The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Any problems with GFX zoom lenses on your 100MP camera?

algrove

Well-known member
I very much like my 32-64 and 100-200 lenses and in a recent CI presentation the pro said he very much likes his 32-64 on the 100 and the 100S he was demoing. I feel the same way on my 50MP Fuji 50R, but just wanted to check with others to see if any issues had arisen with zooms on a 100MP Fuji. Perhaps primes are the only way to go. Thanks.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
No problems with 32-64 or 45-100, both IMO as sharp as any GFX prime for my use. And much more convenient. The 100-200 is a bit more hit and miss for me and I have not really had the time to figure out why. I have more slightly blurred images (when hand held) and I have assumed it's something with the OIS on that lens. But I also shoot a lot of brackets and sometimes miss the fact that I have slipped my shutter speed a bit too low. I switched to the 45-100 since I found I was found I needed that 65-100 range more often. I carry the 30mm also so that makes up for the 32mm I gave up with my 45-100.

Paul C
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
No problems either. I started with a 23, 32-64, 120 kit originally but have transitioned to mostly using the 45-100 & 100-200 combination with OIS and the various other primes (17, 23, 30, 250 / TC) as a full kit. I have the other primes too and with the smaller GFX100S likely will use the 50mm more for a walk around combo.
 

Rand47

Active member
What Don says.... The 100-200 gets a bad rap because it is the “least great” of the GF lenses... but IMO all of the GF lenses are as good as, and better than, most offerings out there.

Here’s a frame from the 100-200 at 140mm. In my opinion, it doesn’t suck:

CC542613-8D47-45E5-8F35-9308D569A795.jpeg
Rand
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Not sure my post implied the 100-200 “sucked”.
I just find I have more issues with it at times. However I carry it on all trips. The 250 is a bit heavy and bulky to carry on longer hikes.

No Fuji GF lens I have sucks.

Paul C
 

Kinya28

Well-known member
No problems either. I started with a 23, 32-64, 120 kit originally but have transitioned to mostly using the 45-100 & 100-200 combination with OIS and the various other primes (17, 23, 30, 250 / TC) as a full kit. I have the other primes too and with the smaller GFX100S likely will use the 50mm more for a walk around combo.
Hi Graham,
What lens do you use (or recommend if any) for 17mm on GFX?
I am jumping in this wagon...
Kinya
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Slightly OT but Fuji is rumored to announce another GF zoom this year. There’s been a wide angle zoom rumored so maybe this is it? GFX100S + 45-100/100-200/wide angle zoom would make a pretty great travel kit

 

biglouis

Well-known member
Yes, that would be very tempting if they do produce a UWA zoom but it has to go wider than the current 23mm. I loved my 23mm but it wasn't really wide enough, imho.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Hi Graham,
What lens do you use (or recommend if any) for 17mm on GFX?
I am jumping in this wagon...
Kinya
I'm not Graham but I do know him....

I picked up the Laowa 17mm f/4 shortly after it came out and I still have it. I've used this lens on both a GFX50 and 100 with great success. It's large. It's heavy. And it's manual focus only. I will give you great files.
 

Rand47

Active member
Not sure my post implied the 100-200 “sucked”.
I just find I have more issues with it at times. However I carry it on all trips. The 250 is a bit heavy and bulky to carry on longer hikes.

No Fuji GF lens I have sucks.

Paul C
Hi Paul,

I wasn’t inferring that you’d said that. It was an attempt to use the “youth vernacular” for “It’s pretty darn good.” LOL Sorry for the confusion!

Rand
 

algrove

Well-known member
This subject came up as I have been having many email discussions with diglloyd and he berates the 32-64 and 100-200 in his blog and mentions for him only prime use for GFX 100 is worthy of image capture. I found this comment not in line with my 50MP experiences and just wondered if the lenses "fell apart" at times when using them on the 100. It seems not at all, so that puts my mind at ease. I just wonder if B&H sends him customer rejects and thus he forms unfair opinions of the Fuji GFX zooms. Ijnthe long run I had figured (like ted mentioned above) a three lens kit with wide zoom, 45-100 and 100-200 plus 1.4x would be optimal for high altitude and/or mountain work.

Thanks for all your comments which are leaning me strongly toward the 100S, but no "finger on my shoulder from Dante" just yet.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
I would take that opinion with a blink. It’s about the only negative review of any of the Fuji zooms I have read. Just look at the shot of Mt Whitney by Rand47. Details are amazing. Love that shot and that place. Alabama Hills.

Paul C
 

Kinya28

Well-known member
I'm not Graham but I do know him....

I picked up the Laowa 17mm f/4 shortly after it came out and I still have it. I've used this lens on both a GFX50 and 100 with great success. It's large. It's heavy. And it's manual focus only. I will give you great files.
Thank you, Don.
It is good to hear that Laowa 17mm is good. Have you tried or compared with Canon TS-e 17mm?
Kinya
 

Joe Colson

Well-known member
Dave Gallagher (Capture Integration) said on the webinar a few nights ago that the Canon TS-E lenses "fall apart" when used with the 100MP sensor. He said they do OK with the 50S and 50R. What's been the experience of those who've tried it?

Joe
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Dave Gallagher (Capture Integration) said on the webinar a few nights ago that the Canon TS-E lenses "fall apart" when used with the 100MP sensor. He said they do OK with the 50S and 50R. What's been the experience of those who've tried it?

Joe
Joe,

If by "fall apart" he means that you can see a difference at the pixel level when shifted, then yes. I have the 24 TS-E. It worked just fine with the 100. In the end, having pixels to burn, I preferred to use the Laowa 17 and correct perspective in post - which is dangerous, as you REALLY need to think about what lines will stay in the corrected image.

Matt

P.S. The Canon 24 TS-E will cover more than a fixed 21mm lens (tested on the Hassy X1D). But a 17mm will get everything that the 24 can get on a 33x44 sensor. Of course, if your goal is stitching for more pixels, then you'll want the sharpest possible lens, and then the Canon may not be the best choice.
 
Last edited:

biglouis

Well-known member
I had the 17mm Laowa but sold it to fund my 30/3.5 which is a focal length I wanted for a long time. I now regret it and may reacquire it if I see a s/h come up.

The only issue with the 17mm, or at least my copy, was that below f8 it was a tad soft and also because of its heft it was almost impossible for me to get a sharp shot handheld unless at a high speed - which meant at f8 I needed good light.

Tripod mounted, base iso and stopped down to say f16 it was very good as an architectural lens - I corrected any distortion using either the tools in LR or as I increasingly do PerspectiveEfex in the Nik suite.

I have been pondering the new Laowa 15mm shift which will apparently cover the sensor of the GFX but requires either a Nikon or Canon to GF adapter to mount it. Not sure if I can be bothered to do that and... ahem... the perspective tools in post work very well...

Just my two cents.

Louis
 
Top