highdesertmesa wrote:
The RF 50 and 85 1.2 do have character, though, especially if shooting busy backgrounds at medium distances. They just also happen to be Otus-level sharp by f/2.
That's interesting, never thought of them that way. Care to elaborate what's the character? (I'm asking in good faith; genuinely interested).
In my experience, the 50 is slightly less corrected than the 85, it can give some very controlled flaring, but that's about it. Both can yield slightly busy bokeh, it's the price of sharpness.
There are plenty of examples showing excellent image quality from all the GF lenses mentioned. I have yet to see any of the supposedly “bad” examples. Also, GFX100S and later model's autofocus is excellent and market-leading among other medium format cameras (maybe not anymore, but still...). Calling it bad just because it’s slower than a different type of camera makes zero sense. I feel happy GFX is not the right choice for OP!
olegkin wrote:
There are plenty of examples showing excellent image quality from all the GF lenses mentioned. I have yet to see any of the supposedly “bad” examples. Also, GFX100S and later model's autofocus is excellent and market-leading among other medium format cameras (maybe not anymore, but still...). Calling it bad just because it’s slower than a different type of camera makes zero sense. I feel happy GFX is not the right choice for OP!
Of course there are excellent examples, I can produce them myself as long as I mind the limitations of the lenses. Said limitations shouldn't exist, though, and that's the point.
Don't care about autofocus performance and said as much in my original post, so that's a moot point.
olegkin wrote:
There are plenty of examples showing excellent image quality from all the GF lenses mentioned. I have yet to see any of the supposedly “bad” examples. Also, GFX100S and later model's autofocus is excellent and market-leading among other medium format cameras (maybe not anymore, but still...). Calling it bad just because it’s slower than a different type of camera makes zero sense. I feel happy GFX is not the right choice for OP!
In my opinion, staring at the details of a photo and stressing over minute imperfections is the enemy of creativity. I think we can all get sucked into that to some extent but its worth remembering that the worlds most famous photos are often filled with technical imperfections. Capture beauty, tell a story, evoke a memory. Not saying I accomplish it that much but it remains the goal.
Evection wrote:
I should preface this by mentioning I'm what you'd call a "pixel-peeper".
Large prints are easier than their reputation suggests. I've made and sold them with a Canon 2000D + EF 50/1.8 (back when I was starting out and didn't have any money). 24mp as well, but with dynamic range from hell (forget about ISO above 400) and atrocious optics (that double-gauze design should only ever be used at f/4 and narrower).
I made it work, as long as I was out under the sun. Clients liked it; I didn't. A successful sale is supposed to be a celebration, but honestly, I looked at my work somewhat ashamed. Point is, most clients are not pixel-peepers, they have low standards and large prints are usually looked at from afar (many billboards are really 4-5mp). However, if you care about your work, you stare at it, you have higher requirements. "One's worst critic", etc.
I care about resolution as long as the lenses can fully resolve it (2 out 3 GFX lenses I tested failed that test wide open. The 55 can also resolve it, but only stopped down to 2.8. The 80 is below my current standards, even though it's more than sufficient for a lot of commercial work).
I pixel peeper too and, while entertaining, I do try to remind myself that a sharp image is not necessarily a good image. As I said, if you are comparing 100mp images to 45mp images at 100 per cent it is an apples to oranges comparison because the 100mp image will be a far greater enlargement. Try doing your comparisons with the 100mp image enlarged to 60 per cent versus 45mp at 100 per cent and then see if the Fuji lenses under perform.
SGinNorcal wrote:
In my opinion, staring at the details of a photo and stressing over minute imperfections is the enemy of creativity. I think we can all get sucked into that to some extent but its worth remembering that the worlds most famous photos are often filled with technical imperfections. Capture beauty, tell a story, evoke a memory. Not saying I accomplish it that much but it remains the goal.
Photography has always been heavily edited. It's not a digital thing, it's not like Ansel Adams didn't spend countless hours dodging-and-burning his photos to perfection. Even street photographers have been caught editing their photos (starting from Bresson).
If anything, not obsessing over your pictures is a recent trend -- because digital made them disposable. Understandable if you're a high-volume shooter (weddings, events, etc), but for a low-volume shooter like myself, staring at the pictures is absolutely warranted. I only keep portfolio-worthy photos, and that's 2-3 shots a session, at best. You bet I'll stare at them and pixel-peep.
Sep 04, 2025 at 09:39 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Evection wrote:
RE: Corner performance at f/1.7: Obviously unimportant in portraiture, but as stated, I also do fine art. I often shoot flat planes with little to no internal distances/focus falloff. 1.7 isn't just about bokeh, as far as I'm concerned. When in comes to that, a lot of my pictures are both wide-open and largely in acceptable focus. So yes, I'm very aware of corner sharpness.
Admittedly, I'm not focusing at infinity there, which may explain the difference in performance we observe. But I can vouch that RF 50/1.2, 85/1.2 and 135/1.8 have much better corner performance wide-open than the 55. (Technically, the Canon's do benefit from stopping down, but the improvement is miniscule. 95% of the performance is already achieved at max aperture).
Your last paragraph tells me we're mostly in agreement. Need to test that 120 (somehow missed it). 250 is a bit too narrow for me, though. ...Show more →
It sounds to me like something really important for your type of shooting is a lack of field curvature (i.e., a very flat field of focus). Many lenses have some field curvature and still can be fine lenses and work well for lots of three dimensional targets, but not for the flat planes that you shoot. This is a separate issue from sharpness, contrast, and aberrations. It also often varies by focus distance. I have not heard reports of strong field curvature issues with the GF 55 f/1.7 but I would not be surprised if there was field curvature at at least some focus distances. No lens is perfect in every way. Many very well corrected lenses are blisteringly sharp, have very low aberrations, and a flat field of focus, but then have bokeh in transitions zones that is quite jittery. That is a different flaw. I don't think just because the GF 55 f/1.7 doesn't work for your type of shooting it should be considered a premium lens.
Geoff D F wrote:
I pixel peeper too and, while entertaining, I do try to remind myself that a sharp image is not necessarily a good image. As I said, if you are comparing 100mp images to 45mp images at 100 per cent it is an apples to oranges comparison because the 100mp image will be a far greater enlargement. Try doing your comparisons with the 100mp image enlarged to 60 per cent versus 45mp at 100 per cent and then see if the Fuji lenses under perform.
It should go without saying that 100mp with a mediocre lens will outresolve 45mp with an excellent lens (as long as the pixel-pitch of the former is not too dense, which it isn't). Not a fair comparison; apples to oranges, as you said.
I tried to make it fair by way of relativity -- does the lens utilize the full potential of its respective sensor. GF 55 and 80 don't. All the Canon L primes do. Not only that, they actually outresolve their sensor -- which is evident by the moire in high-frequency detail. How many megapixels they can service is unknown, but it's more than what Canon currently offers.
Pixel-peeping and prints aside, all of our images will be fit to screen at whatever miniscule percent that requires. People will look at them globally. They'll see the edges and whether said edges differ in sharpness from the center. It's corner-to-corner sharpness that counts Most would not zoom to see the additional detail MF offers. As far as consistency goes, FF will win. (That shouldn't be the case, which is why I started the thread in the first place)
Evection wrote:
Photography has always been heavily edited. It's not a digital thing, it's not like Ansel Adams didn't spend countless hours dodging-and-burning his photos to perfection. Even street photographers have been caught editing their photos (starting from Bresson).
If anything, not obsessing over your pictures is a recent trend -- because digital made them disposable. Understandable if you're a high-volume shooter (weddings, events, etc), but for a low-volume shooter like myself, staring at the pictures is absolutely warranted. I only keep portfolio-worthy photos, and that's 2-3 shots a session, at best. You bet I'll stare at them and pixel-peep.
I never said I didn't believe in editing. But I would rather spend my time seeking and composing something good over hours in front of a monitor fixing something that no one will see but me. That is one of the reasons I believe the 55 is such a good lens and absolutely top tier, its doesn't need a bunch of help to look great.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It sounds to me like something really important for your type of shooting is a lack of field curvature (i.e., a very flat field of focus). Many lenses have some field curvature and still can be fine lenses and work well for lots of three dimensional targets, but not for the flat planes that you shoot. This is a separate issue from sharpness, contrast, and aberrations. It also often varies by focus distance. I have not heard reports of strong field curvature issues with the GF 55 f/1.7 but I would not be surprised if there was field curvature at at least some focus distances. No lens is perfect in every way. Many very well corrected lenses are blisteringly sharp, have very low aberrations, and a flat field of focus, but then have bokeh in transitions zones that is quite jittery. That is a different flaw. I don't think just because the GF 55 f/1.7 doesn't work for your type of shooting it should be considered a premium lens. ...Show more →
You're absolutely right that I'm sensitive to field curvature, but I don't think that's my problem with the 55/1.7. It had a rather flat field of focus (slightly dented on the right wide open, but only slightly, and only at max aperture. Pretty negligible, at least at the distances I tried it).
Jittery bokeh is the perennial problem of well corrected lenses, yes. Nikon tried to correct it with the Plena, but it was only a partial success. Honestly, my favourite bokeh is in XF50/1.0, and it's not because of the aperture. Fuji allowed some aberrations there, to smooth it out. It came at the expense of the in-focus areas. Subpar image quality, but I kept it as a specialty lens. You could say it's the one "character" lens I keep.
SGinNorcal wrote:
In my opinion, staring at the details of a photo and stressing over minute imperfections is the enemy of creativity. I think we can all get sucked into that to some extent but its worth remembering that the worlds most famous photos are often filled with technical imperfections. Capture beauty, tell a story, evoke a memory. Not saying I accomplish it that much but it remains the goal.
Sep 05, 2025 at 06:23 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Evection wrote:
You're absolutely right that I'm sensitive to field curvature, but I don't think that's my problem with the 55/1.7. It had a rather flat field of focus (slightly dented on the right wide open, but only slightly, and only at max aperture. Pretty negligible, at least at the distances I tried it).
Jittery bokeh is the perennial problem of well corrected lenses, yes. Nikon tried to correct it with the Plena, but it was only a partial success. Honestly, my favourite bokeh is in XF50/1.0, and it's not because of the aperture. Fuji allowed some aberrations there, to smooth it out. It came at the expense of the in-focus areas. Subpar image quality, but I kept it as a specialty lens. You could say it's the one "character" lens I keep.
I think your problem with the GF system is not that it doesn't have top tier primes, but that it doesn't have the type of top tier primes that you want. It is no secret that the GF system has a lot less lenses available for it than Canon (or Sony or Nikon or even the L mount alliance). Fuji also only makes about 2 or 3 lenses a year for the system and there is a real paucity of 3rd party lenses as well. This means the system cannot cater to all types of shooting.
You put that together with the fact that no lens is going to be perfect and whatever you build will have its weaknesses and Fuji has to decide what it will and will not emphasize in its top tier lenses for the GF system. Fuji has 3 GF lenses with apertures faster than f/2.8. It seems to me these lenses are primarily designed for portraits. They aren't designed for the type of shooting about which you care a lot - flat plane subjects that cover the field and are being shot at maximum aperture. They do have in my view three distinct styles for these three lenses. The GF 110 is relatively well corrected with reduced but not eliminated aberrations. It is the closest to the type of lens you want. The GF 80 is more like the xF 50 f/1 (but not as extreme as that lens) in not correcting fully spherical aberrations which reduces sharpness but also improves the bokeh. The GF 55 is in between these two reducing aberrations more than the GF 80 but not as much as the GF 110. I see it as closer to the 110, however.
You seem to prefer lenses that are very highly corrected. You are particularly a fan of the RF Canon L lenses and particularly the f/1.2 primes in this line. These lenses aren't perfect either. They certainly have some axial CA wide open. They do correct very highly for spherical aberrations, however. I think these lenses are great for some types of shooting and probably suit your flat plane subjects that cover the frame quite well. Personally, I dislike them for portraits, however, because they tradeoff extra sharpness for less pleasing bokeh and I think that is a bad tradeoff for portraits. I do like the highly corrected look for some types of nature shooting, however, but I can get that with slower f/2 primes and that is my preference. I use Sony for my FF 35mm shooting and I feel the same way about their most recent fast GM lenses. I don't think the 85 f/1.4 GM II is an upgrade to their 85 f/1.4 GM original and I am not interested in it. I don't like their 35 f/1.4 GM or the 50 f/1.4 GM, or the 135 f/1.8 GM. I find them all too highly corrected for what I want for portraits and bigger than they need to be for shooting when I want a highly corrected lens.
I think Fuji might build super highly corrected lenses for the GF system but I would expect if they do so for them to be f/2.8 on MF. They would just be a lot easier to build. I also think they won't come any time soon as Fuji has a lot of lenses to make. It seems to me the GF system is a poor match for the type of shooting you want to do. I don't think it is because the GF lenses aren't top tier lenses, however. I think it is because Fuji has designed the top tier fast GF lenses for a very different application than for which you want to use them and they have a poor set of tradeoffs for your type of shooting. Just like the RF Canon L f/1.2 primes (or the newest Sony GM lenses) have a poor set of tradeoffs for my preferences and the way I shoot.
If you think the 55 is "disappointing" on a technical level, the lens is definitely not the problem here. It might have disappointing bokeh if you want the smoothest possible at a bit of distance, but everything else is about as good as a lens ever will get.
Makten wrote:
If you think the 55 is "disappointing" on a technical level, the lens is definitely not the problem here. It might have disappointing bokeh if you want the smoothest possible at a bit of distance, but everything else is about as good as a lens ever will get.
Either you are trolling or doing something wrong.
He is doing something wrong. He is comparing 100mp vs 45mp images both at 100 per cent rather than same size enlargement and saying the 100mp images look worse in the corners.
Adaptors are available for mounting either the Contax 645 120mm F4 Apo-makro-planar or Pentax 645 120/4 macro. Have never shot with the Contax, but it has a stellar reputation, and is quite affordable on the used market. I have had considerable experience with the Pentax, MF version, back when I shot a Pentax 645 film camera. Other than a short focus throw towards infinity, some of the best portraits I ever shot were on that lens.
There is also a 90/2.8 macro for the Pentax 645 Digital, but I don't anything about it.
- the RF system is excellent for action, very solid for portrait, bit underdone for landscape
- the GF system is sort of the other way around - excellent for landscape, very solid for portrait, extremely underdone for action
So I think you could go either way for portrait. No idea about fine art, though it might be that you should explore the pixel shift multishot capabilities there (pretty useless for landscape so I don't use them).
In terms of evaluation, I suggest you use something like FastRawViewer if you want to equalise for things like the default tone curve, which can be quite aggressive for Canon bodies. Gives you a slightly closer look at the actual lens performance.
Top tier primes: I think you're mistaken there, possibly due to some bad samples. The top-tier primes in my experience for the GFX are the 23/4, 55/1.7, 110/2, 120/4 and 250/4 (haven't had the 500 for long enough to tell - so far I'm finding it much harder to use than 400/500mm in EF or RF). NB: I have never tried the 50 so no comments there either way.
Within the top-tier, at least for my personal copies (and the 120 I rented), the 120 is a hair better than the 110 in ultimate image quality if you value the additional micro contrast. Then it's the 110 which I think is a tiny fraction ahead of the 55 and the 250 which I'd rank together. Less useful for you I think but the 23 while excellent brings up the rear of the "top" group for me.
Not sure if you need a tilt-shift - the 30mm T/S was stunning when I tested it but it's not something I'd use enough to justify a purchase. But to your top-tier question, I think it's definitely up there. Haven't tried the 110.
Next tier: Note that the other lenses are too slow for you. Worth noting though if you aren't shooting wide open, then I think the 63/2.8 and 45/2.8 remain quite strong performers though not at the absolute top. Between f/4 (or even f/3.6) to f/5.6 they are excellent and f/8 is not far behind although diffraction begins to be visible.
I couldn't get my head around the 80's field of view in a one week rental and only really used it for one landscape scene where the viewpoint just happened to match up. So I don't really know what it's like wide open but an say that stopped down it is quite a good performer.
RF primes: in comparison, I'd rank the RF 85/1.2 (not DS which I haven't tried) quite possibly up there with the 110 except it is let down by the R5 (II) sensor not getting anywhere near the performance out of it that is capable of. As it is, I found the 50R/110 combination was superior to the R5/85 for image quality (excluding AF of course), particularly in the tonality delivered in natural skin tones. The 100s/100 II are a further step above. But if you are happy with the Canon 45MP output for your usage, then I actually think it's not worth your looking at the 110 - you might as well stick with what you have.
I am also a huge fan of the RF 50/1.2. But there I think there is no real analogue in the GF system. My 55 seems to be a good sample and my personal 100 II/55 combination gives up nothing to my personal R5 II/rented 50/1.2 both wide open (including at 100%), and again you retain the superior tonality of the larger sensor. NB: I think both these combinations are excellent wide open and I think you'd struggle to say one lens was clearly better than the other for portraiture...except for the busy transition zone bokeh of the 55.
Evection wrote:
Corner performance at f/1.7 is mediocre, only gets excellent at 2.8 and narrower. There's also a coma problem -- wouldn't use that lens for nighttime photography.
Frankly corner performance at f/1.7 is not something I've ever spent much time on so can't comment there. I can confirm the coma wide open though, it is fairly evident in nighttime photography with point sources in the outer frame - I don't generally shoot night landscapes though, and if so not wide open, so it hasn't bothered me.
There's a lot to say for medium format (such as GF, Hasselblad etc) for portraiture due to resolution, noise handling and tonal range. Some people really value that 16-bit color over 12 or 14 bit files. So it's not just the lens that matters.
Of course, if full-frame meets your quality standards, then use that.
I don’t know whether or not this is relevant in this case… But in addition to other points mentioned above, but it may be time to remind that...
...comparing 100% crops from two systems with quite different pixel dimensions can be very misleading.
Your Canon R system cannot have more than 45 MP, and if you aren’t using an R5 it may have even smaller pixel dimensions. The GFX system has 100 MP — at a minimum, more than twice as many.
Let’s say that you look closely at 500 x 500 pixel 100% crops from images from both cameras. You’ll be looking at a significantly smaller section of the 100MP images, which is, of course, equivalent to looking at them at a higher magnification. A flaw of any magnitude this is equal on both systems will look worse on the 100MP system… because you are looking more closely at a smaller section of the overall image.
A good and relevant way is to make images from both and produce the kind of output that you are likely to use them for. Will you make 13” x 19” prints? Make a few using whatever workflow you would apply to both source images. Will you just view electronically on the web? Make some images of that type and compare. Do you make really big prints? Again, use your best workflow, optimized for both images as you would with real photographs and produce sample prints in those sizes, or at least produce crops from such images.
Even better… show those test images pairs to someone whose judgment you trust (maybe several such “someone’s”) WITHOUT TELLING THEM ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOURCE IMAGES or what you are trying to find out, and just ask them what they notice about each pair.
Dan
Evection wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't use or care about zooms, so I'm not commenting on their quality here.
Canon RF and Fuji X shooter here. I'm contemplating replacing my RF system with GFX. I don't do action or wildlife and only ever use AF-S anyway, so bad medium format autofocus is not a concern for me. Don't need compact street/travel lenses either as I have my X system for that. When I bring my bulky RF L primes, I only care about image quality, which is why GFX seems like a logical next step. We're talking fine art, portrait and macro here.
So, I rented a GFX 100II with 55/1.7, 80/1.7 and 110/2.0. Those focal lengths suit me, as a starting kit. The test did not go well.
The 80/1.7 is optically subpar to the point I wouldn't even consider it.
The 55/1.7 is a lot better than that, but still disappointing. Corner performance at f/1.7 is mediocre, only gets excellent at 2.8 and narrower. There's also a coma problem -- wouldn't use that lens for nighttime photography.
The 110/2 is the only top-tier lens here. It can replace my RF 85/1.2 in most cases.
Looking at the lens lineup, all the other primes are too slow for my use case. Appreciate they're meant to be smaller and cheaper, but I'm not looking for EDC glass in a medium format system. And here's the thing... the faults I pointed out in the 55 and 80 would be fine in compact glass, but those two are not that. Their heft, price and aperture puts them in the same category as the Canon and Nikon 1.2 glass. They don't live up to it, optically.
Then we come to macro. How is there no 1:1 lens in GFX? (No, I'm not ruining my quality and diffraction limit with extension tubes)....Show more →
Regarding 'color accuracy' and 'depth', and 16-bit being wonderful for portraits (as opposed to 14-bit full frame):
Fuji GFX (all current and historic models) has a 14-bit color Analog-to-Digital converter. The newer cameras interpolate that 14-bit data, and the marketing claim is 16-bit.
I have not seen an analysis of the new H2D2 in this regard. The sensor is the same, but Hasselblad may be using a different A2D pipeline and actually delivering 16-bit color depth.
In terms of accuracy, the better full frame cameras (e.g. Leica M11, Sony A7rV, Canon 5D) achieve a Sensitivity metamerism index (ISO 17321) of 84 (on a scale of 100, higher is better); source: DXOmark.
There are fewer measurements available for full frame cameras, one that I found was the Hasselblad X1D-50c at a SMI of 76.
