I would mention that the GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 is available for $500 USD, which for me was a no brainer when I purchased my GFX 100S. I also have the GF 20-35mm f/4, and the 45mm f/2.8 prime. I do plan to add the GF 45-100mm f/4 in the near future, but will keep the GFG 35-70mm as a walk about kit. I absolutely love the 45mm, it is, for me, the perfect lens for street photography. At 35mm FF equivalent, and the faster aperture, it hardly ever comes off my camera. The 35-70mm is pretty usable, especially stopped down a bit, but really shines with it's small size and weight.
Thank you for your input. I am super excited to try out the 20-35mm but haven't saved up the funds quite yet. The 35-70mm seems like a solid lens especially for the price and the weight reduction.
Thanks for this. I am pretty much a prime shooter, but this lens is very tempting, primarily for the exact reasons you states. Wide enough for pretty dramatic landscapes and the constant F4 which on GF is pretty good not only in DOF, but combined with the system for low light ability.
Thanks for the comment. I lean towards primes as well, but this zoom is really worth it as a carry around lens with versatility. It is also very sharp and I like carrying it and the GF 120mm when I head out.
I use this lens on a GFX100s and love it. But is is not as sharp as the 45-100. The GFX100s has in-body stabilization so handheld shooting with the 32-64 is no problem. I shot the interior of a church in Rome with this lens at 1/5th of a second at 1600 iso and was really amazed by the results.
Super exciting to hear that the image stabilization in camera works great with the GF 32-64. More interesting to hear that the 45-100 is sharper than the 32-64. The 45-100 must be a super special lens.
It is very tricky. For my landscape kit I like the 20-35 45-100 and 100-200. But I am debating the 35-70 instead of the 45-100 just because of the weight of the kit (getting older). The 32-64 is a great lens and a totally agree with your thoughts but I find myself using it less these days.
Thank you for the input. As the GFX system has matured, Fuji has added many great lenses to the line up. Sounds like you have a great kit that covers a huge focal range. Options are always good, but can choices harder. I switch lenses in and out of my bag mostly based on where I'm going, or what I'm focusing on. On a side note, to cut a little weight out of my bag I really like the Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm vintage lens. It takes up very little room in my bag, and is a great bridge between the the 32-64 or the 35-70 and the 100-200. I did a video on it if you're interested.
From every review I've seen comparing them directly, the 35-70 seems like more of a compromise than I'd be comfortable with, even given the price and size/weight. In my opinion, if investing in such a system it's worth getting lenses that can make the most of the sensor. That said, 50 MP users may find the difference smaller than 100 MP users! I also have the option to get the 32-64 used with warranty for a huge discount vs new, which makes it more financially bearable; if I were purchasing either one new then I think I'd be leaning more strongly towards the 35-70. I'm also very used to carrying around a 24-70 mm lens so I suppose that will affect my tolerance. Another great video, thank you again.
The 35-70 didn't exist when I purchased the 32-64. I would probably have a hard time deciding between them. Personally, I shoot a lot of images in the 32 mm range, and I think I would really miss that field of view if I had the the 35-70. Thank you for the comments. Used is a good way to go with lenses sometimes. Especially if you can find them in good condition and warranties.
To me the most attractive aspect of the "competition," the 35-70, isn't the lower price, though that's interesting when starting a new system, but rather the 390g! Almost half a kilo less (and more than half a kilo less than the 45-100) is quite a difference, if I'm going to carry it all day.
Thank you for the comment. That is a great point. Cutting that much weight for a lens you are going to carry around all day is definitely something to consider.
I've been shooting since 1983 and back in the day you could hardly find a zoom lens for medium format cameras.. I believe Mamiya had two for their 645 and one for their 67.. Hasselblad had one. The thing about it was, If you wanted a zoom for your medium format camera, you were donna pay a hefty price for it..!
Thank you for the input. I grew up shooting film, and still shoot some film today. My favorite medium format film camera is the Mamiya RB67. You are correct that there were not many medium format zoom options and I'll add that they were not as good optically as the modern zooms.
Curious about your workflow with the Fuji gfx. I’m renting the 50s ii as a backup camera for a wedding next week just to see how it handles in a job environment. Love those colors in the images off the gfx line.
Thank you for the question. My workflow is pretty straight forward. I process the Fuji Raw files in Capture One and save them as tiffs. If I dive in more than that I use a variety of smaller plugin apps like Topaz (I really like their noise reduction when I need to reduce noise). The Fuji files are so vibrant I don't need to do much too them. When I print images I use custom ICC profiles I have made for different papers, or I work with a lab for all my large prints that go on metal. I've printed really large prints up to 60 inches on the long side with no issue. The prints that size look amazing. Hope that helps! Good luck with the wedding.
That's a lovely seascape at timecode 3:14. What shutter speed did you use? It seems a perfect balance between freezing the motion while still having enough motion to be dramatic.
Jack thank you for the kind words. The shutter speed was an 1/8 of a second. It took a little trial and error to get the image with motion in the water without losing too much detail. To get the shutter that slow during the day I used an ND filter.
That sounds like a lot of amazing gear! I ripped the band aid off when I got the 50s. I went all in getting the 23mm, 32-64, and the 120mm. My wallet hated me for it. It was much lighter feeling for a while. That said, the GFX system produces some amazing image quality. I never regretted my decision to do it.
Thank you for the comment. When I shoot landscape shots, I almost always have a circular polarizer. I also use either Lee or Nisi ND filters. Usually 2 or 3 stop hard or soft grads depending on what the conditions are.
I wish i had the money to jump into the GFX system, as I can't justify it for my work I'm pretty sure if I could i'd manage with this lens and the 80mm F/1.7 For now I am happy with the X Mount system and the range of lenses i have (since i rarely print bigger than 18" x 12")
The GFX system is definitely expensive. I print large (40in X 60in) a lot for my work so I needed the bigger files. The X system produces great images as well.
I have GFX 100s + 32-64 f4 + 80 f1.7. The image quality is just insane. Despite outstanding RAWs I still sometimes shoot JPG, and these files SOOC are just wonderful too. BUT, this system is heavy and slow. It is quite difficult to photograph moving subjects or do street photography. If you have time and tripod with you then you’re good, but running toddler or impatient wife - then you’ll need something else ;)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I would mention that the GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 is available for $500 USD, which for me was a no brainer when I purchased my GFX 100S. I also have the GF 20-35mm f/4, and the 45mm f/2.8 prime. I do plan to add the GF 45-100mm f/4 in the near future, but will keep the GFG 35-70mm as a walk about kit. I absolutely love the 45mm, it is, for me, the perfect lens for street photography. At 35mm FF equivalent, and the faster aperture, it hardly ever comes off my camera. The 35-70mm is pretty usable, especially stopped down a bit, but really shines with it's small size and weight.
Thank you for your input. I am super excited to try out the 20-35mm but haven't saved up the funds quite yet. The 35-70mm seems like a solid lens especially for the price and the weight reduction.
Thanks for this. I am pretty much a prime shooter, but this lens is very tempting, primarily for the exact reasons you states. Wide enough for pretty dramatic landscapes and the constant F4 which on GF is pretty good not only in DOF, but combined with the system for low light ability.
Thanks for the comment. I lean towards primes as well, but this zoom is really worth it as a carry around lens with versatility. It is also very sharp and I like carrying it and the GF 120mm when I head out.
I use this lens on a GFX100s and love it. But is is not as sharp as the 45-100. The GFX100s has in-body stabilization so handheld shooting with the 32-64 is no problem. I shot the interior of a church in Rome with this lens at 1/5th of a second at 1600 iso and was really amazed by the results.
Super exciting to hear that the image stabilization in camera works great with the GF 32-64.
More interesting to hear that the 45-100 is sharper than the 32-64. The 45-100 must be a super special lens.
It is very tricky. For my landscape kit I like the 20-35 45-100 and 100-200. But I am debating the 35-70 instead of the 45-100 just because of the weight of the kit (getting older). The 32-64 is a great lens and a totally agree with your thoughts but I find myself using it less these days.
Thank you for the input. As the GFX system has matured, Fuji has added many great lenses to the line up. Sounds like you have a great kit that covers a huge focal range. Options are always good, but can choices harder. I switch lenses in and out of my bag mostly based on where I'm going, or what I'm focusing on.
On a side note, to cut a little weight out of my bag I really like the Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm vintage lens. It takes up very little room in my bag, and is a great bridge between the the 32-64 or the 35-70 and the 100-200. I did a video on it if you're interested.
From every review I've seen comparing them directly, the 35-70 seems like more of a compromise than I'd be comfortable with, even given the price and size/weight. In my opinion, if investing in such a system it's worth getting lenses that can make the most of the sensor. That said, 50 MP users may find the difference smaller than 100 MP users! I also have the option to get the 32-64 used with warranty for a huge discount vs new, which makes it more financially bearable; if I were purchasing either one new then I think I'd be leaning more strongly towards the 35-70. I'm also very used to carrying around a 24-70 mm lens so I suppose that will affect my tolerance.
Another great video, thank you again.
The 35-70 didn't exist when I purchased the 32-64. I would probably have a hard time deciding between them. Personally, I shoot a lot of images in the 32 mm range, and I think I would really miss that field of view if I had the the 35-70.
Thank you for the comments. Used is a good way to go with lenses sometimes. Especially if you can find them in good condition and warranties.
35-70 i hope you kidding. That is crap
Super excited to hear about other's experiences with the GF 32-64mm lens.
To me the most attractive aspect of the "competition," the 35-70, isn't the lower price, though that's interesting when starting a new system, but rather the 390g!
Almost half a kilo less (and more than half a kilo less than the 45-100) is quite a difference, if I'm going to carry it all day.
Thank you for the comment. That is a great point. Cutting that much weight for a lens you are going to carry around all day is definitely something to consider.
I've been shooting since 1983 and back in the day you could hardly find a zoom lens for medium format cameras.. I believe Mamiya had two for their 645 and one for their 67.. Hasselblad had one. The thing about it was, If you wanted a zoom for your medium format camera, you were donna pay a hefty price for it..!
Thank you for the input. I grew up shooting film, and still shoot some film today. My favorite medium format film camera is the Mamiya RB67. You are correct that there were not many medium format zoom options and I'll add that they were not as good optically as the modern zooms.
Curious about your workflow with the Fuji gfx. I’m renting the 50s ii as a backup camera for a wedding next week just to see how it handles in a job environment. Love those colors in the images off the gfx line.
Thank you for the question. My workflow is pretty straight forward. I process the Fuji Raw files in Capture One and save them as tiffs. If I dive in more than that I use a variety of smaller plugin apps like Topaz (I really like their noise reduction when I need to reduce noise). The Fuji files are so vibrant I don't need to do much too them. When I print images I use custom ICC profiles I have made for different papers, or I work with a lab for all my large prints that go on metal. I've printed really large prints up to 60 inches on the long side with no issue. The prints that size look amazing.
Hope that helps! Good luck with the wedding.
I use this lens (with a 50R) and am a big fan. At 1:1 resolution the sharpness is comparable to primes.
Thank you for the comment and your experience with the lens.
That's a lovely seascape at timecode 3:14. What shutter speed did you use? It seems a perfect balance between freezing the motion while still having enough motion to be dramatic.
Jack thank you for the kind words. The shutter speed was an 1/8 of a second. It took a little trial and error to get the image with motion in the water without losing too much detail. To get the shutter that slow during the day I used an ND filter.
Have an GFX 100S, a 45-100 lens, two memories cards, wrist strap, a battery and a plate from RS in the shopping cart. It's my baptism of fire.
That sounds like a lot of amazing gear! I ripped the band aid off when I got the 50s.
I went all in getting the 23mm, 32-64, and the 120mm. My wallet hated me for it. It was much lighter feeling for a while.
That said, the GFX system produces some amazing image quality. I never regretted my decision to do it.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto well yes, but I sold a motorcycle to help finance all the goods.😀
@@migueltrujillo5932 Ouch! That is a commitment.
2 mins in. So its probably mentioned later, but in case it isnt, which if any, nd filters you using?
Thank you for the comment. When I shoot landscape shots, I almost always have a circular polarizer. I also use either Lee or Nisi ND filters. Usually 2 or 3 stop hard or soft grads depending on what the conditions are.
Thank you so much for this review. I am ogling this objective and your opinion has been very useful.
Awesome! Glad you found this useful. I really like the lens and think it is very versatile
I wish i had the money to jump into the GFX system, as I can't justify it for my work
I'm pretty sure if I could i'd manage with this lens and the 80mm F/1.7
For now I am happy with the X Mount system and the range of lenses i have (since i rarely print bigger than 18" x 12")
The GFX system is definitely expensive. I print large (40in X 60in) a lot for my work so I needed the bigger files. The X system produces great images as well.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto I had a look at your website, some beautiful images.
I have GFX 100s + 32-64 f4 + 80 f1.7. The image quality is just insane. Despite outstanding RAWs I still sometimes shoot JPG, and these files SOOC are just wonderful too. BUT, this system is heavy and slow. It is quite difficult to photograph moving subjects or do street photography. If you have time and tripod with you then you’re good, but running toddler or impatient wife - then you’ll need something else ;)
Best lens with the 80mm
Thank you for your comment and input!