I have a 50s that I occasionally use with the Mitakon 65mm. I don’t end up using it very much for two reasons… I don’t like the bulk of the body and I have a hard time focusing the lens wide open, which is where I want to use it.
I’m thinking about getting a 50s ii to solve the bulk issue (somewhat) but I’m wondering about the ability to critically manually focus accurately.
I am also considering the Fuji 55 mm 1.7 in the future and my understanding is that it’ll focus much better on the newer body. Is that true?
So basically what I’m wondering here is, is the upgrade worth it considering I’m looking for a reduction and bulk, potentially better manual focusing, and better AF?
Focus peaking, I think uses contrast. There are lenses with low contrast or low micro contrast that will be harder to use with focus peaking while others will just snap into focus and peak easily. The Mitakon may just be a lens that doesn't have much contrast at f/1.4 and thus focus peaking isn't the best.
AF. The 50s II should be faster, but I have never compared them. It will also have IBIS if you care for that. The AF even if faster will not be fast.
If you want a smaller camera, I don't think the 50sii is the answer, though i haven't compared it to the 50s. It is a camera you take for a purpose, not just something to bring along. Also the AF is not fast, more like adequate but not for action.
I find it ok for manual focus with focus peaking, but for critical focus with very shallow dof I would want to punch in, so it is going to be slow. While I don't have the 50mm f1.7, focus accuracy seems fine with other native Fuji glass and also Pentax 645 glass via the Fringer pro adapter.
Nov 23, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
weezintrumpete wrote:
I have a 50s that I occasionally use with the Mitakon 65mm. I don’t end up using it very much for two reasons… I don’t like the bulk of the body and I have a hard time focusing the lens wide open, which is where I want to use it.
I’m thinking about getting a 50s ii to solve the bulk issue (somewhat) but I’m wondering about the ability to critically manually focus accurately.
I am also considering the Fuji 55 mm 1.7 in the future and my understanding is that it’ll focus much better on the newer body. Is that true?
So basically what I’m wondering here is, is the upgrade worth it considering I’m looking for a reduction and bulk, potentially better manual focusing, and better AF?...Show more →
Having the 50S I suspect you have the same issue I have with that body and MF. It isn't the size of the viewfinder that is the problem--the viewfinder feels large to me--it is the way magnification works--at max magnification the image is a bit blurry no matter how sharp the lens is. I am not sure if this is better with the 50s II because I haven't used that body, but maybe someone else can comment on that.
If you want a smaller body, however, you might look into the 50r. It is significantly smaller and that might get you to carry it more. Otherwise it is pretty similar to the 50s. I kind of wish they would make a 100r with IBIS, but Fuji hasn't made that camera and I doubt they will, so the 50r might improve your experience.
Focus peaking, I think uses contrast. There are lenses with low contrast or low micro contrast that will be harder to use with focus peaking while others will just snap into focus and peak easily. The Mitakon may just be a lens that doesn't have much contrast at f/1.4 and thus focus peaking isn't the best.
AF. The 50s II should be faster, but I have never compared them. It will also have IBIS if you care for that. The AF even if faster will not be fast. ...Show more →
That site should be avoided, seems like simple AI full of errors. Contrary to what it says, the 50S with the EVF, battery, and memory card is a tiny bit heavier than the 50SII. Dimensions are similar except for the thickness due to the "big butt" of the 50S. Size wise, these to cameras could be considered about the same. Personally, I would take the nice built-in grip of the S or SII over the minor size and weight savings of the 50R but that's a personal choice. The major improvement of the SII, IMO, is the new style battery common to most other Fuji cameras and IBIS. They have the same AF. I had the 50S and really liked it. The AF didn't really bother me and I used the GF20-35 (doesn't really need stabe) and the GF45-100 which has its own stabilization. I didn't have any adapted lenses back then and didn't use manual focus much. Personally, I don't like MF much except on lenses that are fully manual. AF lenses don't seem to work well in MF mode, I can't explain why, that is simply my observation.
To me, coming from the 50S, the 50SII wasn't enough of an upgrade. I went to the 100S for very little differential cash. The 100S with better battery, IBIS, and AF is noticeably better. IQ is essentially the same with additional crop-ability. The 100S just feels a little more coherent of a package to me, kind of all grown up. I only wish they kept the control layout and d-pad of the 50S. But they are all bargains and we are blessed with such choices.
weezintrumpete wrote:
I am also considering the Fuji 55 mm 1.7 in the future and my understanding is that it’ll focus much better on the newer body. Is that true?
Regardless of which body, I recommend the 55/1.7. I love my adapted lenses but the native 55 is one of my favorite all around Gfx lens. I hear complaints about slow AF and a little hunting but it wins for me with its IQ. To my eyes, it beautifully threads the needle of sharpness vs. character. It gives you incredible resolution without appearing sterile or clinical. Its like the aperture becomes your dial-in of the look you want. I do realize that is the point of fast aperture lenses but the 55 actually delivers a nice slow gradient between razor thin DOF, super deep, and all in between.
I should have said that with the 50s, I really don’t like the big “butt” of it that makes it somewhat awkward to carry around on a strap casually. So the 50s ii, even if it’s ultimately the same size, seems like it would be a more casual carry. Not sure if that’s true or not.
It sounds like if I want better AF, I should really go for the 100S. But maybe the move is to go 50s and get the 55/1.7.
Regarding the viewfinder - the 50s is nice and large, but never feels that sharp. I saw a review that said while the viewfinder of the 50s ii is technically inferior (lower magnification, etc), it was actually easier for this guy to manually focus on it due to perceived better sharpness or contrast.
To those with the 55/1.7 and the 50s ii (or the 50s for that matter) - how is the af? Is it reliable enough for a family portrait shoot for posed (mostly still) photos? “Action” shots chasing kids around would be a different camera.
I didn't notice any difference in strap carrying the 50S vs. 100S. I believe the 100S and 50Sii use the same EVF. I agree that despite the specs, I found the 100S/50Sii VF to appear to be clearer in use and that could be helpful with a MF lens.
Re: 55 AF, I think it would absolutely be a great choice for portraits, that's a strong point of this lens. That said, if you are wide open in less than great light, it never hurts to quickly verify your focus on any Gfx lens with high value shots. I'm assuming you want the 55/1.7 for its fast aperture. If you don't care about that and want smaller and cheaper, there's always the GF50/3.5 that can be had for 1/3 the price or less. It might be the fastest and most accurately focusing GF lens and is certainly the smallest. IQ is very good, just won't produce the wonderful out of focus DOF or bokeh of the 1.7.
SGinNorcal wrote:
I didn't notice any difference in strap carrying the 50S vs. 100S. I believe the 100S and 50Sii use the same EVF. I agree that despite the specs, I found the 100S/50Sii VF to appear to be clearer in use and that could be helpful with a MF lens.
Re: 55 AF, I think it would absolutely be a great choice for portraits, that's a strong point of this lens. That said, if you are wide open in less than great light, it never hurts to quickly verify your focus on any Gfx lens with high value shots. I'm assuming you want the 55/1.7 for its fast aperture. If you don't care about that and want smaller and cheaper, there's always the GF50/3.5 that can be had for 1/3 the price or less. It might be the fastest and most accurately focusing GF lens and is certainly the smallest. IQ is very good, just won't produce the wonderful out of focus DOF or bokeh of the 1.7....Show more →
Thanks. The 55/1.7 would be used 95% of the time wide open for full body portraits.
I'm curious how that lens would autofocus on the 50S. I'm ok with it not being that fast, but I mostly want it to be accurate, to grab focus on faces reliably.
Interesting that you didn't notice any difference in strap carrying with the 50S vs 100S. That bump always knocks into me and being that the 50SII/100S is just like a bigger DSLR, I thought it would be better. Thanks!
Well I don't have the exact 50S+55mm experience you are looking for but with your intended purpose, I would expect you to be very happy with the 55/1.7.
SGinNorcal wrote:
Well I don't have the exact 50S+55mm experience you are looking for but with your intended purpose, I would expect you to be very happy with the 55/1.7.
Thanks. I think so as well, I'm just a little worried about the AF on the 50S. I've only shot mine with manual focus lenses, and my other work camera is a ZF (which has amazing AF), so I'm a little concerned that I'll be massively disappointed.
What I *really* want is a 65/1.7 AF to give me that 50mm look.
I'd get the GF 63/2.8 to start with. It's small, light weight and super sharp. Sure, not the same shallow DOF as the Mitakon, but it waaaay outperforms it at every aperture and IMO gives more "medium format look" thanks to nice rendering and technical superiority.
The main reason to go from 50S to 50S II would be IBIS. Which is a very good reason.
Edit: I think it's easy to get fooled by comparison numbers, because they often tend to leave out the viewfinder of the 50S. Which makes it seem smaller and ligher. IRL they should be very similar.
^^^ agree ^^^
IBIS and smaller footprint are more important to me. Definitely prefer 50S viewfinder (tilt-able) but not enough to change the direction.
I did not switch from 50S to 50SII, but from 50R. Titlable screen and the ability to shoot hand-held without hesitation has made a big difference for me. IBIS is really helpful for this type of camera/sensor.
