This lens would have been fine as 55/2.8. I don't see using it more open than f/2.8. Most likely I will be shooting portraits at f/4-f/5.6 most of the time.
I tried c-af and continuous drive (as someone recommended) with gf45 and gf55 on gfx50s2 and slowly moving subjects. gf45 focused well on a 1 out of 10 roughly, and 2 out of 10 more or less ok. gf55 did not achieve focus at all.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Well ... since my Voigtländer Nokton 58mm f1.4 SL is said to cover the 44x33mm sensor very nicely this one is probably not a lens I would ever need.
im keep my gf63, no need gf55 too. as never dont needed gf80, both too heavy and too slow and photos from them not impress as from gf45,gf110,or gf120,,,
How's the AF sound? Is it silent or does it make any noise on focusing?
Thanks Makten for the sample photos! I definitely need this lens. I think I'll swap my 45-100mm to this because I also have the 110mm, and I use the zoom mostly around 60mm or at 100mm.
Makten wrote:
More 55! Brought it for an MTB ride today. Not the most convenient choice, but what the heck!
I don't bike, but I do hike. And I don't mind hauling around GF glass. To me, the size and weight don't seem all that bad compared to some of the others. Beyond the obvious differences with the 50, and understanding that they each have their place, how do you feel about the 55 for landscapes (stopped down a bit)? Have you tried manual focus at all?
mmm55 wrote:
I don't bike, but I do hike. And I don't mind hauling around GF glass. To me, the size and weight don't seem all that bad compared to some of the others. Beyond the obvious differences with the 50, and understanding that they each have their place, how do you feel about the 55 for landscapes (stopped down a bit)? Have you tried manual focus at all?
Haven't done anything resembling a landscape yet, but it does seem to be very sharp over the entire field when stopped down just a little bit. No idea about flare resistance either, but it would surprise me if it wasn't worse than slower lenses. Edit: The 50 isn't particularly good against the light though. I often get a green blob diagonal to the sun, if that is in the frame (no filter attached).
Manual focus is very similar to the 80, which means "jumpy". The discrete steps seems a bit large, but you can still focus precisely if you take your time. I suppose this isn't necessarily the same on all GFX cameras either.
Just ordered my 55 from Adorama. Due to some holiday I probably won't have it till the 10th. I love my 80 and 110 but there have been some instances where something a bit wider but not as wide as the 45 would have been nice to have.
mmm55 wrote:
I don't bike, but I do hike. And I don't mind hauling around GF glass. To me, the size and weight don't seem all that bad compared to some of the others. Beyond the obvious differences with the 50, and understanding that they each have their place, how do you feel about the 55 for landscapes (stopped down a bit)? Have you tried manual focus at all?
If you don't want to deal with zoom then 23mm, 30mm or 45mm depending on your preferences would be a better choice for landscapes because they are wider, wider DoF, some are smaller, weight less, just as sharp. Or 20-35mm, and be done with it.
olegkin wrote:
If you don't want to deal with zoom then 23mm, 30mm or 45mm depending on your preferences would be a better choice for landscapes because they are wider, wider DoF, some are smaller, weight less, just as sharp. Or 20-35mm, and be done with it.
Why would you generalize that wider is better for landscapes?
mmm55 wrote:
Why would you generalize that wider is better for landscapes?
You can shoot landscapes with whatever, just like me. I am not sure what confused you. Personally, I would take 45mm or 30mm every time over 55mm if I plan to walk in a park. I can always crop.
olegkin wrote:
You can shoot landscapes with whatever, just like me. I am not sure what confused you. Personally, I would take 45mm or 30mm every time over 55mm if I plan to walk in a park. I can always crop.
What confused me was your "advice" that had nothing to do with my question about the 55. I take it you've never shot landscapes with the 250. You should try it, you might learn something new.
I think it's a personal choice. I have done landscapes at FF eq of 400mm with my Sony. Good compression etc. However if I want to travel light I force myself to carry the 50mm and the 35-70 (often just that) and deal with the focal length constraints
mmm55 wrote:
What confused me was your "advice" that had nothing to do with my question about the 55. I take it you've never shot landscapes with the 250. You should try it, you might learn something new.
mmm55 wrote:
What confused me was your "advice" that had nothing to do with my question about the 55. I take it you've never shot landscapes with the 250. You should try it, you might learn something new.
I don't limit myself needlessly and shot plenty anywhere between 14 and 420mm. There is no need to be upset about a note you did not like.
So, since the title of this thread is "GF 55mm f1.7", how about we get back on track and actually talk about that lens. Has anyone actually tried it for landscapes?
olegkin wrote:
This lens would have been fine as 55/2.8. I don't see using it more open than f/2.8. Most likely I will be shooting portraits at f/4-f/5.6 most of the time.
For f/2.8 there are two good choices already 45/2.8, 63/2.8 .... I am hoping I will find the extra weight worth the trouble (to lug around). I already have a 63/2.8 but it's not f/1.7 ... else it's a fabulous lens.
Seems the 55/1.7 might give me the unique look that I can't get with FujiX (e.g. no 27/0.85) and I am not aware of a good FF 43/1.3 eq.
envydd wrote:
For f/2.8 there are two good choices already 45/2.8, 63/2.8 .... I am hoping I will find the extra weight worth the trouble (to lug around). I already have a 63/2.8 but it's not f/1.7 ... else it's a fabulous lens.
Seems the 55/1.7 might give me the unique look that I can't get with FujiX (e.g. no 27/0.85) and I am not aware of a good FF 43/1.3 eq.
I would probably be fine with 63/2.8 but I got gf55 first
It is not easy to focus well at f/1.7-f/2, very unforgiving apertures.
Hi all, long time forum lurker here. Just jumping in because I'm considering this or the 50/3.5 or 63/2.8 as my first Fuji GF lens (hitherto been shooting GFX using Pentax-A 645 35/55/75/120 and Tamron VC 35/45 lenses).
In particular what concerns me is transition zone smoothness. Sample images showing background bokeh are not hard to come by, so I'm not bothered about that - and it's clear the 55/1.7 does well in this regard.
Would anyone who owns the 55/1.7 and one or both of the 50/3.5 and 63/2.8 be up for posting some transition zone comparisons?
