It could be simply their view of the market, that Gfx owners will pay more. Or they might expect to build more of the XF and be willing to take a little less profit per copy. Especially since competition from Sigma is more likely with the X-mount.
It has been interesting to follow this thread since the lens has made its way into actual hands.
My overall takeaway after seeing the various samples posted here is just as I said pre-release...a lens that really doesn't make a ton of sense on GFX. I'm seeing very little critical focus on subjects that would be no-brainer captures on a capable full frame with an equivalent long tele.
Of course, not all of these photos are being taken with the cream of the crop GFX body, and to that end, I remain puzzled at the investment of such glass for bodies that are clearly outclassed by it.
Overall it seems to be a lens that requires a ton of care from the user to maximize its output, and the process of that can often cost you shots with the intended subject matter these types of lenses are made for.
RoamingScott wrote:
It has been interesting to follow this thread since the lens has made its way into actual hands.
My overall takeaway after seeing the various samples posted here is just as I said pre-release...a lens that really doesn't make a ton of sense on GFX. I'm seeing very little critical focus on subjects that would be no-brainer captures on a capable full frame with an equivalent long tele.
Of course, not all of these photos are being taken with the cream of the crop GFX body, and to that end, I remain puzzled at the investment of such glass for bodies that are clearly outclassed by it.
Overall it seems to be a lens that requires a ton of care from the user to maximize its output, and the process of that can often cost you shots with the intended subject matter these types of lenses are made for....Show more →
It is funny how different our experiences can be!
My normal rig for nature photography is the Sony A1 (sometimes A7R5), Sigma 500mm f5.6, Sony 200-600mm or GM 70-200mm f2.8 II. I have also spent some time shooting my friend's Nikon Z8 rig with his $15K telephoto with built-in teleconverter (nice!). I recently acquired the GF 500mm to use on my GFX 100S II.
I wasn't expecting much on my Fuji rig based upon negative comments on various forums, including this one; but, was, instead, blown-away with the great results I obtained shooting birds and some animals. Eye Focus worked extremely well - even for distant birds. Nearly all my shots were critically sharp when viewed 100/200% on a 5K monitor. Even most of the BIF shots came out sharp - a total surprise (of course, this rig will never be great for BIF with its slow frame rate and/or poor focus performance when the subject is moving toward or away from the camera).
The great thing about the Fuji kit is that I can crop for miles and still end-up with critically sharp shots. 395mm effective becomes something close to 800mm, without messing with teleconverters. The GF 500mm is one sharp lens!
I deleted all my test shots, since I didn't like the backgrounds and/or lighting, but will post some shots on this forum in the next couple of weeks when I can shoot in better conditions.
InFocus2014 wrote:
I deleted all my test shots, since I didn't like the backgrounds and/or lighting, but will post some shots on this forum in the next couple of weeks when I can shoot in better conditions.
I was very clear in saying I'm basing my judgement on the samples posted online so far, and not first hand, because I'm confident now that the 100S isn't up to the job.
I look forward to seeing some shots that make the lens look worth the money, so please do share when you're ready.
