If this has has been discussed here before, my apologies, please point me in the correct direction. I am an amateur, do seascapes hand held at f11~f 16, and heavily rely on IBIS. Any experience at different focal lengths? Non scientific, practical experience is OK. I use GFX 100S.
I do not have 32-64mm. I got 35-70 recently and spent a week with it on vacation as pretty much the only lens I used. I did not feel I need to reach for a different lens. I shot portraits, landscapes, close-ups, mostly at f/8. I will have some images later this week. 35-70 wide open did not impress much, but step down a little and it is as sharp as it gets. It is also compact, lightweight and focuses quite close. In my opinion, a used 35-70 is the greatest bargain out there.
This thread makes me think, again, of the odd set of focal lengths for Fujifilm GFX zooms, at least when you consider building a system out of them. For any combination that I can think of you either end up with gaps or larger-than-necessary overlaps, at least if you try to cover the 20mm to 200mm range.
gdanmitchell wrote:
This thread makes me think, again, of the odd set of focal lengths for Fujifilm GFX zooms, at least when you consider building a system out of them. For any combination that I can think of you either end up with gaps or larger-than-necessary overlaps, at least if you try to cover the 20mm to 200mm range.
Thoughts?
There is a weird set of overlaps in their lens lineup. I didn't even know about the 35-70 when I bought the 32-64 but what I've discovered about the 32-64 is that there appear to be no weak areas in it at all. And one of the most impressive attributes of this lens is that not only has it been crazy sharp at every focal length but there is virtually no barrel or pincushion distortion anywhere in the range - very very rare for any zoom. The 20-35 has massive amount of barrel distortion which is correctable, but it's still part of the design and the 45-100 has pincushion throughout the range and is simply not good at around 85mm and fifteen feet away.
Since I have not used the 35-70 there's no way I can comment but the 32-64, being a 35-50mm in 35mm terms equivalent has been a perfect lens for so many images where that focal range is appropriate.
olegkin wrote:
35-70 wide open did not impress much...
At what focal length and focus distance? It's well known that it's soft at ~65-70 mm wide open at short distance (probably intentionally, because it's a beautiful type of softness). But it's really good wide open once you choose a shorter focal length or focus further away than ~1 meter.
I don't have the 32-64 to compare with, but a bunch of primes. The main weakness of the 35-70 IMO is lateral CA at the shorter end. It's not bad, but definitely not as good as the primes. And stopping down doesn't help against LaCA. Overall the performance is really impressive, even when not considering the small size and low price.
I did not like the first batch of pictures I did with this lens. There were a few noticeably soft portraits and flowers, and backlit portraits rendered weird. I actually deleted all of those images, so I don't have a reference anymore. And, evidently, I cannot replicate results
Also, there were other issues on the first day with lens. Camera froze a couple times, and slowed down during shoot, like it did not have enough cpu or something. This did not repeat after the first day. Not sure what that was about. All latest firmware everywhere.
Makten wrote:
At what focal length and focus distance? It's well known that it's soft at ~65-70 mm wide open at short distance (probably intentionally, because it's a beautiful type of softness). But it's really good wide open once you choose a shorter focal length or focus further away than ~1 meter.
I don't have the 32-64 to compare with, but a bunch of primes. The main weakness of the 35-70 IMO is lateral CA at the shorter end. It's not bad, but definitely not as good as the primes. And stopping down doesn't help against LaCA. Overall the performance is really impressive, even when not considering the small size and low price. ...Show more →
Peter Figen wrote:
There is a weird set of overlaps in their lens lineup. I didn't even know about the 35-70 when I bought the 32-64 but what I've discovered about the 32-64 is that there appear to be no weak areas in it at all. And one of the most impressive attributes of this lens is that not only has it been crazy sharp at every focal length but there is virtually no barrel or pincushion distortion anywhere in the range - very very rare for any zoom. The 20-35 has massive amount of barrel distortion which is correctable, but it's still part of the design and the 45-100 has pincushion throughout the range and is simply not good at around 85mm and fifteen feet away. ...Show more →
The 32-64 is the one GFX lens that I spent some time with back when I first looked at the original 50MP cameras. It impressed me quite a bit — as you say, within the confines of its design, there really don't seem to be any weaknesses. At that point my thought was, "once they fill out their lens line-up with a range of lenses of equivalent quality, I'll want this."
Love the compactness and picture quality of the 35-70. I use it for landscape shooting only, and stopping down to F8 it is sharp throughout the focal range. However, its color rendition seems to be not as good (saturated) as the 20-35.
Here is a picture I got from my last month's trip to the Jasper National Park:
GFX50S IIGF35-70mmF4.5-5.6 WR lens70mmf/11.01/30s200 ISO0.0 EV
Cinstance wrote:
Love the compactness and picture quality of the 35-70. I use it for landscape shooting only, and stopping down to F8 it is sharp throughout the focal range. However, its color rendition seems to be not as good (saturated) as the 20-35.
Here is a picture I got from my last month's trip to the Jasper National Park:
I don't know... that image doesn't seem to lack saturation...
I used Velvia profile for this photo. Had I used the 20-35, it would have been even more saturated. The water in the Canadian Rockies is that colorful and what you see in the picture is not that far from what my eyes were seeing.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't know... that image doesn't seem to lack saturation...
I’ve used both, and I found the 32-64 slightly sharper(especially wide open), but not to a degree that matters. The one only significant difference is that the 35-70 suffers a halation-like softening at close focus distances, and the 32-64 doesn’t.
That difference bothered me, so I’m using the 32-64, but if it doesn’t bother you, I suggest the 35-70. It performs well, is compact, and relatively cheap. That’s a rare set of virtues for n GFX!
Cinstance wrote:
I used Velvia profile for this photo. Had I used the 20-35, it would have been even more saturated. The water in the Canadian Rockies is that colorful and what you see in the picture is not that far from what my eyes were seeing.
It is around 7 o'clock in the late afternoon and the sunlight was golden. The white balance is not perfect either I guess. It is a 28km rowing one way to the island, so those two ladies are really tough and probably well tanned. I did dodge the island to give it more pop since it is the center object of the photo.
The 34-64 is f/4 and the 35-70 is f/4.5-f/5.6. At the wider apertures the 32-64 performs better especially in the corners. By f/8 they are pretty much equal and capable of excellent performance. The 35-70 is very compact and light and an excellent travel or hiking lens without giving up any performance if you will be using it at f/8. The 35-70 around 35mm has the flattest plane even when compared to the 30mm prime. The 35-70 is closer focusing but needs to be stopped down to achieve good performance. At MFD and wide open the performance leaves a lot to be desired.
cbass wrote:
At MFD and wide open the performance leaves a lot to be desired.
Unless you actually desire that (lack of) performance, which I happen to do. I think it draws absolutely beautifully at 70/5.6, now that I don't expect it to be clinically sharp.
I'm sure they did this on purpose, because that level of undercorrected spherical aberration is very uncommon in modern lenses.
Pretty shitty image, but I seldom shoot at or near MFD...
