Geoff D F wrote:
I tend to agree. A full GFX system is too big to want to carry around everywhere, so its better to think of it as an adjunct to a smaller complete system. And on that basis perhaps only a couple of speciality lenses are needed. I'm also seeing the attraction of the GFX100RF.
I also agree. I mainly shoot GFX for local portraits, when I can use my roll-around bag, with FF for everything else. I find the GF 55mm f1.7 to be magic for such work, augmented with the GF 110mm f2 and a couple Sigma/Canon EF lenses on the Fringer adapter (I like fast, sharp lenses). The MF aspect-ratio just works better for me for a lot of work such as portraits.
I had great intentions of traveling with my GF 20-35mm f4, but the lighter weight and virtually equal sharpness of my GM 16-35mm f2.8 II on 61mp, along with other lenses in my FF kit, won-out, so I sold this lens. When I was younger, the size and weight didn't matter very much, but at 78, it now does.
I will likely end-up with a GFX100RF at some point in time.
GFX 100S II, GF 55mm f1.7, ISO 80, f1.7, 1/320, Desaturated and toned in post-processing
itai195 wrote:
I think one would have to do an apples to apples comparison with lenses and bodies that match the capabilities you desire and see where you end up.
It seems to be pretty close when you try to achieve equivalent focal lengths.
But yeah the FF zoom options are just more plentiful. There is a much smaller market overall for medium format, and probably less of an appetite for versatile zoom lenses compared to primes.
But Fuji probably should release a standard 3x (35-100-ish) GFX lens eventually.
crazy150 wrote:
Sure, occasionally you want an extreme DOF for effect, but OP seems critical of the sharpness wide open. I'm just curious as to what the subject and style he shoots that would demand such sharpness at 55mm 1.7 and just how soft his photos are.
edit: and any softness I see in your photos are just due to the extreme shallow DOF and the geometry of the focal plane at that focus distance. People forget that field curvature exists.
I didn't realize your post was really directed at the OP. My post was simply to show how extreme the DOF is at 1.7 on the 55mm. I also question the need for corner sharpness at 1.7 but I guess he has a use case. I don't, I'm a big fan of the 55 and feel its strength is in the aperture control that allows a very different looking shot at 1.7 vs. 2.8 vs. 4.0 vs. 8.0. I love the control that provides, dialing in the DOF for the look you want.
Please provide a 1.7 image with the corners in focus. That was my point, after all.
(While you're at it, feel free to show a nighttime cityscape wide open -- disprove my point about the coma).
I had decided not to participate further here, as the thread answered my question and proceeded to veer off-topic, but I do think you're being disingenuous here. (I never disputed center sharpness, so this is a moot point.)
Evection wrote:
Please provide a 1.7 image with the corners in focus. That was my point, after all.
(While you're at it, feel free to show a nighttime cityscape wide open -- disprove my point about the coma).
I had decided not to participate further here, as the thread answered my question and proceeded to veer off-topic, but I do think you're being disingenuous here. (I never disputed center sharpness, so this is a moot point.)
/completely misunderstands how a particular lens renders
/is mad at that lens for not being different in the way he wants
Evection wrote:
Please provide a 1.7 image with the corners in focus. That was my point, after all.
(While you're at it, feel free to show a nighttime cityscape wide open -- disprove my point about the coma).
I had decided not to participate further here, as the thread answered my question and proceeded to veer off-topic, but I do think you're being disingenuous here. (I never disputed center sharpness, so this is a moot point.)
Genuinely curious as to what you are shooting. Any examples? Is it city scapes at night that is your main issue? Are you trying to not have any light trails, shoot handheld or something? I'm genuinely curious as I'm considering this system to replace a FF setup and you've mentioned a potential trade-off and I need to consider if that would be a problem for me.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I didn't realize your post was really directed at the OP. My post was simply to show how extreme the DOF is at 1.7 on the 55mm. I also question the need for corner sharpness at 1.7 but I guess he has a use case. I don't, I'm a big fan of the 55 and feel its strength is in the aperture control that allows a very different looking shot at 1.7 vs. 2.8 vs. 4.0 vs. 8.0. I love the control that provides, dialing in the DOF for the look you want.
Thanks for the info. I don't remember how I got sucked into this conversation, just exploring this system a bit at the moment and was curious as to if OP's observations would apply to my shooting or not.
Evection wrote:
/makes a big deal about a lens' sharpness with selective shallow-DOF shots
/when challenged, proceeds to claim it's not about the sharpness at all
You STARTED this thread bitching about coma...like, did you not know what you were buying at ALL? Did you read or watch a single review? There was nothing to talk about on page 1, but here we are...still...
crazy150 wrote:
Genuinely curious as to what you are shooting. Any examples? Is it city scapes at night that is your main issue? Are you trying to not have any light trails, shoot handheld or something? I'm genuinely curious as I'm considering this system to replace a FF setup and you've mentioned a potential trade-off and I need to consider if that would be a problem for me.
You'll have to wait until tomorrow for examples (not currently at my PC). Generally though, I often arrange fine-art-ish compositions on a flat plane (a floor, a table, sometimes even a wall; or maybe a dead bird and cigarretes on the ground). When the internal distances are surface-level and small enough, even 1.7 MF/1.2 FF can yield a photo that is largely in focus. Which is why I notice and care about corner sharpness wide-open.
The coma is a separate problem, it has to do with my street shooting (which is mostly nighttime). I admit I shoot handheld, but I know what speeds I can reliably handhold (and I do have good technique). The smearing I'm talking about is not motion-blur, it's plain old coma. Would have been the same on a tripod.
RoamingScott wrote:
You STARTED this thread bitching about coma...like, did you not know what you were buying at ALL? Did you read or watch a single review? There was nothing to talk about on page 1, but here we are...still...
I didn't buy anything. Rented the system for 3 days with testing in mind, which is better than relying on reviews. The results surprised me, so I asked here whether I'm missing something/being stupid. The answers confirmed GF is just not for me. I'm fine with that and expressed as much, but good on you for showing just how carefully you read.
RoamingScott wrote:
You STARTED this thread bitching about coma...like, did you not know what you were buying at ALL? Did you read or watch a single review? There was nothing to talk about on page 1, but here we are...still...
Evection wrote:
You'll have to wait until tomorrow for examples (not currently at my PC). Generally though, I often arrange fine-art-ish compositions on a flat plane (a floor, a table, sometimes even a wall; or maybe a dead bird and cigarretes on the ground). When the internal distances are surface-level and small enough, even 1.7 MF/1.2 FF can yield a photo that is largely in focus. Which is why I notice and care about corner sharpness wide-open.
The coma is a separate problem, it has to do with my street shooting (which is mostly nighttime). I admit I shoot handheld, but I know what speeds I can reliably handhold (and I do have good technique). The smearing I'm talking about is not motion-blur, it's plain old coma. Would have been the same on a tripod....Show more →
Okay, honestly I think you just are barking up the wrong tree with the GFX and MF in general. Shooting a subject a couple of meters away hand held wide open on a MF system is not going to yield the best results. Seems like you are going for some kind of effect, so I won't lecture you but just to say it's a hopeless search I think and has nothing to do with the quality of the lenses. The physics of a MF lens for that kind of shooting isn't' going to allow for edge to edge sharpness wide open. The relatively close focus and the inherent field curvature. You can test this yourself...open up the aperture and use manual focus and magnification to see if you can get the corners sharp. Sure, this can be corrected (I think), but that's going to require huge and lots of heavy glass.
It's the same for coma. Due to the larger format, you'd need a lot of glass to correct for coma and the cost would be huge. Basically, the lens you'd want would be 2-3x the cost. You're probably better off with FF or maybe even a crop sensor.
There was a reason why I wasn't going to put any amount of brain power into this thread. I could get 18 days worth of sleep, look at this thread and be like, "yeah, no, I'm not wasting brain power on this." RoamingScott wrote:
You STARTED this thread bitching about coma...like, did you not know what you were buying at ALL? Did you read or watch a single review? There was nothing to talk about on page 1, but here we are...still...
Rand47 wrote:
Wait….. you shoot flat field art? And you thought the 55 was the right choice? That’s a hoot.
Rand
At f/1.7 no less.
In the end it is all a matter of picking the tools you need for what you want to do, and a lot of internet complaining seems to be from people who do not understand their tools. Words like "Good" or "bad" or "top-tier" are entirely meaningless. My "good" may be your "bad". My "good" for making portraits might be my "bad" for landscapes.
I will agree with the OP that when you view sample images at f1.7, the corners are objectively not as sharp as the center an there are some color aberrations down in the corners as well.
You can view these images online from people that have done reviews with the lens.
But it has fantastic sharpness wide open across the frame even when using a very high resolution sensor of 102 MP. What other manufacturer produce this kind of lens to make an apples to apples comparison? Hasselblad has a 55 f2.5 that reviewers have said is "soft" at the corners (cost: $3700). The Phase One 55mm lens doesn't do well either.
Those who think FF lenses are sharper than the GFX lens are probably just looking at lower resolution images.
That being said, I do agree with the others that if you're shooting a still life, you'll want to be stopped down quite a bit. And your viewer isn't going to be looking at the corners of the frame.
I do repro for a living, um, we use f8. Even if you have an extremely well corrected lens, at repro distances, shooting at wide apertures such as f2.8 you better be sure you can achieve 0.01 degree angle parity in all planes from the camera to the artwork. Especially once you get to true macro distances. Otherwise it's nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with DOF. Add 100 megapixels and a good geared head and a well calibrated digital level are simply a must.
The advantages of a 100 megapixel MF camera are resolution in a world where some high end clients are now demanding 600DPI scans rather than the older 300DPI standard, The difference between a 60 megapixel and 100 megapixel camera at 600DPI is an A4 to A3 document (including ruler/color chart) at 600DPI which is significant. The other big difference is the 4:3 crop which is better for flat originals such as documents, manuscripts, etc, it's rare that originals are in the 2:3 format and you end up throwing significant resolution away from the sides with the crop.
