RoamingScott wrote:
Not if you adapt the right lenses. Some will cover, some won't. for the ones that don't you throw it in 3:2 mode which, for me, totally defeats the purpose of using a GFX for multiple reasons.
The 110 is just an 85/1.4ish in full frame terms, similar in practice to the Z 85/1.2 which I think you've shot, right?
What do you think about a Voigtlander 58mm with Kipon GFX adapter? Someone is selling one locally.
If you’re looking for a 135mm equivalent, you’ll need a 170mm-ish lens. Round up to 200mm and there’s some nice portrait lenses out there that you could adapt, like the Nikon 200/2.
I use a Nikon 105/1.4 on my 50R, and it’s excellent. I’ve seen a few sources say the Canon 135/2 is good, as well.
With adapted lenses you have to watch for corner performance… either total vignetting, or poor corner performance. Look for samples and reports from others.
Canon EF and Nikon F lenses also adapt nicely to other systems. If you’re still a Nikon Z shooter, you could use any of these on both systems.
PixiPhotography wrote:
what's their portrait lens? And while at it, what's their 70-200 equivalent?
Most commonly used for portraits: 55 1.7, 80 1.7, and 110 f2.
Most used 3rd party: Mitakon 65 1.4
Not too many do this (maybe because of the price) but the GF 250mm f/4 is also fantastic for portraits.
People generally praise the 110 f2, but personally I like the 80 1.7 more because it allows me to include more of the background and setup a scene. If I want tight, I have the 250 f/4, which is similar to the long end of the 70-200 2.8.
All GFX lenses are fantastic. Your main enemy will be weight and cost
Joseph. wrote:
Most commonly used for portraits: 55 1.7, 80 1.7, and 110 f2.
Most used 3rd party: Mitakon 65 1.4
Not too many do this (maybe because of the price) but the GF 250mm f/4 is also fantastic for portraits.
People generally praise the 110 f2, but personally I like the 80 1.7 more because it allows me to include more of the background and setup a scene. If I want tight, I have the 250 f/4, which is similar to the long end of the 70-200 2.8.
All GFX lenses are fantastic. Your main enemy will be weight and cost
I love the gf 250 for portraits, one of my most used portrait lens and I have a couple to choose from.
here are 2 taken with the 250
I am still a little unclear on adapting Nikon G or Canon EF glass on GFX. Since those are full frame glass, its not using the entire sensor? Does the Fuji go into an automatic crop like Nikon cameras do? Is there a black ring like crop lenses on full frame?
PixiPhotography wrote:
I am still a little unclear on adapting Nikon G or Canon EF glass on GFX. Since those are full frame glass, its not using the entire sensor? Does the Fuji go into an automatic crop like Nikon cameras do? Is there a black ring like crop lenses on full frame?
the ef lenses I use cover the complete sensor, same as the Nikon 200 f2, 105 1.4E, and 58 1.4E.
That 250/4 is a stunning lens but not a practical focal length for general purpose portraiture. It wouldnt be my first choice if I'm just starting to build a portrait kit.
I have the gf 110/2 and it is great. You cant fault it but it never wowed me either.
The lenses that honestly take my breath away are the Sigma 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 with a fringer on the gfx. Extremely sharp with amazing bokeh. The 105 is a beast, the 135 is a lot more holdable. In return you will get shots the 110/2 as good as it is simply cannot match.
I see we're talking about the 250F4: GF1S4198 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr GF1S4036 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr GF1S4026 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr GF1S4815 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr GF1S4600 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr GF1S4546 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
I mainly got it because I didn't see Fuji ever realistically releasing a 135 type lens and found a good deal on a used one. Great optics. Need to take it out some more. The focal length is just very specialized so I need to know I'm going to use it when I go out.
Just for completeness, there is nothing like a 70-200/2.8 for GFX. The GFX system isn't really a DSLR replacement or competitor, it is more of a replacement for the old Hasselblad V system. There are loads of excellent primes, but not much at the long end.
if you like 135mm on full frame. i would get 100-200mm zoom. i have 110mm and 100-200mm (and 35-70, 50, mitakon 65). for studio portraits i like 100-200mm more then 110mm. my ideal focal length for portraits would be around 70mm
Aug 29, 2025 at 02:12 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jportraits wrote:
if you like 135mm on full frame. i would get 100-200mm zoom. i have 110mm and 100-200mm (and 35-70, 50, mitakon 65). for studio portraits i like 100-200mm more then 110mm. my ideal focal length for portraits would be around 70mm
If you like 135mm on FF, there is also the option of adapting lenses as a number of good ones work for portraits. One's I have tried that work well include the Hassy CF 180 f/4, Agenieux 180 f/2.3 APO, and the Nikon F 200 f/2 VR II. I have heard that the Canon 200 f/2.8L, 200 f/2L IS, and 200 f/1.8 all adapt well too. I think the Nikon F mount 180 f/2.8 ED does a decent job at portrait distances and I always wanted to try the Mamiya 645 200 f/2.8 APO, so there are a number of options for adapting.
That said, I think Fuji would do well to develop a GF lens of about 175 to complement the 110 and 250.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Do you mean the F/FE 150 f/2.8? I don't there was a 180 f/2.8, but maybe I missed that one.
Ah, you are right, I was thinking of the Schneider-Kreuznach Tele XENAR 180mm f/2.8 for Rollei, thinking wrongly that it was a Zeiss lens, and therefore would also exist in the Hasselblad lineup, like the 110/2 and 50/2.8.
+1 for the Sigma 105mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.8 with the Fringer EF-GFX adapter (of course not exactly 135 FF equivalent).
Amazing for portraits, the 135 is crazy sharp and the 105 has a bit more of a vintage character (for my eyes at least.)
Perfectly decent AF for still portraits, but both are big and heavy ...especially the 105, which is a monster...but worth it to me.
