Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
p.1 #1Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Hi all,
I use GFX 100s and GF 80mm and 35-70mm mainly, and I'd like to expand my prime lens a bit more. In cities or indoors, 80mm is too difficult to deal with framing and I am considering getting a GF 45mm or 55mm. I hear a lot of great comments on 55mm, but it is more expensive. Has anyone been in a similar situation torn between the two? Could you give me some perspectives?
Thanks!
I use GFX 100s and GF 80mm and 35-70mm mainly, and I'd like to expand my prime lens a bit more. In cities or indoors, 80mm is too difficult to deal with framing and I am considering getting a GF 45mm or 55mm. I hear a lot of great comments on 55mm, but it is more expensive. Has anyone been in a similar situation torn between the two? Could you give me some perspectives?
Thanks!
Aug 16, 2026 at 08:43 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #2Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
The 55 is special, the 45 is not. That’s really all there is to it.
Aug 16, 2026 at 12:05 PM
p.1 #3Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I had to make the same decision and went with the 45. It's not only because I liked the spacing better with my GF 80.
By every measurement the 55 is a technically better lens, but I personally find lenses that are right at "perfect normal" as boring. Even with photographers whose work i otherwise love, those shots never speak to me. Just that little bit of extra width in a 35mm equivalent and I enjoy it way more.
My advice is to use Flickr, forums, and search engines to find photographers whose style reflects choices you make and look at as many shots from each as you possibly can. There's no right or wrong. There's just the angle that speaks to you more.
By every measurement the 55 is a technically better lens, but I personally find lenses that are right at "perfect normal" as boring. Even with photographers whose work i otherwise love, those shots never speak to me. Just that little bit of extra width in a 35mm equivalent and I enjoy it way more.
My advice is to use Flickr, forums, and search engines to find photographers whose style reflects choices you make and look at as many shots from each as you possibly can. There's no right or wrong. There's just the angle that speaks to you more.
Aug 16, 2026 at 03:35 PM
p.1 #4Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Having both lenses, I feel the opposite is true.
The 55 has shallower DOF, flatter more uniform rendering and is a lot heavier/bulkier.
55 is like the Sigma 40/1.4 on FF, the 45 is like the 35/2 distagon.
RoamingScott wrote:
The 55 is special, the 45 is not. That’s really all there is to it.
The 55 has shallower DOF, flatter more uniform rendering and is a lot heavier/bulkier.
55 is like the Sigma 40/1.4 on FF, the 45 is like the 35/2 distagon.
RoamingScott wrote:
The 55 is special, the 45 is not. That’s really all there is to it.
Aug 16, 2026 at 04:32 PM
p.1 #5Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Kisoohi37 wrote:
Hi all,
I use GFX 100s and GF 80mm and 35-70mm mainly, and I'd like to expand my prime lens a bit more. In cities or indoors, 80mm is too difficult to deal with framing and I am considering getting a GF 45mm or 55mm. I hear a lot of great comments on 55mm, but it is more expensive. Has anyone been in a similar situation torn between the two? Could you give me some perspectives?
Thanks!
For landscapes, you already have the 35-70mm lens. I am not sure what is it that you stand to gain with the GF45 (full-frame equivalent 35mm F2.2).
The 55mm lens (full-frame equivalent 44mm F1.3) is faster than the GF45 by about 1.4 stops. This gives you an opportunity to shoot in low light while keeping the ISO relatively low. The focal length of the GF55mm is "normal"; thus you get a more natural (less distorted) perspective. This can be useful for environmental portraits, even for group portraits in low light.
Here is an example, a photo taken in a library with the GF55mm at f/2 (I cropped the frame from the top - to remove a distraction - the legs of a figure in the picture in the background).
Hi all,
I use GFX 100s and GF 80mm and 35-70mm mainly, and I'd like to expand my prime lens a bit more. In cities or indoors, 80mm is too difficult to deal with framing and I am considering getting a GF 45mm or 55mm. I hear a lot of great comments on 55mm, but it is more expensive. Has anyone been in a similar situation torn between the two? Could you give me some perspectives?
Thanks!
For landscapes, you already have the 35-70mm lens. I am not sure what is it that you stand to gain with the GF45 (full-frame equivalent 35mm F2.2).
The 55mm lens (full-frame equivalent 44mm F1.3) is faster than the GF45 by about 1.4 stops. This gives you an opportunity to shoot in low light while keeping the ISO relatively low. The focal length of the GF55mm is "normal"; thus you get a more natural (less distorted) perspective. This can be useful for environmental portraits, even for group portraits in low light.
Here is an example, a photo taken in a library with the GF55mm at f/2 (I cropped the frame from the top - to remove a distraction - the legs of a figure in the picture in the background).
GFX100S II GF55mmF1.7 R WR lens 55mm f/2.0 1/30s 1000 ISO 0.0 EV
Aug 16, 2026 at 07:11 PM
p.1 #6Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Been using the 55 1.7 for years now:
GF1S5458 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF120272 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF120112 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF120173 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF1S5330 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF1S7395 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF1S7373 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF120042 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF120206 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
GF1S5458 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF120272 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF120112 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF120173 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF1S5330 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF1S7395 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF1S7373 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF120042 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrGF120206 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrAug 17, 2026 at 07:52 AM
p.1 #7Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
The 45 is much smaller, lighter, focuses faster and quieter, and has some great "3D" rendering (edit: I agree with thrice about it being similar to the Zeiss 35/2 Distagon, which says a lot). But the larger aperture of the 55 gives a unique look. However, the ergonomics of the 55 are also very compromized IMO, with the large focusing ring (with almost no damping) covering ALL of the area where you want to put your hand. So if you like me use MF with AF on the thumb button, you will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens. Its AF is also highly erratic and it does stupid hunting every time you want to look at an image on screen, for absolutely no reason (yes, with the latest firmware).
Personally I grab the 50/3.5 when I want something small and faster than the 35-70, and the 55 only if want to shoot with shallow DOF. I see no point in lugging the 55 around for other use, because the weight, size, crappy AF and bad ergonomics really suck. Only you can answer if the nice results are worth it.
I would use the 45 a lot more if it wasn't for the 50/3.5. In fact, the 45 was my only lens for at least a year and I loved it. Haven't felt that about the 55, because of the above reasons.
Edit: If you want examples at some certain distance I could set up a little test between them. The character of both varies wildly with focusing distance and distance from subject to background.
Edited on Aug 17, 2026 at 10:40 AM · View previous versions
Personally I grab the 50/3.5 when I want something small and faster than the 35-70, and the 55 only if want to shoot with shallow DOF. I see no point in lugging the 55 around for other use, because the weight, size, crappy AF and bad ergonomics really suck. Only you can answer if the nice results are worth it.
I would use the 45 a lot more if it wasn't for the 50/3.5. In fact, the 45 was my only lens for at least a year and I loved it. Haven't felt that about the 55, because of the above reasons.
Edit: If you want examples at some certain distance I could set up a little test between them. The character of both varies wildly with focusing distance and distance from subject to background.
Edited on Aug 17, 2026 at 10:40 AM · View previous versions
Aug 17, 2026 at 10:17 AM
p.1 #8Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
All GF lenses are sharp so you don't need to really consider that. I use the 55 quite a bit, but don't own the 45/2.8. I would consider if you want the larger aperture of the 55 enough to take the extra weight. The beauty (IMO) of the 55 is the wide range of useful aperture, I use it from f1.7 to f11 and get good results throughout the range. At 1.7 or f2 is softens just enough to be used for wide portraits without appearing over sharp to my eyes. I've used the 55 indoors with natural lighting and I wouldn't have wanted a stop less light. I also have the 50/3.5 for its size advantage but its kind of boring so don't use it a ton. I may end of swapping it for the 45 to use as a lighter walk about lens when I don't want to lug the 55. The 55 will be with me as long as I have a Gfx.
Aug 17, 2026 at 10:20 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #9Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
thrice wrote:
Having both lenses, I feel the opposite is true.
The 55 has shallower DOF, flatter more uniform rendering and is a lot heavier/bulkier.
55 is like the Sigma 40/1.4 on FF, the 45 is like the 35/2 distagon.
From my point of the view, the 45 does nothing a great full frame lens can't do. The 45 is bigger than than it has any right or need to be.
The 55 is in its own league with the looks it can pull off. Yeah, it's clunky and wide but who cares once you look at the images.
Having both lenses, I feel the opposite is true.
The 55 has shallower DOF, flatter more uniform rendering and is a lot heavier/bulkier.
55 is like the Sigma 40/1.4 on FF, the 45 is like the 35/2 distagon.
RoamingScott wrote
The 55 is special, the 45 is not. That’s really all there is to it.From my point of the view, the 45 does nothing a great full frame lens can't do. The 45 is bigger than than it has any right or need to be.
The 55 is in its own league with the looks it can pull off. Yeah, it's clunky and wide but who cares once you look at the images.
Aug 17, 2026 at 10:27 AM
p.1 #10Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Makten wrote:
The 45 is much smaller, lighter, focuses faster and quieter, and has some great "3D" rendering. But the larger aperture of the 55 gives a unique look. However, the ergonomics of the 55 are also very compromized IMO, with the large focusing ring (with almost no damping) covering ALL of the area where you want to put your hand. So if you like me use MF with AF on the thumb button, you will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens. Its AF is also highly erratic and it does stupid hunting every time you want to...Show more →
Lately, I tend to use AF-C together with eye detection on the GFX100S II, and it seems to be working reasonably well with the GF55mm as well as with the GF500mm. The AF performance can be very different between the different GFX bodies - this somewhat complicates the consideration, as the users' experience can be expected to be inconsistent.
I know what you mean by "will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens" - this happened to me, and I developed a habit of supporting the lens with the palm of my left hand extended under the lens so the tips of the fingers are touching the lens hood, rather than the lens body (the right hand is in a thick soft cotton wrist strap and it grips the body securely).
The wide range of FL is covered by the GF20-35mm lens in my lens kit; thus, I don't see a need for the GF45mm. The GF55mm lens is certainly useful to me for indoors and environmental portraits.
The 45 is much smaller, lighter, focuses faster and quieter, and has some great "3D" rendering. But the larger aperture of the 55 gives a unique look. However, the ergonomics of the 55 are also very compromized IMO, with the large focusing ring (with almost no damping) covering ALL of the area where you want to put your hand. So if you like me use MF with AF on the thumb button, you will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens. Its AF is also highly erratic and it does stupid hunting every time you want to...Show more →
Lately, I tend to use AF-C together with eye detection on the GFX100S II, and it seems to be working reasonably well with the GF55mm as well as with the GF500mm. The AF performance can be very different between the different GFX bodies - this somewhat complicates the consideration, as the users' experience can be expected to be inconsistent.
I know what you mean by "will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens" - this happened to me, and I developed a habit of supporting the lens with the palm of my left hand extended under the lens so the tips of the fingers are touching the lens hood, rather than the lens body (the right hand is in a thick soft cotton wrist strap and it grips the body securely).
The wide range of FL is covered by the GF20-35mm lens in my lens kit; thus, I don't see a need for the GF45mm. The GF55mm lens is certainly useful to me for indoors and environmental portraits.
Aug 17, 2026 at 10:48 AM
|
p.1 #11Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
ruthenium wrote:
Personally I grab the 50/3.5 when I want something small and faster than the 35-70, and the 55 only if want to shoot with shallow DOF. I see no point in lugging the 55 around for other use, because the weight, size, crappy AF and bad ergonomics really suck. Only you can answer if the nice results are worth it.
I would use the 45 a lot more if it wasn't for the 50/3.5. In fact, the 45 was my only lens for at least a year and I loved it. Haven't felt that about the 55, because of the above reasons.Lately, I tend to use AF-C together with eye detection on the GFX100S II, and it seems to be working reasonably well with the GF55mm as well as with the GF500mm. The AF performance can be very different between the different GFX bodies - this somewhat complicates the consideration, as the users' experience can be expected to be inconsistent.
I know what you mean by "will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens" - this happened to me, and I developed a habit of supporting the lens with the palm of my left hand extended under the lens...Show more →
Well, it only shows that we all want different things. :-) I'm happy with the 35-70 for the wide end. I do have the 30/3.5 too, but it's too wide most of the time and is almost never used.
45 is still somewhat wide to me, and very apparently wider than the 55. So they are not filling the same purposes. The 45 is also very much smaller and still a stop faster, than the 20-35.
The only reason I seldom use the 45 is that the 50/3.5 is even smaller, and therefore nicer to use. But now and then I pick the 45 and get surprised by how incredibly good it is. I actually prefer the rendering to all of the other lenses with similar focal lengths that I have or have tried.
Edit: Or, that's not entirely true. I often say the 50 has the nicest rendering, and it depends on what I want to shoot. From a pure bokeh perspective, the 50 is "better" (smoother), but the 45 gives stronger "3D" and has somewhat lower contrast in the bokeh. Clearer separation.
Makten wrote
The 45 is much smaller, lighter, focuses faster and quieter, and has some great "3D" rendering. But the larger aperture of the 55 gives a unique look. However, the ergonomics of the 55 are also very compromized IMO, with the large focusing ring (with almost no damping) covering ALL of the area where you want to put your hand. So if you like me use MF with AF on the thumb button, you will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens. Its AF is also highly erratic and it does stupid hunting every time you want to look at an image on screen, for absolutely no reason (yes, with the latest firmware).Personally I grab the 50/3.5 when I want something small and faster than the 35-70, and the 55 only if want to shoot with shallow DOF. I see no point in lugging the 55 around for other use, because the weight, size, crappy AF and bad ergonomics really suck. Only you can answer if the nice results are worth it.
I would use the 45 a lot more if it wasn't for the 50/3.5. In fact, the 45 was my only lens for at least a year and I loved it. Haven't felt that about the 55, because of the above reasons.
I know what you mean by "will throw everything out of focus by just holding the lens" - this happened to me, and I developed a habit of supporting the lens with the palm of my left hand extended under the lens...Show more →
Well, it only shows that we all want different things. :-) I'm happy with the 35-70 for the wide end. I do have the 30/3.5 too, but it's too wide most of the time and is almost never used.
45 is still somewhat wide to me, and very apparently wider than the 55. So they are not filling the same purposes. The 45 is also very much smaller and still a stop faster, than the 20-35.
The only reason I seldom use the 45 is that the 50/3.5 is even smaller, and therefore nicer to use. But now and then I pick the 45 and get surprised by how incredibly good it is. I actually prefer the rendering to all of the other lenses with similar focal lengths that I have or have tried.
Edit: Or, that's not entirely true. I often say the 50 has the nicest rendering, and it depends on what I want to shoot. From a pure bokeh perspective, the 50 is "better" (smoother), but the 45 gives stronger "3D" and has somewhat lower contrast in the bokeh. Clearer separation.
Aug 17, 2026 at 01:26 PM
p.1 #12Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
dimension and weight of these two lenses are very close to what OP has; it should be clear whether 55mm is too big/heavy:
45mm: 3.3 x 3.5" / 84 x 88 mm, 1.1 lb / 490 g
35-70mm: 3.3 x 2.9" / 84.9 x 73.9 mm, 15.5 oz / 440 g
55mm: 3.7 x 3.9" / 94.7 x 99.3 mm, 1.7 lb / 780 g
80mm: 3.7 x 3.9" / 94.7 x 99.2 mm, 1.7 lb / 795 g
My 2 cents: 55mm may replace 80mm; 45mm needs to work together with 80mm; so their cost is similar.
I played with 45mm for a few minutes in a store earlier this month and wish it smaller/lighter for what it is.
45mm: 3.3 x 3.5" / 84 x 88 mm, 1.1 lb / 490 g
35-70mm: 3.3 x 2.9" / 84.9 x 73.9 mm, 15.5 oz / 440 g
55mm: 3.7 x 3.9" / 94.7 x 99.3 mm, 1.7 lb / 780 g
80mm: 3.7 x 3.9" / 94.7 x 99.2 mm, 1.7 lb / 795 g
My 2 cents: 55mm may replace 80mm; 45mm needs to work together with 80mm; so their cost is similar.
I played with 45mm for a few minutes in a store earlier this month and wish it smaller/lighter for what it is.
Aug 18, 2026 at 12:00 PM
p.1 #13Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I agree that the 55 could replace the 80, but the 80 is more special IMO. That lens has a rendering that is truly unique and I like it much, much more than the 55. Too bad I hate the focal length, so I still have both. 
-------
The 45 also has a special rendering that I don't find in the 55. I think I'll have to start using it more, again.
-------
The 45 also has a special rendering that I don't find in the 55. I think I'll have to start using it more, again.
GFX50S II Fujifilm Fujinon GF45mm F2.8 R WR lens 45mm f/2.8 1/8s 640 ISO +0.3 EV
Aug 18, 2026 at 01:28 PM
p.1 #14Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I honestly just call the 80 a "long 50." I mained that thing for a few months...I think before I got the 55...and then the 20-35. For portrait and studio use you honestly don't need more than the 80 depending on use case and working distances.
Makten wrote:
I agree that the 55 could replace the 80, but the 80 is more special IMO. That lens has a rendering that is truly unique and I like it much, much more than the 55. Too bad I hate the focal length, so I still have both.
-------
The 45 also has a special rendering that I don't find in the 55. I think I'll have to start using it more, again.
Makten wrote:
I agree that the 55 could replace the 80, but the 80 is more special IMO. That lens has a rendering that is truly unique and I like it much, much more than the 55. Too bad I hate the focal length, so I still have both.
-------
The 45 also has a special rendering that I don't find in the 55. I think I'll have to start using it more, again.
Aug 18, 2026 at 02:21 PM
p.1 #15Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Makten wrote:
I agree that the 55 could replace the 80, but the 80 is more special IMO. That lens has a rendering that is truly unique and I like it much, much more than the 55. Too bad I hate the focal length, so I still have both.
-------
The 45 also has a special rendering that I don't find in the 55. I think I'll have to start using it more, again.
You should post this photo in the "which lens has the most 3D POP" thread.
I agree that the 55 could replace the 80, but the 80 is more special IMO. That lens has a rendering that is truly unique and I like it much, much more than the 55. Too bad I hate the focal length, so I still have both.
-------
The 45 also has a special rendering that I don't find in the 55. I think I'll have to start using it more, again.
You should post this photo in the "which lens has the most 3D POP" thread.
Aug 18, 2026 at 02:29 PM
p.1 #16Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
JadedWriter wrote:
I honestly just call the 80 a "long 50." I mained that thing for a few months...I think before I got the 55...and then the 20-35. For portrait and studio use you honestly don't need more than the 80 depending on use case and working distances.
Makten wrote
I agree that the 55 could replace the 80, but the 80 is more special IMO. That lens has a rendering that is truly unique and I like it much, much more than the 55. Too bad I hate the focal length, so I still have both. -------
The 45 also has a special rendering that I don't find in the 55. I think I'll have to start using it more, again.
I don’t do portraits or shoot in a studio, and to me the 80 is always too long. I don't think I've used it even once without whishing it was shorter.
The 55 mm focal length is perfect for most of what I do though. I just dislike the size, weight and AF (which are all identically bad on the 80).
Aug 18, 2026 at 03:59 PM
p.1 #17Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Travel/EDC (GF30, GF45, GF50, GF35-70, GF32-64) versus specialized full-length portrait lenses (GF55, GF80) versus the forgotten everyday lens, the GF63. All of them are excellent. I have been fortunate enough to answer "why not all of them, used" to the same question you raised.
I am going to sell the GF80, and I do not have the GF63 yet (I hope Fujifilm will release a better LM version of it).
I photograph a great many portraits, and I have used the GF55 for that work almost exclusively for the past few years. The GF50 and GF35-70 are my most used everyday lenses. I take the others out for a walk when I feel like it.
I am going to sell the GF80, and I do not have the GF63 yet (I hope Fujifilm will release a better LM version of it).
I photograph a great many portraits, and I have used the GF55 for that work almost exclusively for the past few years. The GF50 and GF35-70 are my most used everyday lenses. I take the others out for a walk when I feel like it.
Aug 18, 2026 at 04:45 PM
p.1 #18Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I have this thing where I wish Hasselblad had something like the 55mm f1.7 in their lineup and that Fuji had something like the 38v and 90v in their lineup.
Aug 19, 2026 at 08:31 AM
p.1 #19Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
selahsean wrote:
I have this thing where I wish Hasselblad had something like the 55mm f1.7 in their lineup and that Fuji had something like the 38v and 90v in their lineup.
I did not find anything worthy yet in HB line except its ability to focus well in af-c and with face detect. For me this is priceless. But it focuses on the wrong eye most of the time, and there is no way to point it in the right direction, so too open apertures are useless. They should just made it 5.6/55v or something. Fujifilm has both 38 (gf30, ~gf45, gf32-64, gf20-35, gf35-70) and 90 (~gf63, gf80, gf110, gf45-100) covered with several different lenses. But of course Fujifilm glass is bigger.
I have this thing where I wish Hasselblad had something like the 55mm f1.7 in their lineup and that Fuji had something like the 38v and 90v in their lineup.
I did not find anything worthy yet in HB line except its ability to focus well in af-c and with face detect. For me this is priceless. But it focuses on the wrong eye most of the time, and there is no way to point it in the right direction, so too open apertures are useless. They should just made it 5.6/55v or something. Fujifilm has both 38 (gf30, ~gf45, gf32-64, gf20-35, gf35-70) and 90 (~gf63, gf80, gf110, gf45-100) covered with several different lenses. But of course Fujifilm glass is bigger.
Aug 19, 2026 at 01:13 PM
p.1 #20Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I was about to say that you probably can't make an f/1.7 lens with a leaf shutter, but then I remembered that HBL at least has an 80/1.9. So they should be able to go faster than f/2.5, but it would likely be expeeeeensive.
I still wish that Voigtländer or Zeiss would do a few old school, manual focus GF lenses with ~f/2 speed to keep them relatively small. And I don't want perfect performance, just nice character and great ergonomics. Manual focus with AF lenses is just awful.
I still wish that Voigtländer or Zeiss would do a few old school, manual focus GF lenses with ~f/2 speed to keep them relatively small. And I don't want perfect performance, just nice character and great ergonomics. Manual focus with AF lenses is just awful.
Aug 19, 2026 at 01:21 PM