Peter Figen wrote:
Not the most ideal day here in L.A. being fairly hazy, but shooting outside the studio across the parking lot, across Jefferson Blvd and down our back alley, this lens appears to be as sharp as any of the other lenses I own, shot at f/5.6, f/8 and f/11 both with and without the 1.4 TC. There might be a very slight detail hit with the converter, but this was by no means any sort of elaborate test, just a first git to know her introduction. Autofocus feels very fast and crisp on the 100 II, and again, have not tried the 100s bodies yet and complicated backgrounds go nicely out of focus on closer subjects shot at or near wide open. A very good start, and five pounds lighter than the Canon. ...Show more →
Thank you, Peter, as always for the useful insights.
If you get a chance to test AF on the 100S that would be of interest to me.
Have to laugh that the weight they report lacks the tripod collar.
In a somewhat cruel twist of fate I have my 500/5.6 but my GFX100S is currently with Imaging By Design getting a full spectrum conversion. I guess I can just play with the switches and knobs on it whilst I wait.
I do wish it had a filter drawer for smaller filters (58mm for example) rather than requiring very expensive 95mm filters.
Peter Figen wrote:
Ah, of course, more Fuji marketing bullshit. They advertise the lens as being 48.5 ounces. Yeah, it's 48.4 ounces without either front or rear cap, without the bayonet on hood and more importantly, without the tripod foot. So, technically they made it in by an RCH, but, once again, disingenuous. The real weight the way most of us are going use the lens is 3lbs. 11.1oz or 59.1 ounces, or 10.7 ounces over their claims in the real world. I mean, who strips the lens down to no caps or mounting foot for a weigh in. Fuji does, that's who. ...Show more →
Yeah, what a dodgy move on their part. The Nikon 500/5.6 weighs 3lb 7.9oz on my scale with caps, hood, and tripod foot while Nikon quotes 3lb 3.2oz.
On the bright side, the foot is AS compatible, and can be removed. Saying this coming from looking at the Canon 200-800 where none of this is the case.
I don't want to hear any more good things about the 500 mm though, as this year's budget went into the 100s with accessories and a couple of other lenses
thrice wrote:
Have to laugh that the weight they report lacks the tripod collar.
It's the same for every single manufacturer - advertised lens weights never include caps, hoods, drop-in filters, or tripod collars (or removable tripod feet). Some of them are so far from reality I think the marketing department fills the lenses with helium before weighing them.
Now that people are getting their hands on the Gf500, how is AF for birds in flight or airplanes against a clean background on the original GFX100?
I know it won’t match today’s mirrorless champs, but I wonder if it gets close to the Canon 400/5.6L with a 5D Mark 2 or 5D Mark3 era AF or an XT-2 with a XF100-400
AlanD wrote:
Now that people are getting their hands on the Gf500, how is AF for birds in flight or airplanes against a clean background on the original GFX100?
I know it won’t match today’s mirrorless champs, but I wonder if it gets close to the Canon 400/5.6L with a 5D Mark 2 or 5D Mark3 era AF or an XT-2 with a XF100-400
I don't know the original GFX 100,but both of my GFX 100s mk1 are focusing the GF 500/5.6 slowly and erratically in poor lighting/low contrast conditions.In daylight focusing is OK.
molson wrote:
It's the same for every single manufacturer - advertised lens weights never include caps, hoods, drop-in filters, or tripod collars (or removable tripod feet). Some of them are so far from reality I think the marketing department fills the lenses with helium before weighing them.
Even in the box the GF 500/5.6 body is separated from the tripod mount.He,he.
Sidebar question on this lens. I see a lot of folks trying to use this lens as an action sports or BIF tool. Obviously it can do it, but my guess is it’s got to be three steps backwards as far as keeper rates compared to current Sony/Canon/Nikon Fx AF options at comparable 400mm or 560mm with converter focals. So my question is, do the extra 50 or so MP under what seems to be less than ideal capture conditions for the GFX bodies make the images noticeably better than contemporary Fx capture in any regard?
People posting images aren’t even getting perched bird’s eyes in focus. There’s a reason Fuji marketing showed “wildlife” in the form of rhinos who weren’t moving
Anyone taking wildlife photography seriously isn’t looking at this lens or system.
RoamingScott wrote:
People posting images aren’t even getting perched bird’s eyes in focus. There’s a reason Fuji marketing showed “wildlife” in the form of rhinos who weren’t moving
Anyone taking wildlife photography seriously isn’t looking at this lens or system.
RoamingScott wrote:
You can get better results for far less than $11,000.
Better, how?
I downloaded the images and looked at them at 100% on a low res monitor. The eyes are critically sharp. In image number 2 the closest eye is critically sharp and the other is out of foucs. A correct priority as the rest of the bird is more aligned with the closest eye.
No one will get good results with the lens til Scott gets one. Likewise the system won't make sense for anything other than landscape until Scott tries it for another application.
alundeb wrote:
Better, how?
I downloaded the images and looked at them at 100% on a low res monitor. The eyes are critically sharp. In image number 2 the closest eye is critically sharp and the other is out of foucs. A correct priority as the rest of the bird is more aligned with the closest eye.
No one will get good results with the lens til Scott gets one. Likewise the system won't make sense for anything other than landscape until Scott tries it for another application.
So far we have 2 owl photos that would have looked as good on a tele at half the price and some out of focus flowers. Still waiting on the photos that make this lens worth the spend.
Of course, any of them would probably look infinitely better if EMBEDDED instead of uploaded to FM as I've said 1000 times, but if you're gonna upload bad quality, I have to assume the output matches.
That people sit around handwriting what I shoot makes me laugh. Rent is free apparently these days.
