p.1 #1 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
Which one would you pick?
Hey all. I’m going to China in a month or two and travel. Mainly around the western regions like Yunnan, Xinjiang and Tibet. This will be my first major trip since picking up the GFX 100S and I kind of need help locking down a lens to rent for landscapes.
My problem is twofold: first is the reality that I’m not much of a landscape shooter and I mainly focus on street or documentary photography, or portraits. There’s also been perilously little opportunity for me to shoot landscapes the last few years as my country possesses few vistas, and what with the world on lockdown and all. The second issue is that bag space and weight are limited so I can probably only rent one of the big lenses, but I suppose I could still also opt for the 35-70mm.
To that end the 45-100mm seems like the safest option with a solid standard zoom range that I’m used to working with, and it will double as a portrait lens to interact with and shoot the local minority groups. However I’m afraid it will be neither long enough nor wide enough, potentially limiting its usefulness as a my sole landscape lens.
The 20-35 feels like it would be a default pick but as I stated, I don’t think I have the necessary experience shooting ultrawide to truly maximize it. I owned a 16-35mm F4 before but I’m not too familiar at recognize strong foreground-background conpositions to give photos that ultrawide impact, so I sold it.
The 250mm looks amazing and along with the TC will allow me to shoot telephoto landscapes of the Tibet and Xinjiang mountain ranges, but it’s not very versatile and won’t serve as much of a dual function for documentary work. However the fewer images I would get it would probably be quite dramatic so maybe I should work within its limitations. The 100-200 falls in the same category but is more versatile with less reach and with reduced IQ (I’ve read). In both events though the reach still seems a bit limited compared to FF.
What would you guys suggest? Any adapted picks that may be worthwhile? I own the Fringer adapter but probably won’t bring my Art lenses, but I will bring the Canon 40mm pancake as it’s super light.
Any experienced mountain and desert shooters that can chime in?
p.1 #2 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
It sounds like you're think about this in the right way. Do have an idea of how much you want to carry and more importantly, how much you want to spend, and since this is probably a trip you won't be able to easily duplicate, do you need to think about a second 100s body as a backup, spare or to just have a second lens at the ready without having to expose the sensor to the wild.
If it were me, and it's not, but I do have a 100s, I'd probably take the four zooms - the 20-35, the 32-64, the 45-100 and the 100-200. You could make an argument for dropping the 32-64 and adding the 250, but that 250, while wonderful by all accounts, is also not exactly svelte. The 45-100, 100-200 and 250 all have very effective stabilization built into the lens which works in conjunction with the IBIS quite well. I think there are a couple of Leica lenses that could be interesting on the longer end, but looking at those prices on eBay, you might as well get the Fuji 250. If you want to go a little longer, the old Canon 300mm f/4 NON IS (and the non IS is important) is very very good especially after you pop out the plastic baffle at the rear of the lens, and for $6-700 and a relatively small and light lens with AF. Y'know, just a thought.
p.1 #3 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
If you need one lightweight lens for GFX landscape, the 35-70 seems the best choice by far. The 32-64 is better (faster, wider), but it's a heavy beast by comparison.
If you're willing to eat some weight, a 35-70 and 100-200 seems like the dream kit.
I wouldn't aim for an UWA if you're trying to travel light. Like you, I find it difficult to visualize a compelling UWA compared to more moderate wide angles, and you always have the option to stitch a pano at at 32mm or 35mm that gets you a UWA view. Better to rely on stitching for a few UWA shots than carry a whole new lens.
p.1 #4 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
I know, you said one lens, so for me it would need to be the 32-64. I love that lens, and for landscapes I really want the wider angle of view.
But, I'd really want to pair it with the 100-200, which is an excellent mid range zoom for landscape work. That combo would set me up for most of my landscapes and cityscapes.
I know the 45-100 is tempting, and it would be great for so many things on a trip like this (portraits! street!) but for me I would miss the wider end.
p.1 #5 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
Probably the 45-100 if I could only have one. Often you can stitch wider.
But my goto GFX kit is a 100S with 20-35, 45-100, 100-200 and an 80 1.9, in a Wandred Privike Lite bag. I can go all day with that combination. And then I don’t need any other system, unless shooting wildlife.
p.1 #6 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
kenbennett wrote:
I know, you said one lens, so for me it would need to be the 32-64. I love that lens, and for landscapes I really want the wider angle of view.
But, I'd really want to pair it with the 100-200, which is an excellent mid range zoom for landscape work. That combo would set me up for most of my landscapes and cityscapes.
I know the 45-100 is tempting, and it would be great for so many things on a trip like this (portraits! street!) but for me I would miss the wider end.
This would be my approach as well. Single; 32-64, if you can manage two, add the 100-200.
People like the 35-70 or the 45-100, but my most preferred focal length range for landscapes is certainly on the wide end of these lenses, and losing the (35mm equivalent) 24mm focal length would be a real shame. If you don't "see" wide angle images, in landscapes, you may not miss it, but I certainly would and I learned long ago that I much prefer 24mm to 28mm (35mm equivalent), so I simply won't choose a kit without having that covered properly.
p.1 #7 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
I will say get 2 lenses, one for landscapes, where $500 35-70mm is hard to beat. Then get another one for portraits. You can pick 63mm f2.8 if you like 50mm FF equivalent focal length. Those are the two cheapest options. If you got the bucks, then just get all of the ones mentioned earlier.
I have 23mm, 35-70, 45-100, 80mm, 110mm, and 250mm along with Canon 24mm, 50mm and 90 TSEs and Tamron 35 and 45mm.
p.1 #8 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
bobby350z wrote:
I will say get 2 lenses, one for landscapes, where $500 35-70mm is hard to beat. Then get another one for portraits. You can pick 63mm f2.8 if you like 50mm FF equivalent focal length. Those are the two cheapest options. If you got the bucks, then just get all of the ones mentioned earlier.
I have 23mm, 35-70, 45-100, 80mm, 110mm, and 250mm along with Canon 24mm, 50mm and 90 TSEs and Tamron 35 and 45mm.
I've been thinking about a T-SE lens and am torn between the existing Canon offerings or waiting for the native GF versions. How have the Canons been for you? I'm most interested in the 24mm and possibly the 90mm. Sharpness to the edges has been my concern and I've seen such variation on images taken with these lenses and the GFX 100S.
p.1 #9 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
aae991 wrote:
I've been thinking about a T-SE lens and am torn between the existing Canon offerings or waiting for the native GF versions. How have the Canons been for you? I'm most interested in the 24mm and possibly the 90mm. Sharpness to the edges has been my concern and I've seen such variation on images taken with these lenses and the GFX 100S.
The 17mm is decent, the 24mm v2 is good. The 50mm very good. The 90mm v2 and the 135mm superb. And the Zeiss 35mm PC is quite good as well.
You won't get to use the full shift on any of them but within a moderate range they're all eminently usable. I've used them for product, architectural, landscape and more. Will buy the 30mm Fuji when it's finally out but would prefer to see the rumored shorter 21-23mm version first.
p.1 #10 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
CKrueger wrote:
If you need one lightweight lens for GFX landscape, the 35-70 seems the best choice by far. The 32-64 is better (faster, wider), but it's a heavy beast by comparison.
If you're willing to eat some weight, a 35-70 and 100-200 seems like the dream kit.
I wouldn't aim for an UWA if you're trying to travel light. Like you, I find it difficult to visualize a compelling UWA compared to more moderate wide angles, and you always have the option to stitch a pano at at 32mm or 35mm that gets you a UWA view. Better to rely on stitching for a few UWA shots than carry a whole new lens. ...Show more →
+1
I really love what the 32-64 brings to the party but after getting the 35-70 I haven’t really used the 32-64.
For a lightweight travel kit I would definitely choose the 100S, 35-70 + 100-200. The 45-100 is great but heavy.
p.1 #11 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
aae991 wrote:
I've been thinking about a T-SE lens and am torn between the existing Canon offerings or waiting for the native GF versions. How have the Canons been for you? I'm most interested in the 24mm and possibly the 90mm. Sharpness to the edges has been my concern and I've seen such variation on images taken with these lenses and the GFX 100S.
24mm is not as good as you would want but others like 50mm 90mm and 135mm are excellent.
24mm TSE-II on GXF50s, +/-6-7mm shift to make 3 shot pano. 23mm would be a bit sharper but hard to tell. I don't use 23mm that much as when I want a wide I want to shift too. 20221005_California_Fall_Color_0273 by Vishi A, on Flickr
p.1 #12 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
Peter Figen wrote:
The 17mm is decent, the 24mm v2 is good. The 50mm very good. The 90mm v2 and the 135mm superb. And the Zeiss 35mm PC is quite good as well.
You won't get to use the full shift on any of them but within a moderate range they're all eminently usable. I've used them for product, architectural, landscape and more. Will buy the 30mm Fuji when it's finally out but would prefer to see the rumored shorter 21-23mm version first.
p.1 #14 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
Here is 50mm TSE stitched. +/-10mm is no issue at all. Fuji TSE will be f5.6. I know bigger sensor but has no foot either (so far). Fuji needs to get mojo back release TSE with better designs, faster primes, more innovating solutions.
p.1 #15 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
My vote is 35-70 (as you said it's small and light enough to be able to carry another) and the 100-200. If you need anything wider you can stitch a pano together. If you need anything longer you can crop. A lot. The joys of 101MP.
p.1 #17 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
Thanks for the replies so far all, you’ve been extremely helpful. I realize now that a one setup solution just won’t cut it but luckily the 35-70 is a featherweight. Coincidentally I came across this post on the Fuji website which is pretty much exactly where I’m going to and how I’d try to shoot: https://fujifilm-x.com/nl-nl/stories/gfx50s-ii-landscape-x-yuhan-ma/
He uses the 100-200 (+TC) extensively along with the 35-70 which are the two picks you’ve been buying me towards as well. I’ll bring three lenses then: the 35-70 for wide to normal length shots and wider panos, the 100-200 plus TC for telephoto work and my Sigma 70mm F2.8 Art for portraits. (Though I may upgrade that for the Mitakon 65mm F1.4 I’ve been eyeing.)
My only concern is the 100-200. I’ve heard issues with sharpness possibly related to the OS. How bad is it and should I gravitate towards the 250mm because of it? Or perhaps an adapted lens to give me more reach?
p.1 #18 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
Nothing to do with OS, it’s just not a great lens optically. It’s just okay. The 250 is heavy and rather specific in use…isn’t weight an issue?
If you want an adapted prime instead the zoom, the Zeiss 135/2 is excellent and comparable weight. Cropped to full frame it’s better at landscape than the 100-200, so it covers a significant portion of the zoom’s range. But no lens stabilization or autofocus.
p.1 #19 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
When I first bought the 100-200 and tested it, there were certain conditions where I would see some nasty soft blue-ish color fringing in the corners between about 170mm and 200mm. I'm not sure if that was some weird anomaly but I've since used the lens in a variety of situations from half a mile away desert landscapes to closer detail shots in and around the Salton Sea and Brawley and finally a few weeks ago for an extended in the studio fully lit portrait session with ranging from full length shots at around 100mm to tighter head shots in the 150-200mm range, all shot at f/11, and in all of those scenarios the lens performed superbly - sharp in the center and sharp in the corners with good color and contrast. The only shortcomings are that it's f/5.6, which in and of itself is not an issue (but the TC will bring that to f/8) and that in the studio, and with 750 watts of modeling lights, it wasn't always happy to grab focus. That I am certain was the aperture. The 45-100 in the same settings on a different shoot had zero issues with focus.
I don't have the converter so I have not used it with that lens, so you're on your own in terms of testing that, but as for the non TC'd lens, I think you'll be just fine with that. I have put my Sigma 70 on the GFX and it does work and I shot a couple of macro tests but did not test it much in any sort of a portrait situation or test it's autofocus, and it's focus by wire manual focus has always been, shall we say, on the weird side. I put up with it on the Canon because it was such a great performer for a really low price. It's super small and light but I would probably opt for the Canon 85mm 1.4L, which is probably a better portrait lens and has its own IS built in as well. And f/1.4 too.
p.1 #20 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
If I was getting to the point of putting a TC on the 100-200, I would ask some *very* hard questions about why I was packing a GFX instead of just getting a Nikon Z7 and a 100-400.
