or so, and substantial veiling softness in the near-macro range. The 'soft focus' effect wasn't always objectionable, but it was impossible to ignore in close-range portraits, especially of pets and small children, where the temptation is always to position them closer to the camera.

As the resolution of cameras in the X100 series increased (from 12, to 16, to 24MP) these issues in the close focus range became ever more apparent. That 23mm F2 lens, with its 8 elements (including one aspherical) in 6 groups, gave sterling service for several generations, but by the time the X100F came around it was clear that optically, it had hit a limit.

During the planning process for the X100V, Fujifilm's optical engineers went back to the drawing board. It might look the same to a casual glance, and it might still accept the same wide and tele converters, but on the inside, the X100V's has been totally redesigned. Probably the most important change is the addition of a second aspherical element, which Fujifilm claims increases corner sharpness, and greatly improves image quality at close focusing distances at wide apertures. In short, it should address those areas in which the older lens was notably weak.

Our testing shows that overall, the new lens in the X100V is much improved over the original design found in previous X100-series cameras. Read on for our full analysis, which compares the X100V against the X100F at four focus positions: Infinity, 'Medium' (~1m) 'Close' (~0.5m) and 'Macro'.

A note on all of the images in this article: Images are JPEGs, converted from Raw in Adobe Camera Raw, with sharpening turned to '0', and an Unsharp Mask (amount: 200, radius: 0,6, threshold: 0) added in Photoshop. Raw files are available for download via the links in most of the widgets below.

At infinity, it's clear that both cameras are capable of delivering very good central sharpness, but the X100V is more consistent across the frame.

And that's really the story across the two lens' entire aperture range: The X100V's lens is not substantially sharper than that of the X100V in the center, but it's very clear that sharpness and contrast at the extreme edges of the frame is improved compared to the X100F. Even at F5.6 and F8, the X100V has a slight advantage when it comes to definition at the extremes.

It should be noted that focus position has a major part to play in how images from the X100F look, especially at at the widest apertures, at the edges of the frame. This is most likely due to curvature of field. For this comparison, I focused on the green bush roughly in the middle of the scene, and selected the sharpest of three shots, at all apertures, on both cameras.

Verdict:

The X100V's new lens delivers comparable peak sharpness to that of the X100F, but superior sharpness and contrast towards the edges of the frame. Even at F5.6 and F8 the new lens out-resolves the old design across most of the frame, making the X100V more useful than the X100F for landscapes and cityscapes. For optimal cross-frame sharpness at wide apertures though, both cameras (but especially the X100F) reward some experimentation with exact focus position.

The medium focus range is where you'd typically take portraits on a 35mm equivalent lens. We shot this scene at a distance of roughly one meter (39.4"), and my cold war-era globe is about 28cm (11") in diameter. While ideally we'd be showing you a portrait here (currently impossible due to the quarantine measures) we hope that this scene should serve as a reasonable proxy. The film boxes on the left, and the Nikon S2 on the right are positioned on approximately the same plane as the nearest point of the globe. Focus and framing was set using the yellow tape target in the center of the image.

Images from this scene are a little hard to interpret, and require some explanation. Depending on where you look, the X100V might appear either sharper, or softer than the X100F. In some areas it actually looks like the zone of focus is shallower on the X100V, almost as if its F2 lens is slightly faster than the F2 lens on the older X100F (which we've measured, and it isn't). Something that is consistent, though, is the higher contrast of images from the X100V.

After analyzing the Raw files, we suspect that the X100V's new lens has been tuned to deliver a different fall-off from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, which has the effect of giving smoother out of focus areas. You can see this here at F2 and here at F2.8. This may explain the (small) apparent decrease in the zone of sharpness compared to the X100F at equivalent wide apertures.

In terms of central detail wide open, the two cameras are hard to tell apart.

Verdict:

At a medium focus distance of the sort you might be working at for a typical portrait, the X100V's lens is a close match to the X100F in terms of resolution at equivalent apertures, but offers higher contrast and slightly smoother out of focus areas. This results in the impression of fractionally less depth of field from the newer lens. In practical use, the biggest challenge to successful wide-aperture portraits on both cameras is focus accuracy.

For this scene, we shot a collection of film boxes from ~0.5m (~20"), shooting downwards using a copy stand. This is the kind of shooting distance from which you might take moderate closeups (food photographs etc.,) or portraits of a pet or young child. A bubble level was placed on the rear LCD to ensure that the cameras were perfectly perpendicular to the arrangement of boxes. There is some difference in the relative 'height' of the film boxes, but it's within 2-3mm (