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.
I can d
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. 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.
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.
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.
Aug 20, 2026 at 03:41 AM
Previous versions of thrice's message #17092026 « Torn between gf 45 and 55. Advice? »
