p.4 #1 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
highdesertmesa wrote:
Funny, sometimes I forget to see who I’m responding to when I reply — for tripod work like I’d assume you’re doing, I’d stick with the 32-64 all day long — quite versatile and less distortion (only noticeable if you have a house or buildings in the corners). There is no real “rendering” difference at infinity since I personally reserve that word for referencing bokeh and focus falloff at mid to close distance. The 63 does have better color and contrast punch to it, but probably not enough to make a difference if infinity shots are your only use for it. For me the 63 doubles as landscape and lightweight autofocus tourist lens. Walkabout shots with the 32-64 left me ho-hum when trying to get unique wide open shots at MFD. ...Show more →
OK, thanks! I agree, I wouldn't want to use the 32-64 wide open. The 63 would probably work for some of the flower closeups that I do, and probably not fast enough for others. My favorite for that remains the 50/1.4 ZE Planar, but I do like variety as well. With that in mind, I've got my finger on the button for a Voigtlander 50/1.2 M lens tonight, seeing that it will cover the full GFX sensor. More bokeh goodness!
p.4 #5 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
Ordered one but it'll be a little while before it ships. Question about the GFX and lens. Do you think the 50s' mount, given a strong enough tripod/ballhead, would be good enough to use this lens without the tripod collar? Counting weight and room in the backpack.
p.4 #6 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
Yes, I think so. The mount is sufficiently large, and the lens isn't terribly heavy-feeling to me.
However, I'd be more worried about a little flex in the camera baseplate or tripod plate making the image a bit bouncy and potentially unsharp since the OIS will be off for tripod mount shooting.
p.4 #9 · Fujinon GF 100-200mm f5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens Announced
I ended up getting the lens last week. It is pretty impressive. It has been raining and I have been busy so only able to shoot a bit in my yard. Hope to do real shooting with it soon. Have not tried it with the extender.
— for tripod work like I’d assume you’re doing, I’d stick with the 32-64 all day long — quite versatile and less distortion (only noticeable if you have a house or buildings in the corners). There is no real “rendering” difference at infinity since I personally reserve that word for referencing bokeh and focus falloff at mid to close distance. The 63 does have better color and contrast punch to it, but probably not enough to make a difference if infinity shots are your only use
