Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
p.4 #1Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Maybe this is why I convinced myself I like the 45's rendering more. I also shoot some false colour infrared and the 55mm is terrible in IR.
Rand47 wrote:
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...Show more →
Rand47 wrote:
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...Show more →
Aug 21, 2026 at 07:19 PM
p.4 #2Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I did a very quick A/B selfie shoot today, just to show the difference in angle of view and background separation at a bit of distance. The camera was (obviously) on a tripod and was not moved between the shots, but if I could frame as I wanted in both cases, I'd step a bit closer with the 45.
As you can see, the 55 gives a lot more background blur. But is it "better"? I don't think so. It's very smooth in the middle but gets quite harsh very soon towards the borders. Which makes it more obvious that it's not uniform.
The 45 is not smooth, but it gives a low contrast background blur that has the same size CoC all the way to the corners. It looks more "3D" to me, despite (or thanks to?) the deeper DOF.
The 45 also gives a bit cooler colors (same WB for both), and also better color separation if you look closely. I've been aware of this but haven't realized what it was until now. There are simply more different color nuances, for some reason.
On the other hand, the 55 is sharper at f/1.7 than the 45 is at f/2.8, which is astonishing.
Edit: For some reason images sometimes are compressed to death on the forum. They look waaaay sharper before I upload them. I don't understand why this only happens sometimes. Completely random.
Edit 2: Also, the 55 is an absolute PITA to try to focus manually. It "jumps" in increments that are much too big for good accuracy and the focusing ring is way too "loose". I don't understand why, because the 45 is almost as good as a pure manual focus lens, and it's much older and cheaper. WTF Fuji?
As you can see, the 55 gives a lot more background blur. But is it "better"? I don't think so. It's very smooth in the middle but gets quite harsh very soon towards the borders. Which makes it more obvious that it's not uniform.
The 45 is not smooth, but it gives a low contrast background blur that has the same size CoC all the way to the corners. It looks more "3D" to me, despite (or thanks to?) the deeper DOF.
The 45 also gives a bit cooler colors (same WB for both), and also better color separation if you look closely. I've been aware of this but haven't realized what it was until now. There are simply more different color nuances, for some reason.
On the other hand, the 55 is sharper at f/1.7 than the 45 is at f/2.8, which is astonishing.
Edit: For some reason images sometimes are compressed to death on the forum. They look waaaay sharper before I upload them. I don't understand why this only happens sometimes. Completely random.
Edit 2: Also, the 55 is an absolute PITA to try to focus manually. It "jumps" in increments that are much too big for good accuracy and the focusing ring is way too "loose". I don't understand why, because the 45 is almost as good as a pure manual focus lens, and it's much older and cheaper. WTF Fuji?
GFX50S II GF55mmF1.7 R WR lens 55mm f/1.7 1/200s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
GFX50S II Fujifilm Fujinon GF45mm F2.8 R WR lens 45mm f/2.8 1/80s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
Aug 22, 2026 at 06:54 AM
p.4 #3Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
That's a nice demo @Makten Your observations and the additional points @Rand47 raised are the reasons I sold the 55 and kept the 45, as much as I would have wanted a bright f/1.7 lens for the dark Canadian winters.
I've posted many of these before, but given the relevance to this discussion here are some images taken with the 45/2.8. IMHO it's capable of (yes) impressive "3D" rendering.
—Peter.
I've posted many of these before, but given the relevance to this discussion here are some images taken with the 45/2.8. IMHO it's capable of (yes) impressive "3D" rendering.
—Peter.
Aug 22, 2026 at 07:48 AM
p.4 #4Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Did anyone mention the GF63/2.8 ? Much smaller lighter and cheaper alternative
Although I’m also looking at the gf 55 ;-)
Although I’m also looking at the gf 55 ;-)
Aug 28, 2026 at 06:46 PM
p.4 #5Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Happydan wrote:
Did anyone mention the GF63/2.8 ? Much smaller lighter and cheaper alternative
Although I’m also looking at the gf 55 ;-)
I'd not say it's "much" smaller and lighter than the 45 (405 vs 490 grams). But yes, it's also a great lens.
Personally I can't stand the "normal" angle of view though. I always want a bit wider.
Did anyone mention the GF63/2.8 ? Much smaller lighter and cheaper alternative
Although I’m also looking at the gf 55 ;-)
I'd not say it's "much" smaller and lighter than the 45 (405 vs 490 grams). But yes, it's also a great lens.
Personally I can't stand the "normal" angle of view though. I always want a bit wider.
Aug 29, 2026 at 12:58 AM
p.4 #6Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Not necessarily comparing the size of the gf 64 to the gf 45, but to the gf 55.
Just because the OP wanted a wider option to the 80/1.7 and the 63 might work well, especially because it is waaaay cheaper. And as a daily carry the size doesn’t bother. In the studio it is perfecto. Look at videos on YT by David Shoukry
As the gf 55 might become much heavier to hold and pay for $
Personally, I am happiest with The pop of both the 63 and 45-100 , the 55/1.7 pics just don’t jump off my screen as much in comparison. Same with the 110 IMO. Only the ultra wide zoom GF lens can pop a lot :-)
Just because the OP wanted a wider option to the 80/1.7 and the 63 might work well, especially because it is waaaay cheaper. And as a daily carry the size doesn’t bother. In the studio it is perfecto. Look at videos on YT by David Shoukry
As the gf 55 might become much heavier to hold and pay for $
Personally, I am happiest with The pop of both the 63 and 45-100 , the 55/1.7 pics just don’t jump off my screen as much in comparison. Same with the 110 IMO. Only the ultra wide zoom GF lens can pop a lot :-)
Aug 29, 2026 at 01:36 PM
p.4 #7Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Happydan wrote:
Not necessarily comparing the size of the gf 64 to the gf 45, but to the gf 55.
Just because the OP wanted a wider option to the 80/1.7 and the 63 might work well, especially because it is waaaay cheaper. And as a daily carry the size doesn’t bother. In the studio it is perfecto. Look at videos on YT by David Shoukry
As the gf 55 might become much heavier to hold and pay for $
Personally, I am happiest with The pop of both the 63 and 45-100 , the 55/1.7 pics just don’t jump off my screen as...Show more →
Yes, and in that case, also don't forget the 50/3.5. Even smaller, lighter and cheaper. And still extremely good.
Not necessarily comparing the size of the gf 64 to the gf 45, but to the gf 55.
Just because the OP wanted a wider option to the 80/1.7 and the 63 might work well, especially because it is waaaay cheaper. And as a daily carry the size doesn’t bother. In the studio it is perfecto. Look at videos on YT by David Shoukry
As the gf 55 might become much heavier to hold and pay for $
Personally, I am happiest with The pop of both the 63 and 45-100 , the 55/1.7 pics just don’t jump off my screen as...Show more →
Yes, and in that case, also don't forget the 50/3.5. Even smaller, lighter and cheaper. And still extremely good.
Aug 29, 2026 at 01:37 PM
|
p.4 #8Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
The gf 45mm is a fantastic lens. It’s honestly as close to perfect as you can get in lens. Fast focusing and lightweight and inexpensive.
Aug 30, 2026 at 07:04 AM
ViolenceFinder
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #9Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I’ve used both and would lean toward the 55mm if you can stretch the budget. The 45mm is definitely more useful when you’re tight on space, especially indoors, but the 55mm feels like a really nice general-purpose focal length on GFX.
Since you already have the 35-70, I’d probably go 55mm for the prime. It gives you something different without being too close to the wider end of the zoom. If most of your shooting is indoors and in tight city spaces, though, I’d take the 45mm.
Since you already have the 35-70, I’d probably go 55mm for the prime. It gives you something different without being too close to the wider end of the zoom. If most of your shooting is indoors and in tight city spaces, though, I’d take the 45mm.
Sep 24, 2026 at 01:41 PM
p.4 #10Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
I used both and let go of the 45mm. The 55mm is amazing and stays on my GFX. I've ended up keeping the 30mm, 55mm, 110mm and 32-64mm.
If Fuji ever comes out with a 45mm f1.7, I would consider it over the 55mm.
If Fuji ever comes out with a 45mm f1.7, I would consider it over the 55mm.
Sep 25, 2026 at 10:51 AM
p.4 #11Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
thrice wrote:
55 is like the Sigma 40/1.4 on FF, the 45 is like the 35/2 distagon.
Part of what makes photography so interesting is that a person who prefers the 45 and a person who prefers the 55 could potentially both agree with this assessment.
55 is like the Sigma 40/1.4 on FF, the 45 is like the 35/2 distagon.
Part of what makes photography so interesting is that a person who prefers the 45 and a person who prefers the 55 could potentially both agree with this assessment.
Sep 25, 2026 at 11:11 PM
p.4 #12Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
The 55 if flat and very clinical, in my opinion boring. The 45mm has a special look to it that is not found in any other lenses. If your going to shoot more portrait esque pictures the 55 is probably better otherwise I would get the 45mm. The 45mm reminds me a lot of how zeiss lenses render. Of course both are have slow AF.
Sep 29, 2026 at 03:37 PM
p.4 #13Torn 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.
Inshallah we get a relatively compact 35mm from Fuji. Just rip it off the GFX100RF and put a mount on it.
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.
Inshallah we get a relatively compact 35mm from Fuji. Just rip it off the GFX100RF and put a mount on it.
Sep 29, 2026 at 03:43 PM
p.4 #14Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice?
Makten wrote:
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.
There's apparently a 65mm f1.7 coming from HB in the near future. I'll also say manual focusing with the V series lenses on Hasselblad is sublime it's really well done.
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.
There's apparently a 65mm f1.7 coming from HB in the near future. I'll also say manual focusing with the V series lenses on Hasselblad is sublime it's really well done.
Sep 29, 2026 at 07:11 PM