p.85 #1 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
jacobchins wrote:
Has anyone confirmed here or elsewhere whether TCL options for the 100VI work with the 100RF? I would love to convert the lens into a 40mm. Skimming through this thread I see many references but no confirmation since the cameras have shipped.
You mean 40mm eqv?
X100 TLC was never as good as WLC. Even if you get a right adapter, I have my doubts of TLC results being inferior to cropping.
p.85 #2 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
An excellent and detailed review on Lenstip polish site: https://www.optyczne.pl/520.1-Test_aparatu-Test_Fujifilm_GFX100RF.html
The review confirms my opinion, the lens sharpness is quite uniform edge to edge, considering the size and wide angle FOV it's really unique preference, especially performing in x-pan aspect ratio.
p.85 #3 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
An excellent and detailed review on Lenstip polish site: https://www.optyczne.pl/520.1-Test_aparatu-Test_Fujifilm_GFX100RF.html
The review confirms my opinion, the lens sharpness is quite uniform edge to edge, considering the size and wide angle FOV it's really unique preference, especially performing in x-pan aspect ratio.
That page does not work very well with Google Translate but I can see the charts. Easy to agree about the sharpness. However, distortion is sometimes a slight issue for me as C1 does not automatically fully correct it.
One could also argue that 100RF lens is too perfect and too clinical. Should it have more character? To me having a slightly clinical lens is fine as it goes well with the idea of cropping and playing with different aspect ratios. One can always add some character is post
Despite living in very north and dark corner of Europe I have not had major issues with the f/4 lens. However, I find that in extreme cold temperatures shooting reliably at 1/30 sec is not easy. -20-30C has a been a norm for the past two moths. Just telling my experience, not restarting the endless discussion about IBIS.
p.85 #4 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
If I want character there are hundreds of old design lenses for ILCE cameras, or just get RX1RIII. But I don't know any other moderate wide angle setup in this size can provide around 50-70MP resolution edge to edge. All pancake wide lenses fall apart on edges over 24MP, most of them even over 16MP. Not just in terms of sharpness, but many of them suffer some level of field curvature.
p.85 #8 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
People who care about edge to edge sharpness aren't shooting pancakes, and they don't mind shooting something bigger to achieve their goals.
p.85 #9 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
gdanmitchell wrote:
That may have been the case a few decades ago but it is not generically true of pancake lenses today.
Was it even true then? I've used a Canon EF40/2.8 adapted to my Gfx100S, old lens, 100mp. Tiny, cheap, under 5 oz. lens. The edges weren't perfectly sharp but overall, it exceeded expectations and is absolutely usable. Of course if you were going for razor sharp corners you wouldn't pick it. But it doesn't "fall apart".
p.85 #12 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
Can you suggest pancake (20-30mm long) lens in 24-35mm focal length range capable to resolve sharp edges/corners on 60MP FF sensor?
My 27mm f/2.8 Fujifilm pancake resolves quite well on the 40MP APS-C sensor. (We’re in the Fujifilm forum, so not sure of the relevance of the 60MP FF sensor here.)
For fun, I ran off a 40” wide print of a shot I did with the thing on a XT5 and it looks pretty decent.
p.85 #13 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
27 f2.8 is weaker than the new 23 f2.8, which has weaker edges than 23 f2 in x100vi, which is significant weaker than 35 f4 in GFX100RF.
Only lens comes into my mind the Canon 28 f2.8, however Canon doesn't have FF camera with 3.73 µm pixel size sensor, still it'd be my first choice, especially it's also 28mm. AF pancake lens for Sony barely exist, Viltrox 28 4.5 nowhere in optical performance, even barely know any MF pancakes, the new Septon 40 f2 seems an interesting lens.
Gfx100rf has 76mm total depth, lens size is around 26mm length on an ILCE camera. Still 40-45mm pancake lenses like 24G or 24 3.5dn doesn't have high edge resolution.
p.85 #14 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
I've greatly enjoyed this camera in the last six months or so. I'm hard pressed to think of a better option for urban landscape shooters like myself. It's so, so easy to take out and about, happen upon a special scene, and get something special.
I am disappointed in the lack of meaningful firmware updates since release. I am begging fuji to 1. allow us to retain a selected crop after powering off the camera - sometimes I am in a situation where I want to stick with a specific focal length equivalent and 2. implement some sort of in-camera perspective control, a la Leica.
The lack of IBIS has been totally fine—there are times where I wish I could get a slightly shallower DoF, though. But, no camera is perfect.
p.85 #15 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
27 f2.8 is weaker than the new 23 f2.8, which has weaker edges than 23 f2 in x100vi, which is significant weaker than 35 f4 in GFX100RF.
Only lens comes into my mind the Canon 28 f2.8, however Canon doesn't have FF camera with 3.73 µm pixel size sensor, still it'd be my first choice, especially it's also 28mm. AF pancake lens for Sony barely exist, Viltrox 28 4.5 nowhere in optical performance, even barely know any MF pancakes, the new Septon 40 f2 seems an interesting lens.
Gfx100rf has 76mm total depth, lens size is around 26mm length on an ILCE camera. Still 40-45mm pancake lenses like 24G or 24 3.5dn doesn't have high edge resolution....Show more →
You seem to be comparing lenses across formats here. Are you looking for a full frame pancake recommendation in a thread about a fixed lens medium format camera? Are you using FF equivalent FL's or just FL on a Gfx?
p.85 #16 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Steve Spencer wrote:
You do realize with your X100, that you are using a permanent crop mode (that is all the smaller sensor is: a permanent crop mode) and yes it does change the field of view, but the size of the part of the sensor you are using (i.e., crop mode) and focus distance has everything to do with whether you see deformation or not.
I do have the X100 series for years and I have shot countless portraits with it for a photo series on my hometown.
Just for the sake of argument, here are the images I have done with it.
I coul NOT do the same images with the GF100RF. And trust me I would LOVE to say that I could.
But it is just not the same. The deformation on arms, legs and body shapes will be too much.
p.85 #17 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
3BIGMAMAS wrote:
I coul NOT do the same images with the GF100RF. And trust me I would LOVE to say that I could.
But it is just not the same. The deformation on arms, legs and body shapes will be too much.
It's insane that this even needs to be explained, but you're absolutely right. A battle of wits with unarmed combatants in here
p.85 #18 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
Lukacs wrote:
28mm nothing to do with people look. Subject distance matters, in terms of people (subject size also matters) you need at least 2-3m distance minimising distortion. That is the reason 28mm considered environmental portrait focal length, because you can't fill the frame with your subject without distortion.
Look it's as simple as that: I can't use the GF100RF to do the same images as I do with my X100 series.
I would love to say yes but it's just not the case. As a pro portrait photographer using the GFX system on commercial jobs for years and having a X100 as an everyday camera, I always always dreamed of having a X100 equivalent with a GFX sensor. That means a 35mm equivalent fixed lens. This is just not the case.
And I love the GF100RF. And I do have a good work relationship with Fujifilm as well. It is just not a 35mm fixed lens equivalent.
Mar 03, 2026 at 01:28 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.85 #19 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
3BIGMAMAS wrote:
I do have the X100 series for years and I have shot countless portraits with it for a photo series on my hometown.
Just for the sake of argument, here are the images I have done with it.
I coul NOT do the same images with the GF100RF. And trust me I would LOVE to say that I could.
But it is just not the same. The deformation on arms, legs and body shapes will be too much.
Very nice images. I like your shots a lot. I never said that you could get the same shots with a Fuji X100 and a Fuji GFX 100RF. The X100 has a 23mm f/2 lens. the GFX 100RF has a 35mm f/4 lens. That is a big difference in max aperture and that will of course affect the photos. What I am saying is that if you stand back with the GFX 100RF and crop, it is still a 35mm lens and it doesn't have to lead to deformation on arms and legs. It will look like a 35 f/4 lens on FF if you crop to that size and if you shot from the same distance.
Your X100 looks a lot like a 35mm f/3 lens on FF (if it was shot from the same spot), but that is still a lot faster aperture than the Fuji GFX 100 RF can provide. So no you can't get some things with the GFX 100RF that you can get with the X100, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
Mar 03, 2026 at 01:47 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.85 #20 · Fujifilm GFX100RF Discussion and Image Thread
RoamingScott wrote:
It's insane that this even needs to be explained, but you're absolutely right. A battle of wits with unarmed combatants in here
Scott, I think the problem is you often take posts as a battle of wits instead of the opportunity to learn from one another that they are. Perhaps you were trying to be funny, but it comes off as an attempt to put people down--me in this case--and there really isn't any reason for that.
