Fuji GFX vs other medium format lens brands

[Paul Spinnler]

Hi all

I am intrigued by the 100s at 6k ... but just remember holding their 50 megapixel rangefinder a few months back and how cheap it felt. Clearly in a different league in terms of haptics and feel.

So this said, does anyone have some gfx experience vs P1, Leica S, Hassy X etc? How is sharpness wide open, corner performance, chromatic aberration?

Would appreciate feedback from some switchers.

Thank you
Paul

 

[Paul2660]

The entire line up, 50s 50r GFX100 and now GFX100s are excellent solutions. I have the 50s and GFX100, and have no issues with either. The Fuji GF lenses are also very good, and for what I need have plenty of sharpness. CA, will show up at times, but it shows up on my Phase lenses and Rodenstock 40mm. It's correctable.

Image quality is excellent, great DR. 50s and 50r use the same sensor that's in the X1D, Phase One IQ150,250, and 350. Pretty well proven. The GFX100 100mp currently is unique to Fuji, but I expect to see Hasselblad come out with something with the same sensor.

Sharpness wide open, I can't really say much, never really use that, however plenty of others have used the gear and reviewed it. Most if not all of the lenses are tack sharp center and fall off towards the edge, as any lens does wide open. By F8 to F11, corner sharpness is excellent.

Now the GFX100s is out, at an amazing price point (IMO).

Times are good for Fuji.

Paul C

 

[rdeloe]

I've handled lots of cameras. "Cheap" is a quality I would never associate with the GFX 50R. It's a sturdy, professional camera. Whether or not buttons are big enough, etc., is a personal thing. I have no concerns about the buttons, knobs, wheels, and lever, but I wouldn't complain if they made them a bit larger.

I mostly don't use Fuji GF lenses on my 50R, but the two I've used have been excellent (50/3.5 and 63/2.8). I've read many times that the long end of the 100-200 is not as good as the short end, and that the whole lens isn't at the same level of the 110 or the 250. However, the images I've seen at various focal lengths with the 100-200 are still outstanding.

All in all, Fuji has done very well with this system. We really have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to superb camera systems.

 

[Don Libby]

I've tried just about every lens that Fuji has for the GFX. I'll start with the only lens I didn't keep which is the 63 f/2.8. I used this while shooting Northern Lights in Alaska several years ago with the GFX50s and while the files turned out great I just didn't like it; I guess it was due to being too close to the 32-64.

The lens I ordered with the 50S was the 32-64 and I still have it and like it very much.

My current lens lineup is as follows: GF 45 f/2.8 which I've used for Milky Way image with great success.. The 32-64 which is just about superglued to the body. The GF120 Marco which I use exclusively for water drop photography. The 100-200 and 250 are used both with and without 1.4 extender for wildlife and nature and some landscape.

I sold all by Phase One gear shortly after the GFX50s was released and haven't looked back once. I've now owned the original GFX50s which was sold shortly after getting the GFX100 and I also picked up the GFX50R for a smaller walkaround. I've now ordered the 100s which will shortly replace the much larger 100.

Each lens mention above has worked flawlessly on all 3-systems. I'd recommend looking at the Fuji lens lineup prior to trying to adapt a non Fuji lens. I had used an older Canon 200 prior to the 250 and 100-200 being released and while it performed okay it nevertheless wasn't as good the Fuji lenses.

Forgot to add that I've also ordered the 80mm in addition to the 100s. :

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Thanks all - seems like they are all good ...

 

[Christopher]

I would argue that the GFX lenses are really good. Some of the best out there. (Especially the 23, 110,120,250) the 32-64 is also great.

the 100-200 isn’t as great as the primes but still pretty good. Can’t comment on the 45-100 as I don’t own it.

Not a big fan of the 63 and 45... my copies weren’t great.

I don’t there are many better lenses out there. Phase one isn’t far behind in lens performance, but cannot match best ones. Leicahas probably a few better ones and I would expect the new hasselblad lenses to be similar.

 

[rdeloe]

Really the only serious gripe I hear from (some) Fuji GFX users is that there's no native tilt-shift option. Someone actually posted a thread at DPReview today memorializing the fact that on this day two years ago Fujifilm polled customers about the preferred focal length of a potential tilt/shift lens... The post was a plaintive reminder. I suspect they'd sell a lot of units if they offered some tilt-shift lenses in focal lengths useful to the architecture crowd.

This is one reason people are adapting lenses: to use the tilt-shift offerings from Canon (and to a lesser extent Nikon). Others, like me, want more movements than a tilt-shift lens can provide, and use options like my Toyo digital view camera, or the Cambo Actus GFX. If you take this path, you must adapt lenses.

 

[algrove]

I cannot live without my 50R's with grips. I have owned about 12 Leica M and 65 M lenses and 25 R lenses and like my 50R images more than any Leica files. I also shoot Phase 150MP with tech cam and frankly the Fuji is often my go to since it takes rain and sand without issues. 100S will be tested, but probably it will end up in my camera bag someday. Every GFX lens I own I like and do not have the last 3 offered-the 30, 45-100 and new 80. The 50 is a SUPER walk around lens.

 

[PSS]

I went for the GFX 50 first, the lenses are great, cameras is great, tilt finder is awesome...colors and files are great but for me weren't that much better then Sony FF....
so I switched to X1DII and 907....lenses are also great, leaf shutter is awesome....color and files are the step up (compared to FF) I was looking for....
this has nothing to do with resolution, more with color, tones and DR all of which are probably personal preference....

 

[olafphoto]

As with every brand, there are some outstanding lenses and some are just fine. Interestingly enough, the cheapest GF 50mm F3.5 is one of the strongest performers in the lineup. I also like the GF 110 and the GF 250. In terms of Hasselblad, I haven't had a chance to shoot with the entire lineup but I find them similar to their GF equivalents. From my limited experience with the Phase One system, I have to say that Schneider Kreuznach / Rodenstock lenses are definitely one class above Fujifilm and Hasselblad - given the price it would be strange if they were not. Overall, you can't have crappy lenses with medium format, any problems show up quickly.

 

[P. Chong]

In comparison to the 50R, 50S and 100, I feel that the 100S has better build.

 

[Christopher]

As with every brand, there are some outstanding lenses and some are just fine. Interestingly enough, the cheapest GF 50mm F3.5 is one of the strongest performers in the lineup. I also like the GF 110 and the GF 250. In terms of Hasselblad, I haven't had a chance to shoot with the entire lineup but I find them similar to their GF equivalents. From my limited experience with the Phase One system, I have to say that Schneider Kreuznach / Rodenstock lenses are definitely one class above Fujifilm and Hasselblad - given the price it would be strange if they were not. Overall, you can't have crappy lenses with medium format, any problems show up quickly.

I would agree on the Rodenstock lenses, but would argue that the 23 GFX is better than the 35/45 from phase one, the GFX250 even with the Teleconverter is better than Phase 240, and the GFX 110,120 perform on the same level as phase ones 110/120/150 lenses.

 

[chrismuc]

Having used Leica M, Canon EF, Sony mirrorless with Zeiss and Sony-Zeiss lenses, Hasselblad CF, Contax 645, I must say the Fujifilm GF 23/ 30/ 45/ 63/ 110/ 250 is by a quite large margin the most consistent highest level IQ prime lens setup I ever used. Nothing to complain. Same with the 50MP and 100MP Sony sensors in the cameras. The only thing I miss is a camera with X-T4 fully manual dials user interface.

 

[MGrayson]

I spent a year each with the Hassy and Fuji MF systems. The *optics* were flawless in both. Fuji's wider range of lenses made for an amazingly capable system. Mercury transiting the Sun? Throw on 250 +1.4x, some 16 stops of filters, aim, shoot. 23mm? Perfect sharpness (although its flare is much worse than the Leica S24). Need wider than the Hassy 21? Use a Laowa 17mm. GF 100-200 zoom? Startlingly good. 50 3.5? Small, sharp, light.

If you feel constrained by the *optics* available for a system, Fuji is your best bet. As for quality? I have not used a single MF lens in by Fuji, Hasselblad, Leica, Phase One, Schneider, or Rodenstock where I even once thought "this would have been a better picture if only the optical quality were better." There are, of course, many other factors that make an image, and those differences are, IMHO, vastly more important than the tiny variations in optical quality in a choice of MF system.

 

[Godfrey]

I guess we're all in violent agreement ... Fuji, Hasselblad, and Leica lenses are all pretty good.
Anything else to talk about?

 

[buildbot]

I did have pretty negative experience repairing a GFX50S with Fuji, but the lenses all seem to be really top notch.
Only some rumblings of QA issues: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2019/20190905_2142-FujifilmGFX100-FujifilmGF120f4-qualityControl.html
But the same could be said for probably any lens brand out there, except Leica maybe, or Phase One BR lenses (never used one though..).

 

[algrove]

One opinion since as you can see most on getDPI who own and use GFX lenses have no complaints. The ones I know have used Phase, Hassy, Leica and whatever else anyone considers a serious camera system.

 

[gurtch]

An amateur's point of view: I also have used Leica M and R, Contax, Hasselblad, Pentax 67, 645, and 645D. I make big prints: 24"x32" from GFX files. I really do believe these are the best lenses I have ever used. I have 23mm, 50mm (great walk around lens) and 32-64 which is ALWAYS mounted, and 100-200mm. The 32 to 64 is SO versatile.
Dave in NJ
Attached image 32-64mm lens