cbass wrote:
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....Show more →
The way I read you, you are saying this lens has a character!
olegkin wrote:
The way I read you, you are saying this lens has a character!
One man's character is another man's aberrations.
Personally, I like what Fuji did because they designed a lens that can be used in many ways keeping the size and price low while achieving high performance. I have no problem stopping down to f/8 with the excellent ISO performance of the GFX. The ISO performance is so good that aperture and shutter speed and desired outcome from the combination is all I worry about.
However, the 32-64 is better optically at the wider apertures and has a wider max aperture. I put what I know about them out there so everyone can make their own choices on what is best for their needs and taste.
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?
---------------------------------------------
BrandonSi wrote:
Agreed.. Not judging one way or the other, but given the skin tones as reference, we're definitely seeing some significant color shift.
IMO, there is nothing wrong with the choices of 20-35 and 32-64 or 35-70. They probably didn't need both the 32-64 and the 35-70 but one higher level and one lower level lens I suppose is fine. I also think that the 45-100 f/4 makes sense for potential portrait shooter. I think where Fuji messed up was the 100-200 f/5.6. If they would have made it 100-200 f/4 for portrait shooters I think it could have worked well, but for landscape shooter I would have liked to see a 60-120 or 70-140 f/5.6 and then a 120-240 or 140-280 f/5.6. Fuji could still make these lenses but I don't know they ever will.
Ideally, I would like to see a 16-32 f/4 with exceptional image quality as a wide angle as well to go even wider than the 20-35. That would give at the highest level something like a four lens set with a 16-32 f/4; 32-64 f/4; 60-120 f/5.6; and 120-250 f/5.6. That would be a very nice set of lenses for those who like zooms for landscapes.
While I'm disappointed in just how much barrel distortion there is inherently in the GF20-35mm it does seem that there's no visible suffering in image quality fully into the far corners of the image and with distortion correction on by default in Capture One, you often forget about how much distortion would be there if left uncorrected, so after finally given a chance to use this lens quite a bit on our recent eastern Sierra excursion, I'd say it's a keeper. The GF100-200, on the other hand, has serious faults that limit its useful range to around 100mm to 160mm-170mm where anything longer than that and at moderate distances - say, 1/8th to 1/4 mile, well, often and not entirely predictably, the image quality falls apart. There's also one specific niche where the GF45-100 suffers greatly while being an otherwise great lens. So it all comes down to knowing your glass and where it shines and perhaps more importantly, where it doesn't.
Steve Spencer wrote:
---------------------------------------------
IMO, there is nothing wrong with the choices of 20-35 and 32-64 or 35-70. They probably didn't need both the 32-64 and the 35-70 but one higher level and one lower level lens I suppose is fine. I also think that the 45-100 f/4 makes sense for potential portrait shooter. I think where Fuji messed up was the 100-200 f/5.6. If they would have made it 100-200 f/4 for portrait shooters I think it could have worked well, but for landscape shooter I would have liked to see a 60-120 or 70-140 f/5.6 and then a 120-240 or 140-280 f/5.6. Fuji could still make these lenses but I don't know they ever will.
Ideally, I would like to see a 16-32 f/4 with exceptional image quality as a wide angle as well to go even wider than the 20-35. That would give at the highest level something like a four lens set with a 16-32 f/4; 32-64 f/4; 60-120 f/5.6; and 120-250 f/5.6. That would be a very nice set of lenses for those who like zooms for landscapes....Show more →
I agree that the GFX wider range is more rational and that they could have aligned the focal length ranges in ways more useful to us landscape folks and perhaps others. (Again, I acknowledge that some landscape folks are quite happy with the system, though every one I know ends up augmenting with one or more non-Fujifilm lenses.)
Let's say that the 20-35 range is useful — I think it is. Let's pair that with the 32-64mm.
I suppose you could bridge the gap between 32-64 (or 35-70) with the 45-100, but that seems like more overlap than necessary with a system that already has zooms with limited focal length ranges. Maybe a 65-130mm would be useful. And with that, how about a 130-260 or something, in a lens that works with a TC.
But even more, I'm not convinced that good lenses with a greater than 2:1 focal length range are impossible on the miniMF format. 2:1 lenses worked fine on film MF systems (I own one of those lenses that I use with a Mirex adapter on my Canon system). The real limit should lie somewhere between what could work on 645 film camera and what works on full-frame cameras. If so, how about stretching things just a little bit:
65-150 seems possible. 150-350 or so should work. Put a TC on that one, and we're talking some very useful range with a set of four lenses: 20-35, 32-64, 65-150, 150-350.
If there are fine 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, and 100-400 lenses for FF (and there are!), this should be possible, especially with the higher system resolution of miniMF systems.
Yet...
I know...
... that I'm probably just yelling at the clouds here. ;-)
I don't expect Fujifilm to do anything like this at this time, and I think they've committed to some (rather opaque) logic for the lenses they are making. I think that even those of you using the GFX system might agree with that.
But, man, if they did — and they stated thinking about these cameras as larger, better-than-FF cameras with the pluses of the smaller systems rather than as smaller MF cameras that wannabe MF (or, as they sometimes claim, "large format!") — they could attract a whole lot of folks who do certain kinds of photography on FF at this point, people like me who really think miniMF is a fine format but for whom the downsides of available lenses are a deal-killer.
It would almost be a repeat of the Sony move to mirrorless that changed the market there so much. Except that this time Fujifilm could be the driving force.
There's no lack of great lenses for the GFX but many of them are just made by Fuji and not too many are zooms. For some reason some people seem averse to adapting lenses. It becomes more of an adventure with some dead end detours along the way, but there are more than enough great lenses - y'know - if you've got the green to spend.
I think one doesn't need all the focal lengths they think they need. I have almost all the GF lenses but after a while you settle down to using a few a lot more than others. And if you miss something from the FF world, you can adapt it, more or less. I have Canon TSE lenses which work very nice. I also have Tamrom 35mm/45mm f1.8, Canon 200mm f2.8, Sigma 135mm f1.8.
Sep 10, 2023 at 08:55 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Peter Figen wrote:
While I'm disappointed in just how much barrel distortion there is inherently in the GF20-35mm it does seem that there's no visible suffering in image quality fully into the far corners of the image and with distortion correction on by default in Capture One, you often forget about how much distortion would be there if left uncorrected, so after finally given a chance to use this lens quite a bit on our recent eastern Sierra excursion, I'd say it's a keeper. The GF100-200, on the other hand, has serious faults that limit its useful range to around 100mm to 160mm-170mm where anything longer than that and at moderate distances - say, 1/8th to 1/4 mile, well, often and not entirely predictably, the image quality falls apart. There's also one specific niche where the GF45-100 suffers greatly while being an otherwise great lens. So it all comes down to knowing your glass and where it shines and perhaps more importantly, where it doesn't. ...Show more →
I agree that the real problem with the zoom lineup for the GFX system is the 100-200 f/5.6 OIS which just has some serious weaknesses. I think this gives Fuji some options, however. In my view the 100-200 f/5.6 ought to be reconceptualized as more of a budget lens. Then they can start over with longer lenses. I do think a two longer lens approach for landscape shooters makes sense. I agree with Dan that a 65-150 that focused on high IQ would be nice and then something like a 150-350 that also focussed on high IQ and could take a 1.4X TC would be a good second lens. These two longer lenses would be a nice boon to landscape shooters. I think they should also make a 100-200 f/4 OIS with much higher quality than the 100-200 f/5.6. So, what I see as the at least partial failure of the 100-200 f/5.6 OIS sets up the possibility for a restructuring of the longer zoom lenses. If they do it right this time, it will really strengthen the system.
Together this would suggest 3 sets of zooms:
Premium landscapes:
20-35 f/4
32-64 f/4
65-150 f/5.6 (excellent image quality even wide open)
150-350 f/5.6 (excellent image quality even wide open and can take a 1.4X TC well).
I don't get this "no overlap" idea at all. First of all, there is no reason to buy overlapping lenses. They were of course not put to the market with the intention of one photographer buying all of them. Most would choose either the 32-64, or the 35-70, or the 45-100, based on your needs.
Yeah, I'd love a 32-100/4, but I would not love the size and price of it, and therefore I would not buy it if it existed.
If you for some reason feel that you cannot live without anything between for example 70 and 100 mm, then you should probably focus more on other things than buying more gear. Because it will most likely not help. There is also always the possibility to crop, or stitch.
Peter Figen wrote:
... The GF100-200, on the other hand, has serious faults that limit its useful range to around 100mm to 160mm-170mm where anything longer than that and at moderate distances - say, 1/8th to 1/4 mile, well, often and not entirely predictably, the image quality falls apart. There's also one specific niche where the GF45-100 suffers greatly while being an otherwise great lens.
I confess I've hardly used the 100-200mm (usually leave it at home or never get it out of the bag). I am surely not a partisan of it, but I wonder if unpredictable behavior at distances of 200-400m partly reflects variation in atmospheric seeing? I'd go outside and fiddle with it, but it's too hot. I'm so wary of this lens at 200mm that I'd take any picture at both f/8 and f/11 and hope for the best.
I believe you somewhere mentioned some particular concern about the 45-100mm, but could you remind me what that niche is? Up close at the long end? In that situation I'd almost always be at f/16 for DOF and live with the diffraction.
bobby350z wrote:
I think one doesn't need all the focal lengths they think they need. I have almost all the GF lenses but after a while you settle down to using a few a lot more than others. And if you miss something from the FF world, you can adapt it, more or less. I have Canon TSE lenses which work very nice. I also have Tamrom 35mm/45mm f1.8, Canon 200mm f2.8, Sigma 135mm f1.8.
The need for various focal lengths is, to some extent, a reflection of one's photographic style. I (and quite a few other photographers I know) rely heavily on longer focal lengths in our landscape photography. Quite a few folks using FF for example, will tell you that the ubiquitous 70-200mm lenses are the ones they use most. I use a 100-400 a lot, especially when working with landscape details and distant subjects and/or those I wish to juxtapose.
BTW, I'm not at all saying that excluding such lenses from your work is a bad thing — it is simply a choice/preference. And it IS a preference for quite a few folks in the target market for the GFX system.
I do understand that, to some extent, I could adapt my 100-400 to a GFX system, but the very fact that I and others consider doing that suggests that it might be in Fujifilm's interest to address this directly with a purpose-built lens that comes close to doing something like what such a lens does. (That would surely attract more of the FF shooters who rely on such lenses to the line-up.)
- - -
One small data point on the 100-200. I don't know if any of you know my friend Charlie Cramer or his photography (if you are a classic landscape sort, there's a good chance you do), but when he first put the 100-200 on his GFX a few years back, he raved about the detail resolution he got from it. (He had recently moved for a larger, higher-resolution system using a Phase One back on a Mamiya body that he had used since transitioning from LF film.)
- - -
On another topic that someone else (not Bobby350z, who I regard as one of the Good Guys) brought up about lens choice... well, since I hide that person as a reminder to not respond to his tirades (which I do read occasionally) , I'll let it go. ;-)
AZSteve wrote:
I confess I've hardly used the 100-200mm (usually leave it at home or never get it out of the bag). I am surely not a partisan of it, but I wonder if unpredictable behavior at distances of 200-400m partly reflects variation in atmospheric seeing? I'd go outside and fiddle with it, but it's too hot. I'm so wary of this lens at 200mm that I'd take any picture at both f/8 and f/11 and hope for the best.
I believe you somewhere mentioned some particular concern about the 45-100mm, but could you remind me what that niche is? Up close at the long end? In that situation I'd almost always be at f/16 for DOF and live with the diffraction.
Steve - Where I ran into issues with the GF45-100 was shooting what was more or less a loosely framed full length image of my friend Kait for her latest CD cover where I was about 15 feet away from her shooting at 85mm and f/11 at ISO100 with studio strobes while on a tripod and, with her face about halfway between the center of the frame and the corner and/or edge. The center of the frame was deadly sharp but her face was just "out" a little bit but not in a way I might expect. Hard to explain but just not super ultra crisp like the center of the frame and something I had never seen at closer or further distances. I was still able to use the images and they were fine on a 12" LP jacket but if I would have made large posters for her shows like I often do, it might have been an issue. Afterwards I set up a test comparing the zoom to the Canon 85mm 1.4 at the same distances and apertures and the Fuji lens in that one setting did not hold up well next to the Canon.
It's hard to say if this is one of those weird instances where you accidentally discover a built-in flaw or weakness that only crops up in a very specific situation or if there is something weird with this lens, but since every other aspect of this lens is exemplary, I don't think so, but anything is possible I suppose.
As for the GF100-200, definitely not heat related, especially when all you have to do is back off on the focal length to under 165-170mm and then it's amazing. These most recent images I shot in the Alabama Hills were all shot at f/11 at around 1/160th - 1/200th on the largest Gitzo Gigantic with an Arca-Swiss Cube and no wind. It WAS hot out though, in the low 90's, so that might be a possible explanation. Shooting head shots in the studio the lens has been just amazing other than the fact it sometimes doesn't want to focus under modeling lights.
I've done comparisons with the Fuji 100-200 at distance against other lenses, and it just wasn't that good at the long end. It wasn't heat shimmer. The outer regions were consistently soft, low contrast, and had purple goop on contrast edges.
My Canon 100-400 II is better in everything except vignetting at 180mm, even outside the frame it was designed for.
johnvanatta wrote:
I've done comparisons with the Fuji 100-200 at distance against other lenses, and it just wasn't that good at the long end. It wasn't heat shimmer. The outer regions were consistently soft, low contrast, and had purple goop on contrast edges.
My Canon 100-400 II is better in everything except vignetting at 180mm, even outside the frame it was designed for.
Have you popped out the rear baffle on the Canon zoom? That just about fixes the hard vignette.
I had 100-200mm for sometime. I was very skeptical of it as on internet everyone says how bad this lens is. To my surprise it was pretty good. Later I upgraded to 250mm f4 so I had to sell it before I did any comparison shots. But now I miss that lens.
Peter Figen wrote:
Steve - Where I ran into issues with the GF45-100 was shooting what was more or less a loosely framed full length image of my friend Kait for her latest CD cover where I was about 15 feet away from her shooting at 85mm and f/11 at ISO100 with studio strobes while on a tripod and, with her face about halfway between the center of the frame and the corner and/or edge. The center of the frame was deadly sharp but her face was just "out" a little bit but not in a way I might expect. Hard to explain but just not super ultra crisp like the center of the frame and something I had never seen at closer or further distances. I was still able to use the images and they were fine on a 12" LP jacket but if I would have made large posters for her shows like I often do, it might have been an issue. Afterwards I set up a test comparing the zoom to the Canon 85mm 1.4 at the same distances and apertures and the Fuji lens in that one setting did not hold up well next to the Canon.
It's hard to say if this is one of those weird instances where you accidentally discover a built-in flaw or weakness that only crops up in a very specific situation or if there is something weird with this lens, but since every other aspect of this lens is exemplary, I don't think so, but anything is possible I suppose.
As for the GF100-200, definitely not heat related, especially when all you have to do is back off on the focal length to under 165-170mm and then it's amazing. These most recent images I shot in the Alabama Hills were all shot at f/11 at around 1/160th - 1/200th on the largest Gitzo Gigantic with an Arca-Swiss Cube and no wind. It WAS hot out though, in the low 90's, so that might be a possible explanation. Shooting head shots in the studio the lens has been just amazing other than the fact it sometimes doesn't want to focus under modeling lights.
Thanks for your detailed reply, maybe I should do some more careful testing. . . One of the most puzzling things here is that f/11 is the great leveler, as they say. My infinity testing with the 100-200mm at 200mm seems to show f/8 a hair sharper over most of the frame than f/11, just what you'd expect from a well-performing lens.
johnvanatta wrote:
Yup! The baffle is a nice trick. No hard vignetting at infinity (getting close to it at 400mm, but still correctable). Only in the corners at MFD
And, if we're honest, this Canon lens (which I use a lot and like on my Canon gear) vignettes a bit more than we might like even on FF.
