I received this lens on Friday and so far cannot say enough good things about it. It is super sharp corner to corner and pretty decent bokeh. I will try to post some photos this week. I also order the 1.4x adapter but that has not shipped yet. I also received the macro extension tube. Works great with the 250mm but also amazing with the 120mm macro. It allows autofocus--- fast and accurate. I was a bit skeptical but I am very pleased so far.
It is very nicely balanced and I expected it to be heavier than what it really is or feels like based on my reading. The image stabilization is great as well. Very impressed so far
Received it today and my test shots were impressive. Will be heading to the Palouse in Eastern Washington this weekend to put it through a nice workout...wish the 1.4 converter came too, but, oh well...
you2 wrote:
What is the effective focal length relative to 35mm ? 135mm ?
Oh, boy. Turns out there are three ways to figure that out. The complexity is that the miniMF format uses a 4:3 aspect ration (width:height) while 35mm (full frame) uses a 3:2 aspect ratio.
The simplest answer is that a full frame camera is essentially a 1.27x cropped factor by comparison to miniMF if you use the full frame of each. That would make the 250mm lens on Fujifilm GFX roughly the angle-of-view equivalent of a 197mm lens on full frame — so 200mm in round numbers. (For those who will certainly post a response otherwise, there is a DOF issue, too, that I won't go into here since I'm assuming that you either already know about it OR you are just interested in the angle-of-view question.)
As to the other ways to calculate comparable angle-of-view focal lengths, I'll spare you the details except to say that if you do either of the following you would want to look into the issue a bit:
1. You prefer the 3:2 aspect ratio of full frame and you would crop your miniMF 4:3 frames to 3:2.
2. You already crop your full-frame 3:2 aspect ratio images to 4:3 and you would use the full 4:3 frame on miniMF.
you2 wrote:
What is the effective focal length relative to 35mm ? 135mm ?
I made a spreadsheet to aid with these types of conversions a while back. Diagonally, a 250mm lens paired with the GFX will offer a field of view similar to a 197.5mm lens on a 35mm/FF body. Given the difference in aspect ratios across the two formats, if we examine the vertical and horizontal portions of the angle of view separately, we'll see that the results aren't quite in sync - the vertical field of view is similar to 182.4mm lens on 35mm/FF and horizontal field of view similar to 205.5mm.
If you want to try it yourself with other lenses (real or otherwise), you are welcome to make a copy of the spreadsheet and adjust the inputs, here's the link:
JLRII wrote:
I made a spreadsheet to aid with these types of conversions a while back. Diagonally, a 250mm lens paired with the GFX will offer a field of view similar to a 197.5mm lens on a 35mm/FF body. Given the difference in aspect ratios across the two formats, if we examine the vertical and horizontal portions of the angle of view separately, we'll see that the results aren't quite in sync - the vertical field of view is similar to 182.4mm lens on 35mm/FF and horizontal field of view similar to 205.5mm.
If you want to try it yourself with other lenses (real or otherwise), you are welcome to make a copy of the spreadsheet and adjust the inputs, here's the link:
Thanks folks. Longer than I thought; either forgot or didn't realize that the camera was a 4:3 (which I would think is a bit of a negative for landscape but fine for portrait - but then again 4:3 is 4:3 )
you2 wrote:
Thanks folks. Longer than I thought; either forgot or didn't realize that the camera was a 4:3 (which I would think is a bit of a negative for landscape but fine for portrait - but then again 4:3 is 4:3 )
Why is a 4:3 aspect ratio a "negative" for landscape? At the very least, it saves you from having to crop off ~20% of your image if you want to print it in a standard size...
Guess it is personal preference I just prefer the aspect ratio of 35mm over 4:3 (I do use micro 4/3 camera and that is my biggest motivation in switching to fuji xf (I have t10 but will obtain a x-e3 when convenient).
molson wrote:
Why is a 4:3 aspect ratio a "negative" for landscape? At the very least, it saves you from having to crop off ~20% of your image if you want to print it in a standard size...
Yes. 4:5, which is even squarer, worked for AA, EW, BW, etc...
Sauseschritt wrote:
The rule of thumb is: relative focal of GFX is 80% of absolute focal.
So 23mm is a 18mm equiv, 45mm is a 35mm equiv, 63mm is a 50mm equiv, 110mm is a 85mm equiv, 120mm is a 95mm equiv, 250mm is a 200mm equiv.
As explained above, that's true only if the photographer is aspect-ratio agnostic. I'm not, and I don't know of many photographers who, faced with a scene, think in terms of diagonal FOV.
I've given a simple rule to get a good rough estimate. No its not perfect. I dont need perfect in that area though. I see little practical differences in for example using a 50mm or a 58mm lens.
)