What beautiful lighting and a very nice glow to this tree. It looks especially painterly with so many of the leaves fallen allowing the dark slender branches to show through the golden colors for added contrast.
Something about this 50mp sensor is super nice ... colors are more natural to my eyes etc. And I have a 100S too. I should probably swap my 50R with a 50sii
Something about this 50mp sensor is super nice ... colors are more natural to my eyes etc. And I have a 100S too. I should probably swap my 50R with a 50sii
I agree that the sensor is super nice, but I'm not sure "natural" is an appropriate designation. More like "pleasing".
I haven't compared to the 100 though. What I miss is a few film simulations/modes that are less greenish, and I think I'll buy a Cobalt solution with some film simulations that are more weighted towards red and blue.
--------
One from yesterday with the GF 35-70. I really like this lens because of its very small size, and still being optically very good (but not as good as the primes, of course). When retracted, it's more or less identical to the GF 63 in size.
Makten wrote:
One from yesterday with the GF 35-70. I really like this lens because of its very small size, and still being optically very good (but not as good as the primes, of course). When retracted, it's more or less identical to the GF 63 in size.
Makten, nice image from that new zoom. Do you have any other experience with GFX zooms that you can make any comparisons? Besides it being a slow zoom, I'm curious if the optical quality compares to those very big and weighty zooms. I'm waiting on my 50S II kit to arrive.
skyisland wrote:
Makten, nice image from that new zoom. Do you have any other experience with GFX zooms that you can make any comparisons? Besides it being a slow zoom, I'm curious if the optical quality compares to those very big and weighty zooms. I'm waiting on my 50S II kit to arrive.
Nope, simply because the other zooms are too big for me to even consider them. I have a bunch of primes though; 30, 45, 50, 63 and 110. The 35-70 is not as good but still very good. The main aberrations are LaCA and fringing. Sharpness is good across the frame att wider focal lengths but get mushier towards the borders and corners the closer to 70 mm you get.
Bokeh is a bit jittery with triangular blur discs in the periphery, but I'm surprised by how well it works for separating the subject from the background. It's got a lot of the same "3D" quality that I love in the primes.
Edit: Here's a JPG SOOC at 64 mm and f/5.4 (wide open)...
Makten wrote:
Nope, simply because the other zooms are too big for me to even consider them. I have a bunch of primes though; 30, 45, 50, 63 and 110. The 35-70 is not as good but still very good. The main aberrations are LaCA and fringing. Sharpness is good across the frame att wider focal lengths but get mushier towards the borders and corners the closer to 70 mm you get.
Bokeh is a bit jittery with triangular blur discs in the periphery, but I'm surprised by how well it works for separating the subject from the background. It's got a lot of the same "3D" quality that I love in the primes.
Edit: Here's a JPG SOOC at 64 mm and f/5.4 (wide open)...
Wow, I'm liking that tonal separation. I'm planning to go the whole primes only route (23, 50, 110 and eventually the heavy 250mm for special occasions) but this new lightweight kit zoom might have proved it's keep as I keep seeing that 3D quality on this lens. What a steal for $500.
skyisland wrote:
Wow, I'm liking that tonal separation. I'm planning to go the whole primes only route (23, 50, 110 and eventually the heavy 250mm for special occasions) but this new lightweight kit zoom might have proved it's keep as I keep seeing that 3D quality on this lens. What a steal for $500.
Sounds like a great kit! 23 is waaaay too wide for me, but the "spacing" makes sense with roughly doubling the focal length for each prime.
The 35-70 is definitely a steal at the kit pricing, and I think it's well worth the regular price too. It's a bit like the 50; people dismiss it just because it's small, slow and not expensive enough.
My most used lenses for the moment are the 50 and 35-70, simply because of unobtrusiveness, light weight and small size. Now when it's getting darker I'll use the 45 and 63 more though. The 110 seldom gets used because of its size and I don't fancy the focal length. Maybe I should switch it for the 250 or even 100-200. The 30 is nice but even that is too wide most of the time.
Yes the 23 is too wide. But when you need that it delivers. The 50 was my first and most used although 63 is my native focal. I have both 80, 110 and I end up using the 80 even though it has ca etc. Compact lenses win, for me. Need to trim the herd. I can live with the 50 during the day and 63 during low light. Having a light and decent 35-70 helps with travel. The rest are expensive and specialized for my use. The 100-200 has been a surprise - use it more than I imagined and that too for coastal landscape. Check the recent 100s thread. With ibis f/2.8 is good enough. Life was frustrating with the 50r in low light without tripod 😅
Makten wrote:
Sounds like a great kit! 23 is waaaay too wide for me, but the "spacing" makes sense with roughly doubling the focal length for each prime.
The 35-70 is definitely a steal at the kit pricing, and I think it's well worth the regular price too. It's a bit like the 50; people dismiss it just because it's small, slow and not expensive enough.
😆 not expensive enough 😆 you’re being facetious but it’s sorta true. “That cheap zoom also won’t make me look snobby enough even though it’s image quality is superb and lightweight helps my back” 😆
As far as the 23mm I mainly use wide angle lenses inside historic churches or buildings and I think it should be wide enough. I haven’t bought it yet. I’m sure people would say wait till the 20-30mm zoom to get extra wide but I’m sure that lens will be very expensive and very heavy. But maybe Fuji would make it a slow zoom like the 35-70mm?
I’m a fan of separation of single subject using telephoto, my Zeiss 135mm Sonnar f/2 might be my favorite lens but I find it sometimes to far then other times I need super zoom like 200mm from FF for a distant church. I basically need all lenses from the GF line..😄
Yes pleasing is probably more appropriate. I do miss my 50R colors in my 100S. I know everything can be fixed in post but I do not want to sit and post too much (no puns!).
Re film sims, you could also try RNI films.
Makten wrote:
I agree that the sensor is super nice, but I'm not sure "natural" is an appropriate designation. More like "pleasing".
I haven't compared to the 100 though. What I miss is a few film simulations/modes that are less greenish, and I think I'll buy a Cobalt solution with some film simulations that are more weighted towards red and blue.
--------
One from yesterday with the GF 35-70. I really like this lens because of its very small size, and still being optically very good (but not as good as the primes, of course). When retracted, it's more or less identical to the GF 63 in size.
skyisland wrote:
I’m a fan of separation of single subject using telephoto, my Zeiss 135mm Sonnar f/2 might be my favorite lens but I find it sometimes to far then other times I need super zoom like 200mm from FF for a distant church. I basically need all lenses from the GF line..😄
I'll put in a vote for the GF 120 macro. It's an f/4, but a wonderfully sharp and versatile lens. Yes, it's very close to the GF 110 in focal length, but they are very different animals. If you are shooting portraits, the 110 is going to be the choice, but for everything else, the 120 would work well (and for someone shooting with a non-image stabilized camera like me, with a 50s, I appreciate the very effective OIS in the 120). Then again, if you feel that you "need" all of the GF lenses, you will only have the problem of which lens to pull from your bag on any given occasion. I suppose that brings its own level of stress.
Another take on a similar shot that I previously posted that was heavily cropped and in color. This one in b&w. (Edit: I had uploaded a sepia version earlier and just changed it to b&w without the toning.)
jbush wrote:
I'll put in a vote for the GF 120 macro. It's an f/4, but a wonderfully sharp and versatile lens. Yes, it's very close to the GF 110 in focal length, but they are very different animals. If you are shooting portraits, the 110 is going to be the choice, but for everything else, the 120 would work well (and for someone shooting with a non-image stabilized camera like me, with a 50s, I appreciate the very effective OIS in the 120). Then again, if you feel that you "need" all of the GF lenses, you will only have the problem of which lens to pull from your bag on any given occasion. I suppose that brings its own level of stress.
Jon, I don’t need all lenses..only slight joke. I mean a lot of these lenses are very close in focal length: 45, 50 or 110, 120. So no way could justify buying both if it’s that close for my type of photography. 23, 50, 110 and 250. That’s my planned setup. 250mm will probably sit in trunk of car and only taken out if needed, that’s a big boy to carry 😆
But for your 120, you’re doing amazing sunset shots. I haven’t received my 50S II and lenses but do you know any reason your 120 would be better for landscape than the 110? As far as all the test I’ve seen the 110 is the best performing lens in every aspect out of any GFX lens. Of course 120mm specializes in macro too which 110 is not.
skyisland wrote:
Jon, I don’t need all lenses..only slight joke. I mean a lot of these lenses are very close in focal length: 45, 50 or 110, 120. So no way could justify buying both if it’s that close for my type of photography. 23, 50, 110 and 250. That’s my planned setup. 250mm will probably sit in trunk of car and only taken out if needed, that’s a big boy to carry 😆
But for your 120, you’re doing amazing sunset shots. I haven’t received my 50S II and lenses but do you know any reason your 120 would be better for landscape than the 110? As far as all the test I’ve seen the 110 is the best performing lens in every aspect out of any GFX lens. Of course 120mm specializes in macro too which 110 is not. ...Show more →
I did realize your comment about needing all the lenses was tongue-in-cheek, and my response was too. Your planned setup can cover a lot of ground...that's a lot of very good glass, and you may never need anything more.
Regarding the 110 vs 120, and thanks for the kind words about my recent sunset shots, for me it was the OIS and macro capabilities, and the fact that I don't do portraits very often, that pushed me to the 120. I place a high value on the versatility of a lens before purchasing and, for me, the 120 won out on that count. I do know how good the reputation is for the 110, so I'm not sure there really is a weak spot with it whether you're shooting portraits or landscapes. All this said, if my camera had in-body stabilization, which it does not, I may have gone with the 110. I have not seen side-by-side comparisons, but given the special qualities of the 110 and it being an f/2 lens, I suspect the way the two lenses render an image is different.
The 30 is nice but even that is too wide most of the time. 
