Reader Comment: Fujifilm GF Lens Performance
Related: field curvature, Fujifilm, Fujifilm GF 45mm f/2.8 R WR, Fujifilm GFX100S, Fujifilm medium format, Fujifilm mirrorless, Jason W, medium format, reader comment, Roy P
Reader Roy P writes:
I had a chance to test a Fujifilm GF 45mm f/2.8 lens.
I was surprised to see how mediocre this lens is. I have a decent copy in terms of symmetry. But at f/2.8, it is surprisingly soft. I thought this was a sharp lens, compared to the 50mm F3.5. It also has heavy vignetting that takes my slider all the way to the right in Capture One (+4) to clear up. The autofocusing speed / tracking is also sluggish.
It looks like the GFX100S has exactly three lenses worth a damn: the 20-35 F4, which is always stuck at $2500, since Fuji is very careful to not discount it; the cheapie 35-70 F4.5-5.6, which punches way above its weight class and is a steal at $500 on sale, and even at $1000; and the 250 F4, another lens that’s always $3300, never offered at a discount, if you notice. That’s it.
The old 50 F3.5 is not bad, especially if you bought it for $500. At least it’s compact and a stop faster than the 35-70, and qualifies as the street photography / walkaround lens for the GFX 100S. But that’s the entire universe of Fuji GF lenses!
DIGLLOYD: the Fujifilm GF 45mm f/2.8 is a good lens in the f/5.6 - f/8, but not only does it have a strong forward focus shift (see Iced-Over Beaver Pond), it also has some field curvature. It’s not (technically speaking) viable until f/5.6 for landscape and really needs f/8 due to its focus shift and field curvature.
To Roy’s list, I would add the Fujifilm GF 110mm f/2. The Fujifilm GF 50mm f/3.5 is very strong, but while I can imagine an improved lens, but I’ll take it any day over the 45/2.8.
I’ve commented before on how the Fujifilm medium format platform badly needs options similar to the Voigtlander FE 50mm f/2 APO and Voigtlander FE 35mm f/2 APO and Voigtlander FE 65mm f/2 APO. Nothing on the GF platform even comes close, and the difference is so large that much of the gap between sensor resolution is closed (or surpassed, with pixel shift).
IMO, the Fujifilm GF 32-64mm f/4 and Fujifilm GF 45-100mm f/4 are problematic choices—huge and heavy and with serious focus shift and field curvature headaches that guarantee sub-optimal results even if one is trying hard to deal with those behaviors.
The Fujifilm GF autofocus focusing motors are stone-age vs Sony’s ultra high speed motors. IMO, the GF lineup is yesterday’s technology and due for a makeover/upgrade both optically and in terms of AF motors and overall design.
My list of the top lenses for Fujifilm medium format
Obviously if you are shooting portraits or such, you might want other lenses for the wide aperture look. This list is for landscape, for technical performance.
- Fujifilm GF 250mm f/4. I don’t like its design with internal clunking noises, but it is a superb performer.
- Fujifilm GF 110mm f/2. Beware of its focus shift and mild field curvature, but otherwise it is beatifully sharp.
- Fujifilm GF 20-35mm f/4. An impressive optical accomplishment with a price to match but not better than the equivalents for the 35mm format.
- Fujifilm GF 50mm f/3.5. Still my favorite lens overall.
- Fujifilm GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6. So good in the midrange that it contests with the 50/3.5. Acceptable but not great at the long end, pretty good at wide end but too much distortion. Wide sample variation but generally best from 35mm to 55mm. Overall superb value proposition.
- Fujifilm GF 120mm f/4. I hesitate to recommend this razor-sharp lens because I don’t know if its unstable lens focus issue was ever resolved. And I cannot standing its internal clunks when transporting it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GFX 50S + Fujifilm GF 45mm f/2.8 R WR @ 37mm equiv (45mm)
[low-res image for bot]
Reader Jason W writes:
Having owned and sold the 45mm GF I agree it is an odd bird. Just like with people, sometimes lenses with good traits lack charm. I find the 45 and 120 to both have the same clinical draw style that is artificial and non-cohesive.
Alternatively, the 110 and the 50 have a pleasant roundness that doesn't offend and paints in a pleasing way. The 35-70 is somewhere in the middle. I bought it to replace the 50 but I'm still not sure I made a good decision. I can execute more ideas with the zoom but the 50 is such a pleasure operationally and the final images truly have image quality, which is not MTF as much as the emotional sum of everything going on optically.
The 250 is kind of a third thing. I find it is neither artificial or elegantly round, more along the lines of the "more real than reality" look of the 20-35.
DIGLLOYD: sounds about right. With regards to the 50/3.5, I see it as a case of less is more. The 35-70mm zoom at 50mm seems to be about as sharp (1 to 4/3 stop down from wide open), but whether its other qualities are as good, I am as yet unsure.
