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).
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.
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...
olegkin wrote:
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:
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.
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?
Yeah I want a 138 1.8 equivalent, but it'd probably be a bazooka. SGinNorcal wrote:
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?
JadedWriter wrote:
I want a much faster aperture than 3.5 my guy. F2 or 1.7 or bust.
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:
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.
SGinNorcal wrote:
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?
olegkin wrote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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...
SGinNorcal wrote:
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.
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.
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:
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...
Lol AI napkin math. You honestly trust the word guessing machine on lens parameters?
olegkin wrote:
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...
