Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
p.2 #1Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.
Makten wrote:
-------
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).
Makten wrote:
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.
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 19, 2026 at 01:39 PM
p.2 #2Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
JadedWriter wrote:
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.
-------
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).
gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.
Makten wrote
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.
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).
gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.
Aug 19, 2026 at 01:54 PM
p.2 #3Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
olegkin wrote:
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.
Yeah for me the main draw of the 38v is it's size. In terms of IQ I think it's fine I consider it in the same league as the GF 45mm optically. The 90v has a very nice rendering and is much less bulky and at better focal length than the GF80 which already has GF110 as a portrait machine. The 80 doesn't make a lot of sense to me in the lineup sandwiched in between the 55 and the 110. The 38v and 90v and maybe throw in the XCD 65mm would be a very nice kit. For Fuji I end up with the 20-35 / 55 / ? I haven't figured out that last lens. The 80 not a great FOV imo. The 110 is awesome but big and heavy and I wouldn't use that focal length nearly as much. Have thought about the 45-100 and the 250 as well...
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.Yeah for me the main draw of the 38v is it's size. In terms of IQ I think it's fine I consider it in the same league as the GF 45mm optically. The 90v has a very nice rendering and is much less bulky and at better focal length than the GF80 which already has GF110 as a portrait machine. The 80 doesn't make a lot of sense to me in the lineup sandwiched in between the 55 and the 110. The 38v and 90v and maybe throw in the XCD 65mm would be a very nice kit. For Fuji I end up with the 20-35 / 55 / ? I haven't figured out that last lens. The 80 not a great FOV imo. The 110 is awesome but big and heavy and I wouldn't use that focal length nearly as much. Have thought about the 45-100 and the 250 as well...
Aug 19, 2026 at 02:21 PM
p.2 #4Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
olegkin wrote:
-------
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.
Not exactly, but close. He'd need a ~35/2.8 for equivalence. IMO the difference between 30 and 35 is pretty darn big if you like one over the other. I often use the 35-70 @ 35, but I think the 30/3.5 is too wide almost every time I use it.
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.
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).
Not exactly, but close. He'd need a ~35/2.8 for equivalence. IMO the difference between 30 and 35 is pretty darn big if you like one over the other. I often use the 35-70 @ 35, but I think the 30/3.5 is too wide almost every time I use it.
Aug 19, 2026 at 02:27 PM
p.2 #5Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Maybe back to topic... The 45 won't do this.
GFX50S II GF55mmF1.7 R WR lens 55mm f/1.7 1/200s 100 ISO +0.3 EV
Aug 19, 2026 at 02:37 PM
p.2 #6Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.
olegkin wrote:
-------
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.
olegkin wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.
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 19, 2026 at 02:42 PM
p.2 #7Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
JadedWriter wrote:
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.
-------
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.
Yes, GF35/1.7 or 2 would be a great companion to the 55. Plus a fast prime in between the 110 and 250. And an Astro fast prime. That's not too much to ask is it?
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.
olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.
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).
Yes, GF35/1.7 or 2 would be a great companion to the 55. Plus a fast prime in between the 110 and 250. And an Astro fast prime. That's not too much to ask is it?
Aug 19, 2026 at 02:59 PM
p.2 #8Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Yeah I want a 138 1.8 equivalent, but it'd probably be a bazooka.
SGinNorcal wrote:
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.Yes, GF35/1.7 or 2 would be a great companion to the 55. Plus a fast prime in between the 110 and 250. And an Astro fast prime. That's not too much to ask is it?
SGinNorcal wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.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 19, 2026 at 03:01 PM
p.2 #9Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
JadedWriter wrote:
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.
-------
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.
But then you're not equivalent to the 18/1.4 that you said you wanted. Not that f/3.5 gives you that, but you don't need faster than f/2.8 if f/1.4 is fine on APS-C.
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.
olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.
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).
But then you're not equivalent to the 18/1.4 that you said you wanted. Not that f/3.5 gives you that, but you don't need faster than f/2.8 if f/1.4 is fine on APS-C.
Aug 19, 2026 at 03:51 PM
p.2 #10Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Makten wrote:
-------
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.Not exactly, but close. He'd need a ~35/2.8 for equivalence. IMO the difference between 30 and 35 is pretty darn big if you like one over the other. I often use the 35-70 @ 35, but I think the 30/3.5 is too wide almost every time I use it.
I use the GF30 for portraits. And since I almost never photograph with GF55 wide open, I just got the GF 32-64mm so I can cover portrait photography with a single lens. I like being able to reach 64mm, but it also seems to focus much faster and more confidently. Hasselblad still does it better, though, so it is a clash of titans.
olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.
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).
I use the GF30 for portraits. And since I almost never photograph with GF55 wide open, I just got the GF 32-64mm so I can cover portrait photography with a single lens. I like being able to reach 64mm, but it also seems to focus much faster and more confidently. Hasselblad still does it better, though, so it is a clash of titans.
Aug 19, 2026 at 03:55 PM
|
p.2 #11Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
SGinNorcal wrote:
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.Yes, GF35/1.7 or 2 would be a great companion to the 55. Plus a fast prime in between the 110 and 250. And an Astro fast prime. That's not too much to ask is it?
You already have that with aps-c cameras. And with full frame cameras. Why in the world do you need that with medium format? To complain that lens was too big, left it home?
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.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).
You already have that with aps-c cameras. And with full frame cameras. Why in the world do you need that with medium format? To complain that lens was too big, left it home?
Aug 19, 2026 at 03:57 PM
p.2 #12Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
olegkin wrote:
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.Yes, GF35/1.7 or 2 would be a great companion to the 55. Plus a fast prime in between the 110 and 250. And an Astro fast prime. That's not too much to ask is it?You already have that with aps-c cameras. And with full frame cameras. Why in the world do you need that with medium format? To complain that lens was too big, left it home?
So you choose your format based on the focal length you want to shoot? I would like to have full coverage in any format I choose. Why in the world do you have a Gfx if you see no reason to have medium format? I have the Xf18/1.4 and love it. I just want its equivalent in Gfx.
Edited on Aug 19, 2026 at 06:04 PM · View previous versions
SGinNorcal wrote
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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).
So you choose your format based on the focal length you want to shoot? I would like to have full coverage in any format I choose. Why in the world do you have a Gfx if you see no reason to have medium format? I have the Xf18/1.4 and love it. I just want its equivalent in Gfx.
Edited on Aug 19, 2026 at 06:04 PM · View previous versions
Aug 19, 2026 at 05:38 PM
p.2 #13Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I want a fast aperture lens in that 28mm FX for medium format. I do a lot of indoor work and indoors F4, just ain't a great starting point. I do...a lot on GFX, probably more than I should, but I like working with the stuff so brute force it.
Makten wrote:
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.But then you're not equivalent to the 18/1.4 that you said you wanted. Not that f/3.5 gives you that, but you don't need faster than f/2.8 if f/1.4 is fine on APS-C.
Makten wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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.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 19, 2026 at 05:53 PM
p.2 #14Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
JadedWriter wrote:
I want a fast aperture lens in that 28mm FX for medium format. I do a lot of indoor work and indoors F4, just ain't a great starting point. I do...a lot on GFX, probably more than I should, but I like working with the stuff so brute force it.
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).gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.But then you're not equivalent to the 18/1.4 that you said you wanted. Not that f/3.5 gives you that, but you don't need faster than f/2.8 if f/1.4 is fine on APS-C.
AI did a napkin math and came up with GF 35mm f/1.4 that would be about:
Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
I want a fast aperture lens in that 28mm FX for medium format. I do a lot of indoor work and indoors F4, just ain't a great starting point. I do...a lot on GFX, probably more than I should, but I like working with the stuff so brute force it.
Makten wrote
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Makten wrote
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).
AI did a napkin math and came up with GF 35mm f/1.4 that would be about:
Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
Aug 19, 2026 at 06:29 PM
p.2 #15Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
SGinNorcal wrote:
gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.Yes, GF35/1.7 or 2 would be a great companion to the 55. Plus a fast prime in between the 110 and 250. And an Astro fast prime. That's not too much to ask is it?You already have that with aps-c cameras. And with full frame cameras. Why in the world do you need that with medium format? To complain that lens was too big, left it home?So you choose your format based on the focal length you want to shoot? I would like to have full coverage in any format I choose. Why in the world do you have a Gfx if you see no reason to have medium format? I have the Xf18/1.4 and love it. I just want its equivalent in Gfx.
And I agree with you, but the damn laws of physics are the same for all of us. What you "want" is absolutely not practical. I personally could not care less about bokeh, or night photography. Top notch compact f/2.8 or even f/4 lenses that focus quickly would be perfect for me.
olegkin wrote
SGinNorcal wrote
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.And I agree with you, but the damn laws of physics are the same for all of us. What you "want" is absolutely not practical. I personally could not care less about bokeh, or night photography. Top notch compact f/2.8 or even f/4 lenses that focus quickly would be perfect for me.
Aug 19, 2026 at 06:41 PM
p.2 #16Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Just for fun, a theoretical GF35/2.8 would be:
Weight: 480 to 560 g (best single estimate 520 g)
Length: 90 to 100 mm
Diameter: 84 to 88 mm
Filter: 62 mm
Sounds about right. A real lens would be a bit lighter, I imagine.
Weight: 480 to 560 g (best single estimate 520 g)
Length: 90 to 100 mm
Diameter: 84 to 88 mm
Filter: 62 mm
Sounds about right. A real lens would be a bit lighter, I imagine.
Aug 19, 2026 at 06:50 PM
p.2 #17Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
It's almost like you omitted the post where I asked for F 1.7 or F2. I don't want a medium format lens to be 1.4 because I am REALISTIC in regards to what is possible.
olegkin wrote:
gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.But then you're not equivalent to the 18/1.4 that you said you wanted. Not that f/3.5 gives you that, but you don't need faster than f/2.8 if f/1.4 is fine on APS-C.AI did a napkin math and came up with GF 35mm f/1.4 that would be about:
Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
olegkin wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
I want a fast aperture lens in that 28mm FX for medium format. I do a lot of indoor work and indoors F4, just ain't a great starting point. I do...a lot on GFX, probably more than I should, but I like working with the stuff so brute force it.Makten wrote
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
Aug 19, 2026 at 07:20 PM
p.2 #18Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Angry much for no reason?
Here is a full imaginary list:
gf35_variants_letter_150dpi by Oleg Shpak, on Flickr
Here is a full imaginary list:
gf35_variants_letter_150dpi by Oleg Shpak, on Flickr
Aug 19, 2026 at 07:42 PM
p.2 #19Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Lol AI napkin math. You honestly trust the word guessing machine on lens parameters?
olegkin wrote:
gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.But then you're not equivalent to the 18/1.4 that you said you wanted. Not that f/3.5 gives you that, but you don't need faster than f/2.8 if f/1.4 is fine on APS-C.AI did a napkin math and came up with GF 35mm f/1.4 that would be about:
Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
olegkin wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
I want a fast aperture lens in that 28mm FX for medium format. I do a lot of indoor work and indoors F4, just ain't a great starting point. I do...a lot on GFX, probably more than I should, but I like working with the stuff so brute force it.Makten wrote
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
Yeah when I had the "gee, I wish this was shorter" moment I just got the 55 at that point. I'm having constant "gee, I wish this was wider" complaints with the 55, but Fuji doesn't make a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make.Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
Aug 19, 2026 at 07:44 PM
p.2 #20Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
thrice wrote:
Lol AI napkin math. You honestly trust the word guessing machine on lens parameters?
But then you're not equivalent to the 18/1.4 that you said you wanted. Not that f/3.5 gives you that, but you don't need faster than f/2.8 if f/1.4 is fine on APS-C.AI did a napkin math and came up with GF 35mm f/1.4 that would be about:
Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
Why not? It is all a game. Its numbers are better approximation than mine.
Lol AI napkin math. You honestly trust the word guessing machine on lens parameters?
olegkin wrote
JadedWriter wrote
I want a fast aperture lens in that 28mm FX for medium format. I do a lot of indoor work and indoors F4, just ain't a great starting point. I do...a lot on GFX, probably more than I should, but I like working with the stuff so brute force it.Makten wrote
JadedWriter wrote
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.olegkin wrote
gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.Weight: 1,300 to 1,800 grams
Length: 125 to 145 mm
Diameter: 95 to 110 mm
Filter: 95 mm or 105 mm
You will take this lens to anywhere once, and then you put it in the least used camera bag and forget you have it. Most people think xf18/1.4 is on a heavy side...
Why not? It is all a game. Its numbers are better approximation than mine.
Aug 19, 2026 at 08:20 PM