Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
p.3 #1Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
olegkin 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?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.
Sure, its going to be heavy, I never said it had to be lighter than the 55/1.7. I would be perfectly happy with an f2 version that weighed the same as the 55/1.7. And from your estimates that looks do-able. I don't see much point in a 35/2.8 when you have the 30 and 45 in the vicinity. My current 35 prime for Gfx is the Contax 35/3.5 and its heavier than the 55. If I want lightweight for what I am doing I take my X mount setup.
SGinNorcal wrote
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
gf30 is a great lens and does what you want.Sure, its going to be heavy, I never said it had to be lighter than the 55/1.7. I would be perfectly happy with an f2 version that weighed the same as the 55/1.7. And from your estimates that looks do-able. I don't see much point in a 35/2.8 when you have the 30 and 45 in the vicinity. My current 35 prime for Gfx is the Contax 35/3.5 and its heavier than the 55. If I want lightweight for what I am doing I take my X mount setup.
Aug 19, 2026 at 09:20 PM
p.3 #2Torn 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.
Sure, but you should get your equivalence numbers right. If you get what you want with 18/1.4 on APS-C, you will get what you want with 35/2.8 on 33x44 (if both cameras have roughly the same sensor tech level).
Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
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.
Sure, but you should get your equivalence numbers right. If you get what you want with 18/1.4 on APS-C, you will get what you want with 35/2.8 on 33x44 (if both cameras have roughly the same sensor tech level).
Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
Aug 20, 2026 at 12:25 AM
p.3 #3Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
olegkin 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.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.
Maybe the 50/3.5 would be a good lens for you? It's very small, very sharp, has nice bokeh, focuses fast.
Makten wrote
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).
Maybe the 50/3.5 would be a good lens for you? It's very small, very sharp, has nice bokeh, focuses fast.
Aug 20, 2026 at 12:28 AM
p.3 #4Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
You didn't even try, did you. LLMs are literally contextual text prediction machines, they don't do any real math. They don't have any understanding. They are not 'intelligent'.
Lenses with a similar open aperture size (eg. 27/1.2 APSC and 35/1.4 FF) have very similar weight.
olegkin 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.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.
Edited on Aug 20, 2026 at 02:43 AM · View previous versions
Lenses with a similar open aperture size (eg. 27/1.2 APSC and 35/1.4 FF) have very similar weight.
olegkin wrote:
thrice wrote
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.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...
Edited on Aug 20, 2026 at 02:43 AM · View previous versions
Aug 20, 2026 at 02:41 AM
p.3 #5Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
The manual focus 30/2.4 ZhongYi lens is very small, both in length and girth. If it were made a unit focus lens I would posit it would be lighter than the GF 30/3.5. the compromise there was huge distortion, but a more competent lens designer could achieve a better set of compromises.
Makten wrote:
Sure, but you should get your equivalence numbers right. If you get what you want with 18/1.4 on APS-C, you will get what you want with 35/2.8 on 33x44 (if both cameras have roughly the same sensor tech level).
Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
Makten 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.Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
Aug 20, 2026 at 02:43 AM
p.3 #6Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
thrice wrote:
The manual focus 30/2.4 ZhongYi lens is very small, both in length and girth. If it were made a unit focus lens I would posit it would be lighter than the GF 30/3.5. the compromise there was huge distortion, but a more competent lens designer could achieve a better set of compromises.
Sure, but you should get your equivalence numbers right. If you get what you want with 18/1.4 on APS-C, you will get what you want with 35/2.8 on 33x44 (if both cameras have roughly the same sensor tech level).
Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
Yes, and I'm sure the people at Zeiss or Voigtländer and a few other companies could do very nice GFX lenses if they wanted. But I also understand that there probably is very little economic gain in doing so, considering the small market.
I don't mind weight too much as long as it's located close to the camera. A good example is the 100-200 that looks very front heavy, but in practice it feels much lighter than it is because the weight is not mostly at the front. The 55 seems to have most of the weight at the front which makes it terrible in that respect.
Personally I'd want a manual focus ~55/2 lens. I borrowed a Mamiya 55/2.8 from a friend that is definitely small enough even with adapter, but the optical performance is really crappy.
I'll continue to use the 50/3.5 and 55/1.7 depending on how much I'm willing to carry for the moment.
The manual focus 30/2.4 ZhongYi lens is very small, both in length and girth. If it were made a unit focus lens I would posit it would be lighter than the GF 30/3.5. the compromise there was huge distortion, but a more competent lens designer could achieve a better set of compromises.
Makten 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.Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
Yes, and I'm sure the people at Zeiss or Voigtländer and a few other companies could do very nice GFX lenses if they wanted. But I also understand that there probably is very little economic gain in doing so, considering the small market.
I don't mind weight too much as long as it's located close to the camera. A good example is the 100-200 that looks very front heavy, but in practice it feels much lighter than it is because the weight is not mostly at the front. The 55 seems to have most of the weight at the front which makes it terrible in that respect.
Personally I'd want a manual focus ~55/2 lens. I borrowed a Mamiya 55/2.8 from a friend that is definitely small enough even with adapter, but the optical performance is really crappy.
I'll continue to use the 50/3.5 and 55/1.7 depending on how much I'm willing to carry for the moment.
Aug 20, 2026 at 04:31 AM
p.3 #7Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
If I was going to be happy with that I would've just bought the 45 2.8 by now and even if I do cave and buy that lens I'm getting rid of it the moment something like a 35 1.7 or F2 got announced any way.
Makten wrote:
Sure, but you should get your equivalence numbers right. If you get what you want with 18/1.4 on APS-C, you will get what you want with 35/2.8 on 33x44 (if both cameras have roughly the same sensor tech level).
Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
Makten 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.Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
Aug 20, 2026 at 06:07 AM
p.3 #8Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
thrice wrote:
You didn't even try, did you. LLMs are literally contextual text prediction machines, they don't do any real math. They don't have any understanding. They are not 'intelligent'.
Lenses with a similar open aperture size (eg. 27/1.2 APSC and 35/1.4 FF) have very similar weight.
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.
Maybe try using one before saying fancy words? This experiment is super easy to replicate. I used Claude. Gemini is still an idiot more often than not.
You didn't even try, did you. LLMs are literally contextual text prediction machines, they don't do any real math. They don't have any understanding. They are not 'intelligent'.
Lenses with a similar open aperture size (eg. 27/1.2 APSC and 35/1.4 FF) have very similar weight.
olegkin wrote
thrice wrote
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
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.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...
Maybe try using one before saying fancy words? This experiment is super easy to replicate. I used Claude. Gemini is still an idiot more often than not.
Aug 20, 2026 at 06:40 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #9Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I’m sure all of this is extremely helpful for OP.
Aug 20, 2026 at 06:40 AM
p.3 #10Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Makten 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.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.Maybe the 50/3.5 would be a good lens for you? It's very small, very sharp, has nice bokeh, focuses fast.
I actually started using it instead of gf55 lately, especially in studio where apertures normally start at f/5.6 for me. It is a great little lens. (But I also got HB, and because its autofocus is significantly better there are not many reasons to shoot GFX anymore).
olegkin wrote
Makten wrote
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).
I actually started using it instead of gf55 lately, especially in studio where apertures normally start at f/5.6 for me. It is a great little lens. (But I also got HB, and because its autofocus is significantly better there are not many reasons to shoot GFX anymore).
Aug 20, 2026 at 06:46 AM
|
p.3 #11Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
RoamingScott wrote:
I’m sure all of this is extremely helpful for OP.
Right, I looked at the first page and nobody said - "Why not both?" - the only right answer on these questions.
Edited on Aug 20, 2026 at 10:36 AM · View previous versions
I’m sure all of this is extremely helpful for OP.
Right, I looked at the first page and nobody said - "Why not both?" - the only right answer on these questions.
Edited on Aug 20, 2026 at 10:36 AM · View previous versions
Aug 20, 2026 at 06:56 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #12Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Trying both for yourself and deciding which you like best is, of course, always the right answer if financially feasible.
This thread has done a more than adequate job of proving why that is.
This thread has done a more than adequate job of proving why that is.
Aug 20, 2026 at 07:04 AM
p.3 #13Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
JadedWriter wrote:
If I was going to be happy with that I would've just bought the 45 2.8 by now and even if I do cave and buy that lens I'm getting rid of it the moment something like a 35 1.7 or F2 got announced any way.
Sure, but you should get your equivalence numbers right. If you get what you want with 18/1.4 on APS-C, you will get what you want with 35/2.8 on 33x44 (if both cameras have roughly the same sensor tech level).
Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
You wrote that you wanted something like the 18/1.4 but on GFX. But now suddently that wasn't what you wanted. Oh well...
"...a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make."
If I was going to be happy with that I would've just bought the 45 2.8 by now and even if I do cave and buy that lens I'm getting rid of it the moment something like a 35 1.7 or F2 got announced any way.
Makten 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.Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
You wrote that you wanted something like the 18/1.4 but on GFX. But now suddently that wasn't what you wanted. Oh well...
"...a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make."
Aug 20, 2026 at 10:13 AM
p.3 #14Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
So far I’ve only tried the GF 45, but as far as 35mm equivalent focal lengths go it has a beautiful depth, sharpness and contrast even at f11 that is very pleasing. And at f2.8 close to the subject produces beautiful bokeh and sharpness.
Aug 20, 2026 at 10:32 AM
p.3 #15Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
You are being overly pedantic about my request on this. Anybody I tell this to comes to the conclusion that I just want a fast aperture 28mm equivalent (somebody in this very topic understood what I wanted as well). They're not going line by line thinking I want something unrealistic. I have said twice in this discussion that I'd be happy with 1.7 or F2. Please drop it and go along your merry way please.
Makten wrote:
Sure, but you should get your equivalence numbers right. If you get what you want with 18/1.4 on APS-C, you will get what you want with 35/2.8 on 33x44 (if both cameras have roughly the same sensor tech level).
Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.You wrote that you wanted something like the 18/1.4 but on GFX. But now suddently that wasn't what you wanted. Oh well...
"...a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make."
Makten wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
If I was going to be happy with that I would've just bought the 45 2.8 by now and even if I do cave and buy that lens I'm getting rid of it the moment something like a 35 1.7 or F2 got announced any way.Makten 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.Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
"...a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make."
Aug 20, 2026 at 02:53 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #16Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I'm mostly surprised fuji never released a 35mm version of the GF50 pancake. Seems like a nobrainer that would have sold a bazillion copies.
Aug 20, 2026 at 03:05 PM
p.3 #17Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
olegkin wrote:
Lenses with a similar open aperture size (eg. 27/1.2 APSC and 35/1.4 FF) have very similar weight.
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.Maybe try using one before saying fancy words? This experiment is super easy to replicate. I used Claude. Gemini is still an idiot more often than not.
I've used them all, I run a local 30bn parameter mixture of experts model that rivals frontier models. I've trained my own LLMs and distilled others. I have a comp sci degree and have coded for a living.
They appear intelligent to those who don't know enough about the subject matter they're asking it. They can help with certain tasks if it's not less efficient to check all their work rather than doing it yourself. Typing a prompt into claude is a low bar for an 'experiment'
Back on topic.
Since I have both lenses perhaps I should do a shoot-out comparing them. OP do you have subject matter in mind? Indoor portraits?
Definitely not my forte.
55/1.7 wide open
45/2.8 wide open
This is what I shoot more of, both 45/2.8
Edited on Aug 20, 2026 at 05:16 PM · View previous versions
thrice wrote
You didn't even try, did you. LLMs are literally contextual text prediction machines, they don't do any real math. They don't have any understanding. They are not 'intelligent'.Lenses with a similar open aperture size (eg. 27/1.2 APSC and 35/1.4 FF) have very similar weight.
olegkin wrote
thrice wrote
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.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've used them all, I run a local 30bn parameter mixture of experts model that rivals frontier models. I've trained my own LLMs and distilled others. I have a comp sci degree and have coded for a living.
They appear intelligent to those who don't know enough about the subject matter they're asking it. They can help with certain tasks if it's not less efficient to check all their work rather than doing it yourself. Typing a prompt into claude is a low bar for an 'experiment'
Back on topic.
Since I have both lenses perhaps I should do a shoot-out comparing them. OP do you have subject matter in mind? Indoor portraits?
Definitely not my forte.
55/1.7 wide open
45/2.8 wide open
This is what I shoot more of, both 45/2.8
Edited on Aug 20, 2026 at 05:16 PM · View previous versions
Aug 20, 2026 at 03:36 PM
p.3 #18Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
JadedWriter wrote:
You are being overly pedantic about my request on this. Anybody I tell this to comes to the conclusion that I just want a fast aperture 28mm equivalent (somebody in this very topic understood what I wanted as well). They're not going line by line thinking I want something unrealistic. I have said twice in this discussion that I'd be happy with 1.7 or F2. Please drop it and go along your merry way please.
Makten wrote
JadedWriter wrote
If I was going to be happy with that I would've just bought the 45 2.8 by now and even if I do cave and buy that lens I'm getting rid of it the moment something like a 35 1.7 or F2 got announced any way.Makten 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.Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
"...a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make."
Sorry, but it's not my fault that you don't know what you mean when you write something. :-)
Edit: I now remember why I had you on ignore for a while. Can't admit when you are wrong.
Edited on Aug 21, 2026 at 05:50 AM · View previous versions
Aug 20, 2026 at 03:44 PM
p.3 #19Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Makten wrote:
JadedWriter wrote
You are being overly pedantic about my request on this. Anybody I tell this to comes to the conclusion that I just want a fast aperture 28mm equivalent (somebody in this very topic understood what I wanted as well). They're not going line by line thinking I want something unrealistic. I have said twice in this discussion that I'd be happy with 1.7 or F2. Please drop it and go along your merry way please.Makten wrote
JadedWriter wrote
If I was going to be happy with that I would've just bought the 45 2.8 by now and even if I do cave and buy that lens I'm getting rid of it the moment something like a 35 1.7 or F2 got announced any way.Makten 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.Now, that doesn't exist either, but the chances of one coming is at least higher than for a 35/1.7.
"...a GF equivalent to the XF 18 1.4, which is what I want them to make."
Aug 20, 2026 at 03:58 PM
p.3 #20Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I have both lenses. If I were forced to choose, I'd keep the 45.
Get this, the 55 is a "better" lens.
I'd keep the 45. It's light, has a comfortable angle of view (more or less a 35mm f/2 in ff terms). It is VERY sharp, corner to corner. It balances on the GFX bodies well. It feels "friendly" and nimble - how's that for subjective? It's a bargain on the used market in "new" condition.
The 55 is a tank. If you need really thin selective focus, it's worth dragging around like an albatross around your neck (or back). It renders beautifully. It does not balance well on the GFX bodies (but that's true of most of the GF lenses). I don't like it very much. It doesn't feel "friendly" and is definitely not nimble.
Rand
Get this, the 55 is a "better" lens.
I'd keep the 45. It's light, has a comfortable angle of view (more or less a 35mm f/2 in ff terms). It is VERY sharp, corner to corner. It balances on the GFX bodies well. It feels "friendly" and nimble - how's that for subjective? It's a bargain on the used market in "new" condition.
The 55 is a tank. If you need really thin selective focus, it's worth dragging around like an albatross around your neck (or back). It renders beautifully. It does not balance well on the GFX bodies (but that's true of most of the GF lenses). I don't like it very much. It doesn't feel "friendly" and is definitely not nimble.
Rand
Aug 20, 2026 at 06:16 PM