Peter Figen
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
gdanmitchell wrote:
Thanks, Peter. I hoped that you might reply.
The baffle-removing option seems to make the vignetting more or less a non-issue, though the alternative is to plan on cropping a bit, getting maybe a 80-90MP image, and leave the baffle in place. (I'd still likely continue to use the lens on my Canon system for at least a while.)
I understand the option to use the 250mm prime with or without the 1.4x TC. That would be a pretty good option for many folks, but I really prefer to use a zoom lens for the kinds of photography I would do with a system like this... so that's not likely an option for me.
One thing that is unclear from reading various posts and threads is how the performance of the 100-400 stacks up in comparison to using the Fujifilm 100-200 in that focal length range. Some writers claim that the 100-400 actually produces a _better_ image in that range, while others suggest that this isn't quite the case. Some seem to suggest that the center with the 100-400 might be better, but perhaps not the edges. Some say the comparison plays out differently if we are looking at 100 than it does at 200. Maybe there difference is quite small?
Still on the fence about all of this. But with excellent pricing on three items that I'd also look at for my work, I'm considering. (I'd get GFX 100s, 45-100 f/4, and 20-35 f/4.)
Dan...Show more →
I would say that the GF100--200 is a really mixed bag. Very very good from 100mm to about 160mm, and then it seems to depend on the lighting, the distance and other unknown and seemingly unpredictable factors, where sometimes images taken at longer focal lengths are fine and others are inexplicably soft or have heavy blue fringing. The one constant is that images shot at closer distances, say, less than a hundred feet and at the longer end of the range are definitely better than ones at longer distances, and we're not talking about distances long enough for thermal interference to be a factor.
Case in point. A year ago I shot some alluvial formations near Anzo Borrego that were maybe a quarter mile away at 200mm and f/11 and those image were quite good and then this last August in the Alabama Hills I shot a rock formation maybe an eighth of a mile away - no stabilization locked down on a Gitzo Gigantic 5 Series, remote release, manually focused and there was nothing usable. And I also have a Contax 645 210mm f/4 that, at closer distances, is just phenomenal, but at longer distances, again, more than a hundred feet or so, just falls apart, making it great for portraits and closer shots but not at all for distance. Go figure.
I know there are people who rave about the 100-200 but I'm convinced it's only because they have not yet run into the same shooting conditions that I have where the lens does not work well. Or maybe they're not as critical as I am, but I'd say this is my least favorite lens of those that I have for this camera. I know you say you need a zoom lens, but when you see just how much better lenses like the Sigma ART 105 and 135 (especially the 135) are than any zoom lens, you are reminded of how many compromises go into the the design of a zoom lens.
The GF 20-35mm, on the other hand, well, that's just a jewel as well as the GF32-64, both of which are hard to fault under any circumstances.
|
