I got 45-100 but studio at work is not open yet (due to covid) and for typical landscape use, I miss wider end and on tele end want it to be longer. So how does 100-200mm compare with this lens? I can sell 45-100mm and get 100-200mm as I already have 32-64mm,
My 45-100 is slightly sharper than my 100-200, at 100mm. It works well for landscapes and studio when stopped down. FWIW I am using my 100-200 a lot that I had imagined. On paper it doesn't look great but in reality its very good. Also its a poor person's 250.
I mainly shoot landscape, have 32-64 and got 45-100, but it was not wide or reach far enough so sold it. I then bought 100-200 and is very happy with it.
hpfish10 wrote:
I mainly shoot landscape, have 32-64 and got 45-100, but it was not wide or reach far enough so sold it. I then bought 100-200 and is very happy with it.
I have the 32-64 and the 100-200 (and the 250 as well).
My opinion is that the 100-200 is sufficiently sharp enough unless you want to be a real pixel peeper type person and start comparing it against other comparable lenses; in which case you will see differences and the 100-200 won't be as sharp at full aperture. Stop them both down to f11 or f16 and you probbaly won't see much difference, though.
But let me be clear, I stopped doing all the lens performace fetish testing a long time ago. From my perspective, just about all (probably all, actually) the modern lenses perform admirably in terms of sharpness for my needs and what is more important is how the lens renders. In this respect, I feel the GF lenses are all quite good and in general superior to the Sony FE lenses that I compared to them before I sold my Sony gear.
So I don't really fret the performance much with the GF lenses. I like how they render, they are sharp enough for me, fairly flare resistant, and they are all too bloody expensive, but I live with that.
@bobby350z super happy with the 100-200 .... and its quite light for what you get. The 45-100 is great on a 50R as it has OIS but with a 100S, I would just use 23, 32-64, 80, 100-200 for landscape
bobby350z wrote:
I got 45-100 but studio at work is not open yet (due to covid) and for typical landscape use, I miss wider end and on tele end want it to be longer. So how does 100-200mm compare with this lens? I can sell 45-100mm and get 100-200mm as I already have 32-64mm,
It's not a bad lens, but it's a ways behind the 32-64 and 45-100.
I see the graphs but how is it in real life? Can you boost the contrast in pp? I am using a $700 Tamron 28-200mm on my A7rIV so I would assume this 100-200mm would be better if not much better. Planning to keep one system. Thanks.
Happy to share some RAWs to try. I will leave the technical tests to experts like Jim. Have not compared with other lenses. But I am surprised at the results given the low prices on the buy/sell forum here several months ago.
bobby350z wrote:
I see the graphs but how is it in real life? Can you boost the contrast in pp? I am using a $700 Tamron 28-200mm on my A7rIV so I would assume this 100-200mm would be better if not much better. Planning to keep one system. Thanks.
100-200 – versatile but at 200mm and infinity, it has the highest optical distortion in the GF lineup. If you have a flat horizon, it's unusable without software correction – which most feel is fine given how high the IQ is from the corrected image, but it's worth knowing going in.
110 or 120 + crop – both these primes at infinity are breathtaking
Bobby, I think from your past postings that you are basically uncomfortable with Fuji's decision to produce GF zooms that are limited to a 2:1 ratio. If you buy the GF 100-200 won't you be quickly frustrated with the maximum telephoto setting having a full frame equivalent of 158mm?
I would recommend you consider a Sony GM 100-400 for your A7R4/A1 and get some real telephoto muscle to work with.
goodbokeh wrote:
Bobby, I think from your past postings that you are basically uncomfortable with Fuji's decision to produce GF zooms that are limited to a 2:1 ratio. If you buy the GF 100-200 won't you be quickly frustrated with the maximum telephoto setting having a full frame equivalent of 158mm?
I would recommend you consider a Sony GM 100-400 for your A7R4/A1 and get some real telephoto muscle to work with.
I already have A7rIV and 100-400mm. Actually right now I am thinking of selling all Sony stuff and stick with Fuji. Maybe I should look at 250mm f4. That 100-400 is nice. First few tries 20210821_Napa_Valley_0018 by Vishi A, on Flickr
Well Bobby the glaring weakness of the GFX system is it's telephotos. The GF 250mm is an outstanding lens but are you OK with just a maximum FF equivalent of 200mm? Going without a second FF or APS-C system is something I couldn't do and I really enjoy my 100S.
I still have a lot of Sony FF glass but they are currently orphans, I sold my A7R3. But I'm doing just fine with my X-T4 & X-Pro3 with XF lenses in a support role to the 100S.
bobby350z wrote:
I see the graphs but how is it in real life? Can you boost the contrast in pp? I am using a $700 Tamron 28-200mm on my A7rIV so I would assume this 100-200mm would be better if not much better. Planning to keep one system. Thanks.
Its not a bad lens at all. It's not as good a lens as, say, the Nikon 70-200/2.8E or the S version, but it's better at the long end than using the 110/2 and cropping.
I haven't tested the Tamron, but I would guess that the 100-200 would be far better than a budget zoom with that large a zoom ratio.
In the early days when there were more limited options, I would take the 23mm, 32-64 and 120 macro. Now for landscapes I take the 23mm, 45-100 and 100-200 or 120mm macro. I have not done extensive testing but I think the 45-100 is a bit better than the 32-64mm but I have not done extensive testing.. Maybe I should compare a bit more carefully and see. I love the 250mm but it is big and heavy for hiking. I recently obtained the 80mm and trying to see if this changes my optimal landscape hiking combo.
envydd wrote:
@bobby350z@ super happy with the 100-200 .... and its quite light for what you get. The 45-100 is great on a 50R as it has OIS but with a 100S, I would just use 23, 32-64, 80, 100-200 for landscape
Yes, the weight really surprised me on the 100-200, and I found it to be a fine lens for my purposes. Now that I'm getting back into GFX, I'm thinking of a 23/45/100-200 setup.
I needed a lighter kit, so have sold my beloved 50r, 50mm 3.5, and 45-100. As a matter of fact, everything is sold except my 100-200. Have you ever had a lens that you kept even after you moved out of that lens's system? I've had a few of those over the years, and this is one of them.
For me, it is one of those lenses that I just love using. Is it as technically sharp as the 45-100? No (close though), but, for me, it was/is my favorite lens for the GFX (I used, but did not own, the 32-64, and the 110). Something about the images it produced were special. As mentioned above, the ease of handling of the lens surprised me, and the IS is excellent. I will end up selling it - makes no sense not to - but it's the lens I'll miss most.
Nothing objective to hang your hat on above, but my two cents. If you can, I'd buy one.
bobby350z wrote:
I got 45-100 but studio at work is not open yet (due to covid) and for typical landscape use, I miss wider end and on tele end want it to be longer. So how does 100-200mm compare with this lens? I can sell 45-100mm and get 100-200mm as I already have 32-64mm,
chiron wrote:
How would you compare the 32-64 and the 45-100?
I ended up selling 32-64mm recently as I went for 250mm to replace my 100-200. I liked 32-64mm but for my studio work 45-100 is better as it gives me longer focal length. Since I have 23mm f4, I am ok for landscapes with 45-100mm. Later when 20-35 comes, I will sell the 23mm f4.
I should add I ended up picking 100-200mm. It is very nice lens but when I saw pictures from 250mm f4 by a local photographer, I couldn't help myself from buying the 250mm f4. So I had to sell my 32-64mm as well as 100-200mm.
Actually right now I am thinking of selling all Sony stuff and stick with Fuji. Maybe I should look at 250mm f4. That 100-400 is nice. First few tries
