leonasj wrote:
no,im never making or converting to bw my photos.i like sharpness and colors.what im read on web best colors from gf lenses is from gf45
I've seen virtually no difference in color among images made with GF lenses, provided they are white balanced to a gray card.
JimKasson wrote:
I've seen virtually no difference in color among images made with GF lenses, provided they are white balanced to a gray card.
ebay user wrote me gf45 best for colors: "
us1978dm:
I think 30 is a little bit sharper than 45 but the colors are better on 45mm , in my photography colors are more important to me than the sharpness, and as far as the colors go 1. 45mm f2.8, 2. 23mm f4 , 3. 80mm 1.7 4. 120mm f4 5. 30mm f3.5 so 30mm little bit sharper but the images are a bit flat, the most vibrant colours you can get from gfx is 45, 23, and 80"
leonasj wrote:
ebay user wrote me gf45 best for colors: "
us1978dm:
I think 30 is a little bit sharper than 45 but the colors are better on 45mm , in my photography colors are more important to me than the sharpness, and as far as the colors go 1. 45mm f2.8, 2. 23mm f4 , 3. 80mm 1.7 4. 120mm f4 5. 30mm f3.5 so 30mm little bit sharper but the images are a bit flat, the most vibrant colours you can get from gfx is 45, 23, and 80"
Oh Leon, Leon. Really? You're going to take the word of some random person on eBay just on his word? You seem to be quick to believe any rumor you hear and ignoring people who provide hard data. Reminds me of a certain public persona in this country who is fond of saying, "I hear a lot of people are saying..." with no substantiation and then claiming it to be a fact. I know you can do better than this.
Peter Figen wrote:
Oh Leon, Leon. Really? You're going to take the word of some random person on eBay just on his word? You seem to be quick to believe any rumor you hear and ignoring people who provide hard data. Reminds me of a certain public persona in this country who is fond of saying, "I hear a lot of people are saying..." with no substantiation and then claiming it to be a fact. I know you can do better than this.
leonasj wrote:
im investigate every info from everywhere
But you appear to blindly accept as fact any random unsubstantiated claim from some random person where you have no idea of their bona fides while rejecting solid data from well respected people. And that you seem to have no ability of self reflection to see how that behavior might reflect poorly on you, you just become a part of the internet noise that no one respects.
The simple fact of modern digital times is that, because virtually all images going through your camera are either manually or automatically white balanced (and the AWB on the Fuji is really good) is that that's going to automatically compensate for any really minor differences, if there are any at all, between the lenses. It's not like forty years ago with film where you could see actual color differences between two different Nikon lenses and might want to add a couple of units of Color Compensation Wratten Gel filters to compensate. That was a real thing then. Not so much anymore. More important to get out and shoot images to get better at your craft than worry about some imaginary thing some imaginary person claimed online and you believed.
Peter Figen wrote:
And that you seem to have no ability of self reflection to see how that behavior might reflect poorly on you, you just become a part of the internet noise that no one respects.
In fairness, statements like this lean toward the "just mean for no reason" part of internet noise that also nobody respects.
MAubrey wrote:
In fairness, statements like this lean toward the "just mean for no reason" part of internet noise that also nobody respects.
You're right. I was a bit hard on him, but there's nothing in there that I got wrong. Various people, including myself, have tried gentler ways to get him at least going in the right direction - and there IS a right direction here - to no avail. The rest just gave up before I did.
I went to Disney Star Wars land a month ago with the Rokinon 50mm f/1.2 SP and it's quite good, below are processed images (cause star wars atmosphere) but most uncropped (some keystoned).
Peter Figen wrote:
But you appear to blindly accept as fact any random unsubstantiated claim from some random person where you have no idea of their bona fides while rejecting solid data from well respected people. And that you seem to have no ability of self reflection to see how that behavior might reflect poorly on you, you just become a part of the internet noise that no one respects.
The simple fact of modern digital times is that, because virtually all images going through your camera are either manually or automatically white balanced (and the AWB on the Fuji is really good) is that that's going to automatically compensate for any really minor differences, if there are any at all, between the lenses. It's not like forty years ago with film where you could see actual color differences between two different Nikon lenses and might want to add a couple of units of Color Compensation Wratten Gel filters to compensate. That was a real thing then. Not so much anymore. More important to get out and shoot images to get better at your craft than worry about some imaginary thing some imaginary person claimed online and you believed.
...Show more →
no,im shoot jpeg before press shutter always first see at white balance, if auto mode see natural colors as my eyes then ok,otherwise im corect wb.
AndrewNYC wrote:
Looking for fast, normal-ish focal length adapted for GF 100s that covers fully. Thoughts? Want to keep it cheap.
I don't know of a lens that fills that bill, if it has to cover completely at infinity focus. There aren't a lot of 60-ish mm FF lenses. The 60-ish mm medium format lenses that I know of aren't fast. Even removing the keep it cheap boundary condition doesn't help much. The Otus 55 doesn't cover, for example. FF T/S lenses aren't fast.
Rokinon SP/Samyang XP f/1.2 35, 50, 85 all cover very well. They are also cheap ranging from 500-750 used/new.
It's just no one knows about them because only cine people use their CF Xeen line so their Premium Manual focus series for stills is largely underrated and unknown (just look at the review amounts on bhphoto lol)
Oddly enough, the GFX100 sensor just brings out the best in them. This combo has the bokeh amounts + enough sharpness to get closer to full-frame medium format look.
3 photos at 1.2, there is some swirly/vignette in corner at some distance angles for 35/50, 85 is good. wo coverage is good enough for me, and stopped down no issue.
ftllens wrote:
Rokinon SP/Samyang XP f/1.2 35, 50, 85 all cover very well. They are also cheap ranging from 500-750 used/new.
It's just no one knows about them because only cine people use their CF Xeen line so their Premium Manual focus series for stills is largely underrated and unknown (just look at the review amounts on bhphoto lol)
Oddly enough, the GFX100 sensor just brings out the best in them. This combo has the bokeh amounts + enough sharpness to get closer to full-frame medium format look.
3 photos at 1.2, there is some swirly/vignette in corner at some distance angles for 35/50, 85 is good. wo coverage is good enough for me, and stopped down no issue....Show more →
im ordered new xp50 for 460eur,tried on gfx50r,very good and sharp,but found too heavy and big lens. returned back to seller.maybe better idea tokina opera 50/1.4 with autofocus,and lighter.
I'm just holding on the SP set because the entire group is cheaper than one GF prime lol
Currently testing the 10mm SP and I'm very impressed.
I'm waiting for the 20-35, 30 T/S, and 55 1.7 as well, until then I'm happy adapting (have GF 120 tho, CF+OIS makes it the perfect short tele prime for me)
