p.2 #1 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
johnvanatta wrote:
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.
I mean, if Fuji were going to feature me on their website, I'd pack and shoot with whatever they wanted
p.2 #2 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
johnvanatta wrote:
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?
I’ve heard conflicting things on this. Is the 100-200 really that bad to warrant the weight and fixed nature of the 250? I’ve heard that maybe it’s not as good wide open it does manage to close the gap somewhat stopped down.
---------------------------------------------
Peter Figen wrote:
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
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. ...Show more →
I quite like the Sigma 70mm, it’s charmed me. I only bought it to digitize film but it’s proven to be an excellent performer for portraits too, a great lightweight addition to the 135mm F1.8. But I do kind of want an F1.4 and I’m looking at either the Sigma 85 or the Mitakon 65 for that.
I’d love to see the work you mentioned you shot with the 100-200.
---------------------------------------------
johnvanatta wrote:
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.
Alright, but I don’t own a Z7, I don’t primarily shoot landscapes and I am bringing my Fuji for other purposes as well. Is the TC really that bad? I thought 1.4X TC’s were generally pretty good. I’d be more than happy to use an adapted 100-400 if quality is strong without vignetting. Any suggestions?
p.2 #3 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
I had 100-200mm for a short while. Initially I didn't buy it with all these people saying it is too soft, no good lens. Then I found one used and bought it. It was a very nice lens for the money. Being a zoom, it has flexibility. I have since upgraded to 250mm as everyone was saying WOW. Yes 250mm is very good lens but I have used Canon superteles before which are a notch above in build quality, better AF, faster aperture. 250mm looks big but is relatively light and easy to manage for someone like me. Picture quality difference between two, yes 250mm is better but 100-200mm will do if I was traveling and needed a more flexible solution. I wish Fuji made 3x zoom lenses.
p.2 #4 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
bobby350z wrote:
Picture quality difference between two, yes 250mm is better but 100-200mm will do if I was traveling and needed a more flexible solution. I wish Fuji made 3x zoom lenses.
As an observer but not a user of the system, I cannot offer much on the specifics of lens performance comparisons here. However, as a person who photographs while traveling, I think you are on the right track here.
Given the choice between the (supposedly) Very Sharpest Lens with some random focal length and a slightly less sharp lens that has focal lengths (and perhaps other features) that fit the subjects and circumstances more closely, I would always choose the latter.
This is especially true where a) all of the lenses under consideration are fine lenses, b) subjects and shooting circumstances are likely to be varied and not entirely predictable, and c) the photographer may not be able to consistently optimize all of the factors that might promote sharpness (use of tripod, remote release, etc.).
In general, it is usually better to start with the lens features that are functionally most in line with the subjects at hand and then, if choices among lenses that meet those needs exist, to consider other stuff to distinguish among candidates that meet the functional requirements.
My guess — though there will be exceptions – is that most photographers on a trip like that contemplated by our OP would get more use from a zoom or two, or perhaps from a zoom and one prime.
p.2 #5 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
My thinking is that a lightweight GFX travel kit is going to have to be on the minimalist side. Compared to smaller formats, it's generally going to be larger and heavier, especially at the telephoto end.
The 35-70 is a great start. It's shockingly light for a GFX zoom. I'd want to pair it with something longer. These are the options I would consider:
35-70 + 100-200. Nice coverage of a decently large range.
35-70 + Zeiss 135/2. A little less flexible, but better IQ, more telephoto speed. About the same weight.
35-70 + CV 180/4 (or Leica 135/3.5). Less flexible than the zoom, but even lighter.
On to the TC. I'll add that I haven't used the Fuji 1.4 TC. But I've used plenty of others. They don't work miracles. All they do is optically magnify the lens' output. So they work best with an excellent prime, which has plenty of "optical surplus" to magnify. The 100-200 is already straining at 200mm. Cropping (which is magnifying with the sensor instead) will give about the same result.
-If the plan isn't to use the TC that much, then I would save weight and leave it behind. It's not going to be much better than cropping anyway, and I'm okay with a minimalist kit.
-If the plan *is* to use the TC a lot, then the GFX is a poor kit choice (if lightweight is still a requirement). We've hit the wall on what GFX and telephotos can do without getting heavy. A FF (probably even APS-C) camera will outperform the 100-200 + TC and get a *lot* more reach at the same time.
So if I knew I needed >200mm a lot, I would either abandon the weight requirements and take a Fuji 250, or rethink my decision to use GFX entirely.
Do you know that you want >200mm? It doesn't come cheap in GFX-land
p.2 #6 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
My thinking is that a lightweight GFX travel kit is going to have to be on the minimalist side. -
All depends on the goal of that travel. People take 500/600mm f4 along with 300/400mm f.8 for some safari's. I pack less under wear but make sure I have most lenses.
Smaller formats, take FF kit, but then why not smaller ASP-C, or still smaller 4/3. All depends on your needs/wants.
p.2 #7 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
The 100-200 isn’t the perfect lens. The primes in that range (110, 120) are sharper as is the 250.
However it still performs well. I tried to find a 24x36mm system that was close and couldn’t from the systems I own (Z7, SL2, M11, S1R, A7R3) even with their best primes. So you get more detail than the best of the smaller sensors and not quite as much as the best of the 33x44mm lenses. Things do improve if you stop down.
I do not like the TC on it however. When I do that my Leica 90-280 out resolves the GFX kit. The 90-280 is stunning, admittedly but still the TC difference was noticeable to the point you may as well just crop the non TC image.
I like the 250 but I find it MUCH more unwieldy and way less flexible. I’m more than happy with the 100-200 and print big from files made with it.
I haven’t use the 35-70 because it has no aperture ring and I also have the 32-64 and 45-100. But if it’s optically like the 45-100 it makes sense for travel.
p.2 #8 · If you could pick one lens for landscapes on the GFX, native or adapted...
Assuming I could actually freely choose whatever lens(es) I want, personally I probably would go for 35-70mm plus a dedicated portrait lens. My personal favorite would be the 80/1.7.
But that probably reflects that I would value portraiture over anything else so the best portrait lens possible would be more important for me than having the ultimate lens for landscape or street.
I'm not too much into neither landscape nor street but it is my understanding that for both one usually stops the lens down anyway, so top performance isnt necessarily a priority.
I should probably add that I would also contemplate picking the 30/3.5 instead of the 35-70. A 24mm equiv can still be used for street, even if its unusually wide, and its THE classic focal lenght for wide angle landscape.
