I was at a vendor show locally and I got to use the 100ii and 55mm, that is a workout in the making combo. I was able to put a SD card in and take shots, on my BenQ I was beyond impressed.
My go to for portraits is usually the 110 or the 80 but been trying to do more environmental portraits. Some motion blur on the hand due to the low shutter speed and the model moving but I still like the shot.
My go to for portraits is usually the 110 or the 80 but been trying to do more environmental portraits. Some motion blur on the hand due to the low shutter speed and the model moving but I still like the shot.
Peire wrote:
Why this lens is 55mm?I would immediately buy something like 60/1.7 and/or 45/1.7,but 55mm is a bit too wide for a standard in my case.
Yet I'm not saying I will never get it.
I shot a few thousands images with it so far, and maybe a dozen at f/1.7. Most of images are f/2.8-f/4, for portraits. Economics is not good for this lens, especially comparing to used prices of alternatives. Also, I found it is not wide enough for smallish rooms, and 45mm is more versatile indoors.
It is also insanely sharp. I am experimenting with filters to bring it down to earth, to create more pleasant-looking portraits and reduce moire on everything. The GF45mm is also sharp, but it does not create as much moire as the GF55. I'm not sure how this works.
Peire wrote:
Why this lens is 55mm?I would immediately buy something like 60/1.7 and/or 45/1.7,but 55mm is a bit too wide for a standard in my case.
Yet I'm not saying I will never get it.
55 is the "true" normal lens for this format; the diagonal of the sensor. Personally I find it absolutely perfect.
It's also the angle of view that has been used as the "normal" for most other formats than 24x36.
Peire wrote:
I said that 40mm equiv is too wide for a standard lens and that I would rather prefer faster (i.e. 45/1.7) version of 45mm lens instead.
I never knew there were standard lenses. To me FF wise 28mm, 40mm and 65mm better than the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. That's why I like 80mm f1.7 so much. I do wish Fuji make an updated 45mm f1.7 some day. In the mean time, I have Tamron 45mm f1.8 which works well on the GFX.
Makten wrote:
55 is the "true" normal lens for this format; the diagonal of the sensor. Personally I find it absolutely perfect.
It's also the angle of view that has been used as the "normal" for most other formats than 24x36.
Yes,the truly "normal" or "standard" fl for so called FF format is 43mm,so GF 55/1.7 is almost exactly 43mm FF equiv.Yet it is not for long times that such fls are frequently visible in the market.Since introduction of Oskar Barnack's Leica and 24x36mm format back in 1913 up untill the end of the 20th century it was 50mm fl first of all regarded as a standard lens.With only a very few exceptions.
45mm or 55/58 standards were seen quite seldom on the market even in the 1980ties and 1990ies.60mm was rather "reserved" for short macro.My photographic experience is dating back 35 years,so is probably why I got used to 50mm FF eq standard rather than,say,45mm or 43mm.Besides,when I "forsee" a picture in a "standard" way it is the angle of view of 50mm eq.
bobby350z wrote:
I never knew there were standard lenses. To me FF wise 28mm, 40mm and 65mm better than the 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. That's why I like 80mm f1.7 so much. I do wish Fuji make an updated 45mm f1.7 some day. In the mean time, I have Tamron 45mm f1.8 which works well on the GFX.
For many years cathegory of standard lenses has been assigned in general to 50mm in 24x36mm format.Wide angles started from 35mm and short telephotos from 80-85mm.It was the last 10-15 years when we see proliferation of "atypical",longer/wider standard lenses like 40,45,58 or 65mm or their equivalents in other formats.
My preference is a conservative 50mm and a bit longer rather than shorter standards.Hence I prefer GF 63/2.8 and GF 80/1.7 over GF 55/1.7 in SMF.On the other hand I like fast lenses very much,so any of those will draw my attention.
BTW: Neither 28mm nor 40mm eqs are my pieces of cake.I usually operate on 10mm-16mm-24mm-35mm-50mm-85mm-135mm-200mm - 400mm - 600mm -900mm -1200mm
Peire wrote:
For many years cathegory of standard lenses has been assigned in general to 50mm in 24x36mm format.Wide angles started from 35mm and short telephotos from 80-85mm.It was the last 10-15 years when we see proliferation of "atypical",longer/wider standard lenses like 40,45,58 or 65mm or their equivalents in other formats.
Nothing atypical. Diagonal of 24x36 is 50 so that's why 50mm is std. For Fuji GFX, 44x33, it is 55, that is why 55mm f1.7 is a std and not 63mm.
bobby350z wrote:
Nothing atypical. Diagonal of 24x36 is 50 so that's why 50mm is std. For Fuji GFX, 44x33, it is 55, that is why 55mm f1.7 is a std and not 63mm.
Goodness, Bobby, the diagonal of 35mm full-frame (occasionally "double frame") 24x36mm is a bit over 43mm. You're on the money wrt GFX.
bobby350z wrote:
Nothing atypical. Diagonal of 24x36 is 50 so that's why 50mm is std. For Fuji GFX, 44x33, it is 55, that is why 55mm f1.7 is a std and not 63mm.
Not quite.Do you remember Pythagorean theorem? Format's standard is it's diagonal,so the square root of the sum of the length and width of the format raised to the second power.In case of 24x36mm calculations will be as follows: 24mm(2)+36mm(2)=576mm+1296mm =1872mm.Square root from 1872mm = 43,266mm - the actual standard fl of 24x36mm format,not 50mm.
And for 33x44mm : 33mm(2)+44mm(2)=1089mm+1936=3025mm.Square root from 3025mm is 55mm and 55/1.7 is a standard indeed,as I mentioned above.
Peire wrote:
Yes,the truly "normal" or "standard" fl for so called FF format is 43mm,so GF 55/1.7 is almost exactly 43mm FF equiv.Yet it is not for long times that such fls are frequently visible in the market.Since introduction of Oskar Barnack's Leica and 24x36mm format back in 1913 up untill the end of the 20th century it was 50mm fl first of all regarded as a standard lens.With only a very few exceptions.
45mm or 55/58 standards were seen quite seldom on the market even in the 1980ties and 1990ies.60mm was rather "reserved" for short macro.My photographic experience is dating back 35 years,so is probably why I got used to 50mm FF eq standard rather than,say,45mm or 43mm.Besides,when I "forsee" a picture in a "standard" way it is the angle of view of 50mm eq. ...Show more →
As I said, most other formats than 24x36 have had a standard lens that corresponds to the diagonal of the format.
I don't know why the "too long" 50 mm focal length became standard on 24x36, but I suspect it was because it makes it easier to design faster lenses.
And, on the other hand, a lot of film era fixed lens cameras for 24x36 had 35-45 mm lenses. I don't even know about one single such that had a 50.
Edit: Personally I really dislike 50 mm on FF because it's too narrow vertically. Much prefer 35-40 and then crop sideways to 4:3 and narrower. Which was one of the reasons I switched to GFX.
I think it was cheaper to make 50mm lenses due to the old double Gauss design. See reference
It used to be harder to find good 43mm lenses. Pentax made a limited 43mm lens that had very nice rendering.These days I see a lot of true normal lenses.
Makten wrote:
As I said, most other formats than 24x36 have had a standard lens that corresponds to the diagonal of the format.
I don't know why the "too long" 50 mm focal length became standard on 24x36, but I suspect it was because it makes it easier to design faster lenses.
And, on the other hand, a lot of film era fixed lens cameras for 24x36 had 35-45 mm lenses. I don't even know about one single such that had a 50.
Edit: Personally I really dislike 50 mm on FF because it's too narrow vertically. Much prefer 35-40 and then crop sideways to 4:3 and narrower. Which was one of the reasons I switched to GFX. ...Show more →
