Just picked up the 55 yesterday to beat the price increase. My first non-LM G mount lens. I'm sure this has already been said (didn't read the whole thread), but...
IQ: In a word, wow. Even wide open. Just lovely.
Bokeh: Again, wow. Insert the usual terms . . .creamy, etc. Really sublime.
AF: Wow again. But this time, wow, it sucks. Slow. Noisy. Hunts. Pulses - even when I'm not trying to focus (like when chimping).
Hummm...got some thinking to do as to whether this one remains in the stable. Might need to brush up on my MF skills.
Rant over.
Edit: Using it on the 100 ii, which I hear the AF was supposed to be slightly better than on some other GFX bodies.
I really don't find the AF on the 55 all that bad. It is noisy but I don't really notice it hunting. Does you find that happening in low light conditions? But I also shoot with a couple vintage Contax 645 lenses that make any Fuji native lens seem to focus fast and quiet, . I was somewhat reluctant to get the 55 thinking I don't need ultra shallow depth of field all that often. Yet its become the lens that I leave on the camera the most because of its versatility. It has amazing detail but somehow maintains a nice character and to my eyes, is not clinical at all.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I really don't find the AF on the 55 all that bad. It is noisy but I don't really notice it hunting. Does you find that happening in low light conditions? But I also shoot with a couple vintage Contax 645 lenses that make any Fuji native lens seem to focus fast and quiet, . I was somewhat reluctant to get the 55 thinking I don't need ultra shallow depth of field all that often. Yet its become the lens that I leave on the camera the most because of its versatility. It has amazing detail but somehow maintains a nice character and to my eyes, is not clinical at all....Show more →
Always a good idea to make any GFX lens a AF speed demon! My second camera is a Sigma DP3 Merrill. Those GF lenses are really fast!
ATPphoto wrote:
JadedWriter, nice shots that really show the special character of this lens
I agree, the depth and roll off of focus is really beautiful while the subject is perfectly sharp. I really don't want to carry this combo for street photos but JadedWriter makes a strong case for it.
I have walked around with a D4 and 24-70 2.8G. This combo is a lot lighter than that in my opinion. SGinNorcal wrote:
I agree, the depth and roll off of focus is really beautiful while the subject is perfectly sharp. I really don't want to carry this combo for street photos but JadedWriter makes a strong case for it.
Makten wrote:
Probably that it feels "normal". The modern normal lenses are for some reason a bit too long at ~50 mm equivalent in FF terms. I've always wanted something a tad shorter and when I used the Pentax 67 quite extensively, I prefered the 90 over the 105 even though it rendered slightly worse. On 24x36 I've been mostly drawn to 40 mm lenses and cropped to 4:3 or taller which gives a similar FOV.
If/when I want subject isolation, I don't want a long lens because I still want the background to be part of the image. Not just total blur; then I could as well shoot in a studio.
My most used lens is the 50/3.5, followed by the 63 and then 45. Not only because I like the size and rendering of the 50, but because that focal length is suitable for most of what I want to do. 5 mm longer won't hurt, so 55 will be nice.
Edit: I also hope it won't be a razor wide open. I'd love to see some "old school" rendering with a touch of spherical aberration wide open and then super sharp at ~f/2.5 or so. I also hope they prioritize correction for LoCA over smoothest possible bokeh. Don't really like the rendering of the 80/1.7 in that regard. ...Show more →
I am with you. Sold my 45, 63, 120, and bought the 55. Still have the 50, added the 30 for XPan 45mm replacement, and have the 23, although I don't use it much. Might sell that one. Have the 110. I am pretty happy at this point, and I will use my X-T4 and X100V for anything the GF doesn't cover at this point.
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 →
I think when Oskar Barnack made the first Leica cameras, he did so only to test film with, not with the intent of making a new photographic standard. I don't recall why he chose 50, but it was not for aesthetic reasons, more because it was what was around, or maybe it was easier to design. I still like 50mm as a standard lens on 3:2 (as long as I don't have to shoot in portrait mode!), but I don't like it on any other format, and prefer the 55mm for the GF, and similarly for other formats.
Ahhhh... the GF55/1.7. Very nice images in these pages from it. I prefer the OOF rendering and also FOV of the Mitakon 65/1.4 but must admit the strengths of the 55/1.7 (sharpness, control of aberrations) cannot be denied.
I really wanted to like the GF 55/1.7 when I owned it with my 50sII but couldn't stand the focusing noise and "chatter"/hunting that it would often do, even when I had set focus to manual mode.
I really wish Fuji had included the LM design for AF but I guess couldn't for size/cost/technical constraints?
I'm currently shooting with the 100sII. For those of you who have shot this lens with both the 50sII and 100sII, does the 100sII do away with the random chatter/hunting?
Prosophos wrote:
Ahhhh... the GF55/1.7. Very nice images in these pages from it. I prefer the OOF rendering and also FOV of the Mitakon 65/1.4 but must admit the strengths of the 55/1.7 (sharpness, control of aberrations) cannot be denied.
I really wanted to like the GF 55/1.7 when I owned it with my 50sII but couldn't stand the focusing noise and "chatter"/hunting that it would often do, even when I had set focus to manual mode.
I really wish Fuji had included the LM design for AF but I guess couldn't for size/cost/technical constraints?
I'm currently shooting with the 100sII. For those of you who have shot this lens with both the 50sII and 100sII, does the 100sII do away with the random chatter/hunting?
Prosophos wrote:
Ahhhh... the GF55/1.7. Very nice images in these pages from it. I prefer the OOF rendering and also FOV of the Mitakon 65/1.4 but must admit the strengths of the 55/1.7 (sharpness, control of aberrations) cannot be denied.
I really wanted to like the GF 55/1.7 when I owned it with my 50sII but couldn't stand the focusing noise and "chatter"/hunting that it would often do, even when I had set focus to manual mode.
I really wish Fuji had included the LM design for AF but I guess couldn't for size/cost/technical constraints?
I'm currently shooting with the 100sII. For those of you who have shot this lens with both the 50sII and 100sII, does the 100sII do away with the random chatter/hunting?
My solution was to shoot the GF 80mm f1.7 for awhile, so when I went back to the GF55, it didn't seem so bad, and at least, my shots with the GF55 were mostly in-focus.
As a retired engineer who designed servo systems very early in my career, I am a bit perplexed by the crudeness of the Fuji focus system - even with my GF110 with the LM. Modern focus systems utilize phase-detect interfaced with contrast-detect for fine-tuning. It is my guess that Fuji has not figured-out how to effectively interface the two systems. Nikon/Canon/Sony have figured-out how to instantaneously move massive lens elements in near silence for perfect focus in some of their larger lenses.
For me, I have become accustomed to the annoying sounds from the GF55 and it does yield perfectly focused shots most all of the time. I certainly wouldn't complain if they released a Version II with a LM and technical improvements, however.
On one hand, the neighbor’s pool pump that runs 24x7 drives me mad. On the other hand, I never noticed excessive noise from the GF55 on the GFX100S II. The GF80 is a bit noisy, but even in a quiet studio it’s Ok. Maybe I am deaf at just the right frequencies
olegkin wrote:
On one hand, the neighbor’s pool pump that runs 24x7 drives me mad. On the other hand, I never noticed excessive noise from the GF55 on the GFX100S II. The GF80 is a bit noisy, but even in a quiet studio it’s Ok. Maybe I am deaf at just the right frequencies
It wasn't so much the noise, it was the constant hunting that bothered me. In AF of course, but also when I would sometimes switch over to manual focus to lock in on a particular spot; it would still grind backwards and forwards for some inexplicable reason.
I know the lens is great, so no offense to those who have it and love it. I get it. I just couldn't get along with it.
. I was somewhat reluctant to get the 55 thinking I don't need ultra shallow depth of field all that often. Yet its become the lens that I leave on the camera the most because of its versatility. It has amazing detail but somehow maintains a nice character and to my eyes, is not clinical at all.
