Need an opinion: lenses for GFX 50

[biglouis]

Thinking seriously about the GFX 50s which is being promoted with a significant discount for one of 3 lenses in the UK (£1200 off): the 45/2.8, 62/2.8 or 32-64/4.

I would like to be able to afford the 23/4 at the beginning but might have to wait. Likewise at some point in the future the 120 Macro.

My inclination is to go for the 32-64 but I am wondering whether I should stick to primes only and get the 45/2.8 or 62/2.8.

I pretty much only photograph urban landscape and urban architecture. My most preferred focal length for urban (or countryside) landscape is my 14-28mm zoom (or rather the 7-14mm Olympus UWA on my m43rds kit), or my Simga DP0Q (which is about 21mm).

Would the 45/2.8 be acceptable if I use my legs to zoom? Or would I really need the equivalent 25mm wide of the 32-64 zoom?

Can I use the 62/2.8 and use even more of my legs to zoom (there are some pretty interesting 'almost' wide-angle photos using the 62/2.8 in the Dpreview camera review).

Lowest cost to acquire is with the camera plus 62/2.8 and most expensive is with the camera plus 32-64.

I did try out the camera plus the 32-64 yesterday at Park Cameras in London and I was pleasantly surprised at how light and manoeuvrable this combination was. I didn't try it with the 62 or 45 but I did try it with the 23 (which pretty much sold me on the camera).

Thanks for any input from GFX owners.

LouisB

 

[Paul2660]

If the 14-24 is the Nikon version, good news in that that particular lens will work very well on the GFX, albeit a bit of vignetting at 14 due to IC differences, but the 14-24 must have a larger IC than most Nikkor glass, at least the wides, as all the other ones I tried were worthless due to the vast amount of pure black corners. The 14-24 also holds up darn well on the GFX, from around 18mm to 24mm. 14mm is IMO just too wide. I use the fotodiox adapter on mine when I use it.

On the GFX glass, just pick the lens you prefer, prime or zoom they are all very good. The 63mm is excellent, small, light weight and would be the same as 50mm focal length in the 35mm world. The 32-64 is still my main lens on the GFX as mine is excellent throughout the zoom range, and I prefer the ability to use a zoom. The reviews of the 23mm are also very good however and it would be around a 18mm in the 35mm range equivalent. I was glad to see Fuji was able to make this lens without a bulbous front element so it will work with normal filters.

The new 45mm is also a great lens.

Both the 63mm and 45mm do not however have the faster more quiet AF design as they don't have the linear motor, and take a bit longer to acquire and are also just a bit louder when operating due older motor design.

Paul Caldwell

 

[kdphotography]

The 32-64 is the lens that I find most used---and stays mounted on the GFX most of the time. It really is quite a good lens and very versatile. If you like wide, definitely pick up the 23mm. I was not as impressed with the 63 nor the 120mm macro, but could just be my own style
and preferences. Ultra wide? Get an adapter like the Kipon Canon EF and use the Canon 17mm TSE. I might sell my Kipon adapter as I have the Cambo and 17mm TSE option.

I think the 32-64 is an ideal "first" lens with the Fuji GFX.

ken

 

[jng]

One thing to keep in mind, especially if cost and weight of extra lenses are significant factors, is that stitching is a good way to extend your field of view without taking a hit in resolution (by increasing the effective sensor area). Of course this doesn't work in all situations but for city/landscape and architecture it can be a viable if somewhat kludgy solution.

Paul: good to know that the Nikkor 14-24 works well at the longer end on the 33x44 Sony sensor. I am tempted to try this on my X1D although the combination of adapter and lens would mostly negate the benefits of the compact MF mirrorless package.

John

 

[Paul2660]

One thing to keep in mind, especially if cost and weight of extra lenses are significant factors, is that stitching is a good way to extend your field of view without taking a hit in resolution (by increasing the effective sensor area). Of course this doesn't work in all situations but for city/landscape and architecture it can be a viable if somewhat kludgy solution.

Paul: good to know that the Nikkor 14-24 works well at the longer end on the 33x44 Sony sensor. I am tempted to try this on my X1D although the combination of adapter and lens would mostly negate the benefits of the compact MF mirrorless package.

John

Hi John,

I was greatly disappointed by most of the nikon glass I had to try, both telephoto and wides, normal etc. I had hoped to use my 70-200, but of course the one won't even work period due to new electronic aperture and the 200-500 also won't work same reason. But I did find a good actually excellent example of the APO 200mm F 2.8 Mamiya and it's a great lens on the GFX.

The 14-24 must have a slightly larger IC as it works well, problem is the 23mm works better (Fuji 23mm) and when I sell off some of my Older P1 lenses, I am moving to that lens.

Paul Caldwell

 

[jng]

Hi John,

I was greatly disappointed by most of the nikon glass I had to try, both telephoto and wides, normal etc. I had hoped to use my 70-200, but of course the one won't even work period due to new electronic aperture and the 200-500 also won't work same reason. But I did find a good actually excellent example of the APO 200mm F 2.8 Mamiya and it's a great lens on the GFX.

The 14-24 must have a slightly larger IC as it works well, problem is the 23mm works better (Fuji 23mm) and when I sell off some of my Older P1 lenses, I am moving to that lens.

Paul Caldwell

Thanks, Paul. I have come to the realization that there's not much point in adapting to legacy glass unless it provides either utility or image quality that can't be obtained with the lenses that were designed for the platform. My Hasselblad V system 100, 120 Makro, 180 and 250 SA do very well on the long end (so far a big gap in the XCD lineup), but I suspect that the 14-24 Nikkor will fall short of expectations on the wide end. Plus I am trying to fight bloat in the kit so I'll probably just save my pennies and eventually go for the 30mm, which is probably as wide as I need/want in any case.

John

 

[GrahamWelland]

Without a doubt get the 32-64mm, then the 23mm. I love the 120 macro but you can do well with a decent Mamiya adapter and M645 lenses for longer, albeit with the need to increase sharpness to match the native Fuji lenses which are outstanding.

Hopefully moot when the Fuji 250mm and TC are delivered. Fuji lenses have superb acuity.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Just to add that the fuji lenses are every bit as good as my Phase One LS lenses. Extremely sharp and 3D rendering in the real world and that’s not just wide open. (I have 23, 32-64, 120 macro plus a bunch of Mamiya and Canon lenses to go beyond 120mm) I have the Canon adapter from Techart that I use with the 100-400mm but also for use with 17/24TSE II. (If looking at the canon combo, get the Fuji 23mm! Albeit without movements)

 

[Don Libby]

In total agreement with Graham, the Fuji glass is just as good as any Phase One lens I've ever used. My current Fuji lens lineup is the 23, 32-64 and 120. The lens I use the most is the 32-64 followed by the 23. I use to own the 63 and found I didn't use/need it as much as I thought I would and sold it after returning from a shoot in Alaska this past Jan. I also use a Mamiya 200 APO for my long lens as I eagerly await the release of the 250 with extender.Based on almost a years experience with this setup I'd recommend the 32-64 and 23 as the first 2-lenses to buy. I don't shoot macro all that much however the 120 fits my needs. The current hands down favorite long lens is the Mamiya 200; just be prepared to shoot manual focus.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Another +1 on the white Mamiya 200 APO. Works well with the 2x converter too although I do find that it benefits from some deconvolution sharpening to make it pop. The Fuji lenses set the bar pretty high for legacy glass.

 

[thompsonkirk]

I began with a prejudice against zooms and started with the 63mm prime. It seemed ‘tastelessly clinical,’ so I tried Pentax 645 primes. They cost very little and rendered the sort of images I wanted, but I got tired carrying them and tried 32-64 just to lighten the load. This turned out to be the Goldilocks lens for me, overcoming my zoom-phobia: not as contrasty as the 63, and less CA and diffraction than I’d expected at smaller apertures. I don’t need the 23 because I do lots of stitching (landscapes on tripod).

So I’d strongly recommend starting with the zoom. Or if that’s too expensive, wanna try some good ol’ 645 primes? ��

Kirk

 

[Erik Lundqvist]

32-64 and start saving for the 23 immediately

 

[GrahamWelland]

32-64 and start saving for the 23 immediately

Absolutely as Erik says. 100% recommendatiom. :thumbs: and then 110 or 120 mm.

 

[biglouis]

Thanks for all the advice, very helpful indeed.

Going back and playing with the ergonomics of the 32-64 vs the 45mm, in the end I decided to just go with the 45mm. Hopefully, both the camera and lens will be in my hands by next Tuesday.

And as someone commented above, I have to start saving immediately for the 23mm

I did like the handling of the 32-64 but I know from my own experience that a zoom means I spend way to much time fiddling. I work better with primes.

I would like to add the 120 Macro as well to complete a 3 lens line up which would serve pretty much everything I need to do.

Thanks again for all the opinions expressed.

LouisB