I think the 55f1.7 is one of the best fuji lenses from an image quality perspective, arguably second to the 110f2. If you're doing landscapes and portraiture I can't think of a better system.
bernardl wrote:
The look of bokeh with mid distance subjects.
Are you referring to your own images (do you own the lens?) or for example my images? In the latter case, they are shot at much larger distance than most people would use this type of lens at. The car and the tree above is +10 meters (30 feet) away. I would not expect better bokeh from any lens of similar angle of view under those circumstances.
I am getting far nicer results from both Sony 50mm f1.2 GM and Nikon 50mm f1.2 S for example.
Those are a bit narrower angle of view though. And I suspect that they instead have a lot more vignetting and less flat field. But sure, they seem to be great lenses and I can understand that you prefer them.
Personally I got the 55 specifically to isolate things at a few meters distance with more "pop" and less aberrations than equivalent lenses for FF would give. The "medium format look" if you will.
It doesn't give the prettiest bokeh unless you focus a bit closer, but most of the competition is definitely worse.
This is a little bit closer than the previous images...
GFX50S IIGF55mmF1.7 R WR lens55mmf/1.71/28s100 ISO0.0 EV
bernardl wrote:
The look of bokeh with mid distance subjects.
I am getting far nicer results from both Sony 50mm f1.2 GM and Nikon 50mm f1.2 S for example.
Cheers,
Bernard
This would be more useful with examples, for educational purposes. Bokeh, at the same settings, looks quite different between gf45 and gf55 lenses. I imagine it would be visibly different with gf63mm, which would be close to nikon's 50mm.
I cannot imagine why would anybody want gf55mm as a landscape lens, having so many smaller lighter alternatives with similar focal length. Or zooms, if size and weight are not concerns.
Any focal length can be great for landscapes. I think the principal consideration is that it is free of distortion and sharp, or acceptably sharp from edge to edge. I have seen landscape shooters with phase one cameras and 50mm rodenstock lenses as their primary lens choice for single images or a series of stitched images so I can’t imagine the 55 can’t deliver here.
george malamis wrote:
Any focal length can be great for landscapes. I think the principal consideration is that it is free of distortion and sharp, or acceptably sharp from edge to edge. I have seen landscape shooters with phase one cameras and 50mm rodenstock lenses as their primary lens choice for single images or a series of stitched images so I can’t imagine the 55 can’t deliver here.
I think the point is that it's more convenient to choose one of the other GF options if landscapes is what you mainly shoot. The GF 55 is a lot larger and heavier than the 45, 50, 63 and 35-70, and all of them are very good stopped down. The 55 has the most distortion too. Not that it matters after correction though.
The questionable results against the light on the other hand, can be really problematic. I'd much rather use the 50/3.5 or 35-70 if I'm gonna stop the lens down quite a bit.
olegkin wrote:
This would be more useful with examples, for educational purposes. Bokeh, at the same settings, looks quite different between gf45 and gf55 lenses. I imagine it would be visibly different with gf63mm, which would be close to nikon's 50mm.
I cannot imagine why would anybody want gf55mm as a landscape lens, having so many smaller lighter alternatives with similar focal length. Or zooms, if size and weight are not concerns.
I have not bought the lens due to the various samples I saw, sorry.
A friend here in Tokyo who uses a 100s decided not the buy a 100II due to concerns with the bokeh of the 55mm f1.7 also.
I am happy about the 100s/100II for landscape, it's a great compromise between my Z7II and my IQ4-150 and the 20-35mm f4 and 120mm f4 perfectly match my landscape needs.
Makten wrote:
I think the point is that it's more convenient to choose one of the other GF options if landscapes is what you mainly shoot. The GF 55 is a lot larger and heavier than the 45, 50, 63 and 35-70, and all of them are very good stopped down. The 55 has the most distortion too. Not that it matters after correction though.
The questionable results against the light on the other hand, can be really problematic. I'd much rather use the 50/3.5 or 35-70 if I'm gonna stop the lens down quite a bit.
Both gf32-64 and gf45-100 cover 55mm too! (if you don't care about size and weight). I don't have them but I heard only good things about them.
Makten wrote:
Are you referring to your own images (do you own the lens?) or for example my images? In the latter case, they are shot at much larger distance than most people would use this type of lens at. The car and the tree above is +10 meters (30 feet) away. I would not expect better bokeh from any lens of similar angle of view under those circumstances.
Those are a bit narrower angle of view though. And I suspect that they instead have a lot more vignetting and less flat field. But sure, they seem to be great lenses and I can understand that you prefer them.
Personally I got the 55 specifically to isolate things at a few meters distance with more "pop" and less aberrations than equivalent lenses for FF would give. The "medium format look" if you will.
It doesn't give the prettiest bokeh unless you focus a bit closer, but most of the competition is definitely worse.
This is a little bit closer than the previous images...
Absolutely fantastic rendering/bokeh.
It's exactly how I like it, with some character - not as creamy as from modern f/1.2 or f/1.4 FF primes.
They all render the same, they all are dull because of that
Damn, if I only could afford GF 55/1.7 and GFX 100S..
This, combined with GF 20-35/4 would be my dream kit for many, many years.
20-35, 55, 80, 110 is my target for my gfx 100.
Since the Leitz 50/2 is really good adapted, the 55 is probably the last I will buy ... now waiting for European rebates :-)
I am lucky enough (or a hoarder) to have 8 gf lenses, 3 zooms (35-70/45-100/100-200) and 5 primes (30/45/55/80/110). I primarily shoot cityscapes and scenes/details. I wanted the 55 as an everyday lens and so far I am very happy with it. While it is fast at 1.7, it can be pressed into other uses, and even be stopped down…
For anyone interested in the gf lenses try to borrow or rent, or wait for them to come up on the buy and sell board so that you can try and see what you like and can resell at little or no loss.
bernardl wrote:
I have not bought the lens due to the various samples I saw, sorry.
A friend here in Tokyo who uses a 100s decided not the buy a 100II due to concerns with the bokeh of the 55mm f1.7 also.
I am happy about the 100s/100II for landscape, it's a great compromise between my Z7II and my IQ4-150 and the 20-35mm f4 and 120mm f4 perfectly match my landscape needs.
Regards,
Bernard
Personally I never go my what I see online. Buy yourself, see if you like it or not and sell it if you don't. So far the 55mm f1.7 looks fine to me. I had Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art and this Fuji looks just as good to me and much lighter and native GF lens. I haven't bought it yet as I have 50mm TSE. So need to decide.
bobby350z wrote:
Personally I never go my what I see online. Buy yourself, see if you like it or not and sell it if you don't. So far the 55mm f1.7 looks fine to me. I had Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art and this Fuji looks just as good to me and much lighter and native GF lens. I haven't bought it yet as I have 50mm TSE. So need to decide.
Buying new lenses and then sell them isn't the best idea for us with limited funds though.
I knew I wanted the 55 almost regardless of rendering, because of its uniqueness.
It would be interesting to see an A/B comparison with the Sigma 40 on FF cropped to 4:3, because that is as close to a perfect equivalent one can get.
Yes I have seen that review on dpr and it seems Sigma is pretty good. I had one, excellent lens like all their Art series. Just too heavy and I usually don't complain. Sigma needs a newer version of that lens.
Makten wrote:
Buying new lenses and then sell them isn't the best idea for us with limited funds though.
I knew I wanted the 55 almost regardless of rendering, because of its uniqueness.
It would be interesting to see an A/B comparison with the Sigma 40 on FF cropped to 4:3, because that is as close to a perfect equivalent one can get.
The person talking bad bokeh of 55mm f1.7 has PhaseOne so no issues with any funds iMHO. Buying/selling is much cheaper than any rental.
For golden hour landscapes, I do not see a huge delta between 50/3.5 and this lens in terms of rendering. Of course I can handhold a f/1.7 lens for longer
The car and the tree above is +10 meters (30 feet) away. I would not expect better bokeh from any lens of similar angle of view under those circumstances. 
