I read everywhere (or watch videos) that this lens was amazing, a 10 out of 10, the number 1 or 2 for Fuji GFX... I'm glad we get another opinion like yours so we can all relax a bit haha
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, it's a not magical one, I agree sir. I've tested it. It's just an effective and reliable one, as you said. I sometimes use with the GFX old manual lenses to get the magic, or let's say the character, like a minolta 45mm (a tiny one) , , voigtlander 58mm, helios 44 and so on
@@FastAkira Exactly, people's differing needs and eyes will lead them to rate one lens differently. If one photographed postage stamps a lens with no autofocus and lackluster defocus rendering could still be a perfect tool for the job.
Its been 8 years with the Leica Q. I am now ready for the next step and this review helps me a lot. I am contemplating between a fixed lens full frame camera or the fuji gfx system with this lens. I am not traveling that much anymore, so the extra weight is not an issue for me. thanks for this great review of this lens.
Thanks Dustin for this thorough review and looking into this system which is somewhat overlooked by regular reviewers! Would love to see the reviews of the tiny 50mm 3.5 and the huge 250mm f4 (and the tc, if possible) gf lenses from you as well.
Love your definite reviews Dustin... Your testing as well as the way how you cascade the results to audience on youtube are phenomenal. It would be highly appreciated if you can review Leica SL APO Summicron prime lenses, especially the 35mm f/2.0
Excellent video! The GF45 is an absolutely fabulous lens. In exchange for the excessive bokeh of the canon/zeiss fast 35 options, the GF45 is able to provide fabulous resolution and technical perfection. I haven’t found it to limit any sort of creative uses. But i can understand each lens has its own personality 👍👍
I'm curious why you seem to imply that this is a negative review. I did knock the autofocus in some applications, but I made clear that the lens delivered a very strong optical performance. As a subjective measure, I didn't find the rendering from the lens particularly special, but that doesn't make it a bad lens or a negative review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know the lens performed well in your tests, I was just picking up on your lack of enthusiasm for it, which is fine because it is subjective.
It is the first time I have read/watched review not placed the 45f2.8 top of GFX lenses or near the top. After watching your definitive review, I totally get what you mean. I own 100-400L and prepare to buy 35L II, did extensive tests on Tamron 100-400 and SP35/1.4, both tamron options are excellent just lack a bit of that specialness. One other lens I wanted but not available in RF mount is the Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar it renders very special images.
I have the Voigtlander 50/2 APO-Lanthar and find it's rendering very high in contrast, which is fine if that is what you like, but preferring the Canon 35/1.4L II over the Tamron 35/1.4 SP makes me think a contrasty rendering is not your preference.
Hi Frank and Bayonet - there's some truth to Bayonet's comment here, as I think the Tamron 35mm is every bit as good as the Canon (not the 100-400, however). I'd happily take either of thse 35mm lenses on the GFX!
Thanks for the comparison. The IQ clearly goes to medium format, which maybe a huge factor for a lot of people, but the R5 seems to be ahead everywhere else, especially the AF, shooting speed, wider range of lenses (also adaptable from EF) with faster apertures, video features and it can be a bit smaller and lighter. Only the Sony A1 seems to top it regarding the AF and speed, EVF, overheating, etc,, but with some things that are inferior like the ergonomics, rear screen, IBIS, colour (subjective) and it is way more expensive as well. The best thing about Fujis in general is the very high depreciation on the bodies. After the GFX50S II comes out, lightly used GFX50R bodies may start to appear at giveaway prices.
Maybe you could test Leica M versions of Voigtlander’s nokton series on the gfx. I’ve heard they cover the whole medium format sensor with very interesting results.
Can you please do a video using EF holy trinity 2.8 lenses; either Canon, Sigma and Tamron to find out what sort of sensor coverage they give. I believe the GFX100S would make a fabulous wedding photographers camera but they’re some lowlight lenses that the GFX just doesn’t cut it yet.
Hi Rob, I probably can't. I don't own any of these components, and so I'm reliant on testing what Fuji sends me - and they won't be sending me any of those pieces!
Not so… the GF 110 f2 and 80 mm 1.7 are insanely good lenses… in fact, the 110 is so good, that you’ll be very hard pressed to find anything that equals it, not to speak of beating it
I think you’re perspective on this lens, which could extend to the 50mm f/3.5 I own, is reasonably apt. “Workmanlike” is how I would consider it, given that it’s not going to give you the “magic” of a lens with character, which might sacrifice some resolution to get there. It’s not to say that there’s no place for lenses like that, and I can see someone buying into medium format wanting a lens that provides more staid images which reveal the resolution of the sensor behind it. For me, I use it as a challenge to photograph details and compositions that I find interesting, rather than relying on bokeh or a built-in flaw that gives every subject a warm glow.
That's a fair assessment. If you just are shooting a scene where you want big depth of field and lots of detail, this lens is great. If you want to shoot anything more artistic, though, I found it limiting.
@Bayonet - I think you are playing with semantics and intentionally missing my point. A landscape scene can be artful, yes, but it definitely isn't an "artsy" shot. A good 35mm lens can allow you to do both (I feel like the Canon 35L II is a case in point, as is the Zeiss Milvus 35mm F1.4).
I'm a bit confused. From an objective perspective, it appears like a glowing review: In every optical test sample your conclusion is that it does great, exception being the focusing where it's 'just passable'. Comparing one by one to other lens reviews you've done, this one does better in more tests than almost all of them. However, it appears that subjectively you don't really like it. Don't get me wrong; I like your channel exactly because you aren't one of those that heap praise and positive adjectives on any and all lenses coming through the door. What I'm getting at is that there's some downside to this lens that makes you not too impressed and the EF 35mm into "the probably superior lens", but I don't see from the video specifically what it is. Could you elaborate on that?
It's a little difficult to quantify, but while some lenses do well in tests, images from them are just okay; not radically special. Other lenses have something special about their rendering that make people love them. If you go to my website and look at the galleries for the Fuji and then the Canon, I think you'll see what I mean. The smaller aperture and low MFD on this lens really limits its versatility.
It’s a very strange world out there regarding Fujifilm lens reviews. I’ve seen all too many who reviews Fujifilm lenses say (like for the XF90mm F2, XF200mm F2, GF110mm F2, GF45mm F2.8) that they are optically near perfect but ended the reviews saying that these lenses are just clinical without any “character”, so not recommended. On the other hand, when Fujifilm releases portrait lenses that apparently have “character”, like the XF50mm F1 and GF80mm F1.7, the same reviewers or channels than complain that these lenses have optical issues, that they are not “sharp” at all (mind you, these reviews mostly shoot brick walls, not any human faces) and than go as far as naming these lenses the worst lens of the year. These same review channels review Sony lenses differently....when Sony turns out optically “perfect”, tack sharp lenses with virtually no flares (which means no character) these reviewers say the Sony lenses are the best you can get across any platform 🤷♂️ I think for us, the consumers, it’s better to take these reviews with a pinch of salt, or just for references. The best thing to do is to try rent one, and use it yourself for a period of time to see if it lives up to your expectations, then decide if it is a good buy
Hi Ryan, I do think your final suggestion is a great one. I always tell people that their opinion matters more than mine; it is their money and their photography.
Hi Dustin, I have been trilled about the quality of the GFX system so far, but when you demonstrated the AF performance, I got chilled. Based on that, MF glass would be a much better option, as AF does not seem to add much of a value, in fact for video it is less advantageous than MF and also would help keeping weight and size smaller. Would not you agree? Also I am afraid there are not many MF lenses available for the GFX system except maybe the LAOWA 17mm f/4.
Yes and no. If you were pairing amazing MF lenses, you could certainly get great value out of them due to the fantastic sensor, but the AF is good enough to be useful in a lot of situations. I definitely would prefer shooting portraits using the Eye AF than trying to MF all of them.
The autofocus is good enough for capturing non-fast moving still photography, for sports/wildlife and video it is deficient. However, using a GFX for primarily either of those purposes is a classic case of wrong-tool-for-the-job. Get an A1 or A7SIII and be happy.
Iam a beginner in photography, yours explanation about crop factor is confusing, normally equivalent 35 mm has to be reduced by the crop factor, I don't know weather iam right or wrong
That's only if a crop factor is great than 1 - medium format is larger than full frame/35mm, so in this case the focal length has to be multiplied by 0.79x. And yes...it is a little confusing!
Medium format sensors are 75-80 pct larger in area than full frame, so for a focal length equivalence, you have to multiply the focal length by a favor 1, to get their full frame focal length equivalents. Do remember that this is merely the field of view equivalence, an 85 mm depth field compression will always be 85 mm, and the same for all other lenses.
Great review. I’ve had both the GFX50S and the GFX100 for an extended trail period. For various reasons I decided to stay with my H6D. However, I was very impressed with the 110 and the 32-64 esp. considering the price. I’ve also heard that the 45-100 and the 50 were a bit ‘less great’. Similar to what you describe here for the 45. Unintentionally you also touch upon some other concerns of the GFX platform. I’ve talked to various non-pro owners that were actually disappointed in the platform. They came in thinking that it is a sort of super full frame (fueled by marketing) not realizing that in daily practice a (cropped) medium format -even the GFX’- has some serious limitations in useability compared to full frame while the actual difference in IQ is not always evident. Most users simply don’t print large (and well-)enough to notice the difference. The key benefit of the resolution is as you describe the possibility to crop even further. Next to that the tonality of a medium format camera is a step above full frame. Many however are hard-pressed to point out that difference. In short, I advise potential buyers to really think before entering medium format. Do you really need it and are you willing to make the sacrifices that come with a medium format camera? Rent a medium format camera for a week to find out for yourself.
The 45-100 (presuming you get a good copy) is a great lens, equal to the 32-64 in resolution, and with an advantage in field curvature. I don't know who in their right mind would criticise it for anything other than size/weight and focus breathing. The 50mm trades off optical quality for a smaller build, so that was to be expected. Regarding the GFX platform: the only real limitations are in autofocus, sensor readout speed, and size/weight, which are non-issues for a lot of photography. The only benefits over full-frame is in resolution potential and dynamic range. The choice comes down to whether the trade offs advantage one's photography or not. I certainly would not recommend a GFX as one's only camera, unless you are very specialised exclusively to its advantage, but paired with a full-frame or APS-C system it certainly makes sense.
Great discussion here. I think the truth of the matter is complicated, and that people need to carefully research and then choose the right tool for their own needs. The image quality from the GFX-100 is overall the best I've seen, but I'm still not sure I would want to own it for my kind of work.
@@Bayonet1809 thanks for confirming that the 45-100 is a great lens too. I didn’t have hands-on experience myself. I agree to the limitations of a medium format camera you mention, but would add two more: the 200+ Mb files-sizes require a pretty decent computer. The second point is that medium format cameras are quite intrusive compared to APS-C or FF. Family and holiday snapshots are not their forte so to speak. It definitely makes sense to add a smaller system next to it. One remark you made worries me: presuming you have a good copy. Over the years I’ve purchased 6 X-series cameras, 14 XF lenses and used a couple of GFX cameras and GF lenses too. Of my purchases 2 cameras were flawed and in total 4 lenses had to be returned as they were showing manufactoring defects out of the box. I’ve never experienced so many ‘bad copies’ with any of the brands I’ve used over my 45 years of experience in photography. Not even close. I’m quite sure it’s not only me. The words ‘bad copy’ are often used on Fuji forums. I seriously think that Fuji needs to step up it’s QA. Their cameras are no longer inexpensive and point-and-shoot style.
@@jacobh5817 The file size of GFX100/s 14bit lossless compressed raw files is 100mb. If you won't see the slight magenta colour shift in recovered deep shadows then 14bit precision is no different otherwise from 16bit on the GFX100/s. Storage is relatively inexpensive these days, and as far as I can tell, processing speed has not suffered to a noticeable degree compared to high megapixel full frame cameras. When you go from making multi-gigabyte stitched panoramas of upwards of 500MP (which is a slog), 100MP single images are a breeze. Yes, lens copy variation seems to increasingly be an issue as manufacturers require tighter tolerances due to increasingly pixel-dense sensors. There has been a surprising rate of bad copies reported with Fuji's GF lenses in particular, and although I have never had a bad copy of a lens from any manufacturer (yet) I suppose I can just count myself lucky.
A year ago I was extremely close to buying this lens with the 50r. I am so glad that I went full frame instead. This platform has serious limitations and the advantages are not as obvious as they are hyped up to be... Another excellent and honest review!
The advantages are the potential for more resolution (ergo less aliasing), and for more dynamic range (ergo less noise). That is it, there is no such thing as a, "medium format look".
I think you have to pick the right tool for the job. Medium format is the right tool for some photographers, while modern full frame cameras are definitely superior "jack-of-all-trades" platforms.
@@NVIK5 it doesn't really depend which gfx. I only shoot slow stuff. Main problem was that there are no really good lenses for the nikon f mount. On top of that I felt that I was calibrating my lenses more than actually shooting. That's a no go for me.
The GF 32-64 is incredibly good for a zoom lens… you’ll never see from the results, that this lens is a zoom lens, and not primes in the same range… it’s that good!
Thanks for the review. However, I think you can put more effort into the pictures. Photographing a dry leaf in the snow, well, I don't know. I find that when there are great sample images in a video it firstly makes it fun to watch the video and secondly it establishes credibility on your part. Why would anyone believe you if you weren't a good photographer? Sure you are. Just a small suggestion for improvement. I hope that's okay.
Nice review. A reviewer you can depend on for a straight forward review you can base your purchase decisions against. GFX lens quality keeps me out of GFX system.
The GF lenses are great quality, if you are actually interested in the system then rent it to try out for yourself. The lenses are more than a match for the 102MP sensor; I really don't know what comments Dustin was referring to in this video that claimed otherwise. Just avoid the 100-200mm if you demand the best image quality, as it is probably the weakest.
I don’t think you can do a definitive review on a camera and lens you don’t own. You can have an opinion about something you’ve had for a few weeks - but calling it a definitive review is a little misleading.
@@DustinAbbottTWI “Definitive review” is the title of the video. The onus is on you… not me. All I’m saying is… maybe just say it’s your opinion based whatever experience you had - and be up front with it. Calling it definitive based on ?? what a week of use… ?? (I don’t know… did you rent it?)… that’s a big call… don’t you think?🤔
You can probably count on one hand the # of mf cameras that have af & most of those are single point af. I'd call this a quantum leap for mf. I'm guessing they used dc motors to keep the size of the lens down.
Fair enough - though in many ways Fuji is competing more with full frame than they are other medium format cameras, which is part of why I say that Fuji's success has also created a liability...
Gee, what an intriguing review. By watching it doesn't come out clear to me whether you are a preconceived being against Fuji products or the medium format system, by and large. Although using ad hoc positive terms such as good, satisfactory, etc, the overwhelming presence of utterly negative expressions, either referring to the Fuji brand or to the larger format system, suffix to unveil your personal dislike (only God knows why) and thus your biased comments. OOPS, not really, I mean ...UTTERLY biased comments. I'm not really sure but it might be due the fact that you are, in fact a salesman of photo gears, not really endowed to embark onto the realms of serious, well grounded, technical analysis on, particularly, optical gear. After all, medium format system gear are not best sellers, no? I will show what I mean by giving your readers/viewers a quick example of the untrustworthy nature of your attempt to be digested as a reliable source of photographic gear parameters: You bluntly state that ALL medium format systems, both camera bodies and their lenses, are "primitive" compared to FF system and lessees, including, of course, this particular GF lenses, the Fugi 45mm 2.8. On the other hand, you praise much higher the Canon equivalent lens, its FF 35mm. Well, well, Mr. Abbott, readers and viewers of this guy's blog, have a close look ate figures below. They show the AF speed of response of Canon and Fuji GF lenses. CANON LENSES Lens Focal Length Time ∞→MFD (dark / light in s) ∞→MFD→∞ (dark / light in s) EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM 16 0.238 / 0.246 0.868 / 0.517 EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM 35 0.517 / 0.234 0.859 / 0.505 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM 24 0.292 / 0.321 0.913 / 0.663 EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM 70 0.300 / 0.296 0.947 / 0.626 EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM 24 0.317 / 0.304 0.909 / 0.634 EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM 105 0.392 / 0.317 1.047 / 0.626 EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 70 0.321 / 0.329 0.934 / 0.684 EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 200 0.947 / 0.334 2.507 / 0.734 EF 50mm f/1.8 STM 50 0.672 / 0.630 1.706 / 1.376 FUJI GF LENSES GF 23mmF4 R LM WR - 0,140 sec GF 45mmF2.8 R WR - 0,183 sec GF 63mmF2.8 R WR - 0,186 sec GF 110mmF2 R LM WR - 0,208 sec GF 120mmF4 R LM OIS WR Macro - 0,181 sec GF 250mmF4 R LM OIS WR - 0,212 sec GF 32-64mmF4 R LM WR - 0,168 sec See? Compare them all. See the Canon 35mm AF response time (0.234 to 0,517 - depending on the lighting condition)? Now, see Fuji's equivalent, the GF 45mm 2.8: 0,183 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in average lighting condition. Easy to conclude that in optimal lighting conditions the Fuji GF 45mm will yield an AF performance almost 1.5 times faster than its Canon FF equivalent lens. I'm done with you, Mr. Abbot. Go knock at somebody else's door to sell your whatever stuff. Guys, when reading Fuji's data on the GFX100, please read instead the data of its latest GFX100S, with phase AF and better overall AF performance.
Hi Ricardo, it seems like you've focused on the negatives and oblivious to the many positives. And your final statements only betray your ignorance, as Fuji is the one that seeks me out to do reviews of their products. The fact that I give a balanced review that INCLUDES the negatives show that I am far from a "salesman".
@@DustinAbbottTWI , yes, I might be ignorant, maybe not. However, pointing at my presumed ignorance is a shallow, ineffective attempt to divert attention from the core of my comments, the high discrepancy of your statements vis-a-vis the outlined irrefutable technical figures on Canon X Fuji GF AF performances. Yes, I may be ignorant about many facts of life but my hard working existence taught me how to differentiate image conjurers from truth heralds. At all instances, Dustin, I'd rather watch Robins as harbingers of springtime, than taking for granted your reviews, harbingers of doom. Sorry, Dusting you ARE a salesman. A notable one, by the way. Your past and present activities obliterate your claim as pretending not being a 100% selling geared person. You sell all kinds of stuff. Let me show your followers three of those: 1- You are commissioned, meaning, YOU GET PAID when your followers buy photo gear through the links spread all over your media outlets, including here. 2- You run a photography business in Nova Scotia, Canada, SELLING photo gear. 3- An ordained minister with the United Pentecostal Church International, serving as the pastor of Emmanuel Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada and as the director of the Ontario District Media Missions Directory, YOU SELL HOPE. HOPE is the HOTTEST & FASTEST SELLING commodity now. That’s why many pastors have STUDIED how to PACKAGE it and sell it. The DEMAND is so high and the product is addictive. You can never buy enough HOPE. Promoted to provide final marketing strategies to sell HOPE at your church media missions directory explains somehow your innate vocation to sell stuff. Regretfully, for you, in the scientific domains of photography, that attribute provides no solid pillars to substantiate meaningful advices to the incautious, generally naive photography rookies, falling preys to your elaborated marketing scheme. Photo science, my dear, is not taught in the bible. To this end, one needs some more palpable insights which, surely, cannot be found in a book selling ethereal products. PLEASE, Dusting, STOP with all this farse, for the sake of all those poor people who, under your irresponsible guidance, will be spending zillions of dollars out of their so nurtured savings before finding out it's too late to reverse the ill fate of destiny to have fallen into your so tempting web of lies.
@@djstuc I never said this guy is not genuine. On the contrary, he is 100% legitimate and genuine in his lack of consistency. I am even more baffled than you noting his silence over my comments on his misleading statements regarding Fuji's GFX system vs Canons AF performances. Not a word, just insults. SILENCE GIVES CONSENT. Read it over or join him in silence, DJ.
Thank you very much for the Text Review :) Will you review th 30mm GF lens ? But let us be honest, it is NOT a medium format camera, yes it is larger than 35mm format ( full frame), but medium format starts at 45x60mm ! In fact the 44x33mm could have been in an old analog 35mm film if the film had been without perforation in top and button as fx the 127 analog film :)
Hi J - I'm not going to dive into the semantics of the what is and is not medium format in every review. The information is there (I mentioned the crop factor and showed the graph that shows the Fuji sensor compared to full frame and the larger "true" medium format, but people get sick of the same conversation over and over.
I always get a little cranky when people decide they’re the experts on what is and is not medium format, and then decide that it matters somehow. 35mm full frame used to be called “small format” and now it’s called “full frame” and APS-C was “half frame” and had nothing to do with the APS film format... so we can surmise that names don’t really matter. 127 film (or 4x4) format was considered medium format, and that’s about where most Hasselblad, Fujifilm, Pentax, and PhaseOne cameras live. Nobody really started complaining about this until Fujifilm and Hasselblad started making affordable cameras, and full frame owners (and, I would imagine, people who bought into really expensive PhaseOne and Hasselblad systems) decided they needed to comfort themselves with the “it’s not medium format and therefore it’s not good” argument.
Medium format is anything larger than 24x36mm and smaller than 90x120mm, which 44x33 is, therefore the Fuji GFX is medium format. It is a smaller medium format, but still medium format by definition.
GF 45mm is incredible! Luv it! I now own the GF 110mm 2.0 and it’s pure perfection!
I still would like to review the 110
I read everywhere (or watch videos) that this lens was amazing, a 10 out of 10, the number 1 or 2 for Fuji GFX... I'm glad we get another opinion like yours so we can all relax a bit haha
It is a very good lens - just not a magical one. I liked the rendering better from the 80mm F1.7.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Yes, it's a not magical one, I agree sir. I've tested it. It's just an effective and reliable one, as you said.
I sometimes use with the GFX old manual lenses to get the magic, or let's say the character, like a minolta 45mm (a tiny one) , , voigtlander 58mm, helios 44 and so on
Some people will rate a lens 10/10 if it gives them consistently sharp results, others (like yourself) prefer character. It's all subjective.
@@Bayonet1809 10/10 only because it's sharp or with no chromatic aberrstions.. .. Not a complete review, to say the least. My opinion
@@FastAkira Exactly, people's differing needs and eyes will lead them to rate one lens differently.
If one photographed postage stamps a lens with no autofocus and lackluster defocus rendering could still be a perfect tool for the job.
Its been 8 years with the Leica Q. I am now ready for the next step and this review helps me a lot. I am contemplating between a fixed lens full frame camera or the fuji gfx system with this lens. I am not traveling that much anymore, so the extra weight is not an issue for me. thanks for this great review of this lens.
If weight isn't an issue, the GFX system offers great IQ.
I got most of GFX lens, my fav is this 45
It's a useful one, for sure.
Thanks Dustin for this thorough review and looking into this system which is somewhat overlooked by regular reviewers! Would love to see the reviews of the tiny 50mm 3.5 and the huge 250mm f4 (and the tc, if possible) gf lenses from you as well.
I'll try to work my way through the lineup, but it won't come fast. I have to borrow everything from Fuji every time I do a review.
Love your definite reviews Dustin... Your testing as well as the way how you cascade the results to audience on youtube are phenomenal.
It would be highly appreciated if you can review Leica SL APO Summicron prime lenses, especially the 35mm f/2.0
I'm afraid I'm not a Leica reviewer. I only have so much time and so much money....
Excellent video! The GF45 is an absolutely fabulous lens. In exchange for the excessive bokeh of the canon/zeiss fast 35 options, the GF45 is able to provide fabulous resolution and technical perfection. I haven’t found it to limit any sort of creative uses. But i can understand each lens has its own personality 👍👍
Buying the right tool for the job is just a good idea, period. This is a more workman lens, but it gets the job done very well.
Nice work Dustin
Thanks!
Seems like you were not this lens' target market. Perhaps the 110mm or 23mm will be better received.
I'm curious why you seem to imply that this is a negative review. I did knock the autofocus in some applications, but I made clear that the lens delivered a very strong optical performance. As a subjective measure, I didn't find the rendering from the lens particularly special, but that doesn't make it a bad lens or a negative review.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I know the lens performed well in your tests, I was just picking up on your lack of enthusiasm for it, which is fine because it is subjective.
It is the first time I have read/watched review not placed the 45f2.8 top of GFX lenses or near the top. After watching your definitive review, I totally get what you mean. I own 100-400L and prepare to buy 35L II, did extensive tests on Tamron 100-400 and SP35/1.4, both tamron options are excellent just lack a bit of that specialness. One other lens I wanted but not available in RF mount is the Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar it renders very special images.
I have the Voigtlander 50/2 APO-Lanthar and find it's rendering very high in contrast, which is fine if that is what you like, but preferring the Canon 35/1.4L II over the Tamron 35/1.4 SP makes me think a contrasty rendering is not your preference.
Hi Frank and Bayonet - there's some truth to Bayonet's comment here, as I think the Tamron 35mm is every bit as good as the Canon (not the 100-400, however). I'd happily take either of thse 35mm lenses on the GFX!
Thanks for the comparison. The IQ clearly goes to medium format, which maybe a huge factor for a lot of people, but the R5 seems to be ahead everywhere else, especially the AF, shooting speed, wider range of lenses (also adaptable from EF) with faster apertures, video features and it can be a bit smaller and lighter. Only the Sony A1 seems to top it regarding the AF and speed, EVF, overheating, etc,, but with some things that are inferior like the ergonomics, rear screen, IBIS, colour (subjective) and it is way more expensive as well.
The best thing about Fujis in general is the very high depreciation on the bodies. After the GFX50S II comes out, lightly used GFX50R bodies may start to appear at giveaway prices.
High depreciation is a good thing as a buyer...probably not as a seller!
Maybe you could test Leica M versions of Voigtlander’s nokton series on the gfx. I’ve heard they cover the whole medium format sensor with very interesting results.
Hi Adam, I don't actually own a GFX body, so I can only do reviews of what Fuji loans me.
Any idea of its low light capabilities ? Thank you for your work.
F2.8 allows in a decent amount of light, and that big sensor has a lot of sensitivity. I think it should be okay for most situations.
That’s a lot of glass! This camera is not for me; however, I watched anyways because it was an awesome review. Have a great day buddy!
Thanks for checking it out!
Can you please do a video using EF holy trinity 2.8 lenses; either Canon, Sigma and Tamron to find out what sort of sensor coverage they give. I believe the GFX100S would make a fabulous wedding photographers camera but they’re some lowlight lenses that the GFX just doesn’t cut it yet.
Hi Rob, I probably can't. I don't own any of these components, and so I'm reliant on testing what Fuji sends me - and they won't be sending me any of those pieces!
Not so… the GF 110 f2 and 80 mm 1.7 are insanely good lenses… in fact, the 110 is so good, that you’ll be very hard pressed to find anything that equals it, not to speak of beating it
I think you’re perspective on this lens, which could extend to the 50mm f/3.5 I own, is reasonably apt. “Workmanlike” is how I would consider it, given that it’s not going to give you the “magic” of a lens with character, which might sacrifice some resolution to get there. It’s not to say that there’s no place for lenses like that, and I can see someone buying into medium format wanting a lens that provides more staid images which reveal the resolution of the sensor behind it. For me, I use it as a challenge to photograph details and compositions that I find interesting, rather than relying on bokeh or a built-in flaw that gives every subject a warm glow.
That's a fair assessment. If you just are shooting a scene where you want big depth of field and lots of detail, this lens is great. If you want to shoot anything more artistic, though, I found it limiting.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Who's to say that a scene with big depth of field and lots of detail can't be artistic?
@Bayonet - I think you are playing with semantics and intentionally missing my point. A landscape scene can be artful, yes, but it definitely isn't an "artsy" shot. A good 35mm lens can allow you to do both (I feel like the Canon 35L II is a case in point, as is the Zeiss Milvus 35mm F1.4).
How does this GF 45mm f2.8 compares with the GF 63mm f2.8 in terms of sharpness? I'm considering one of these two as first lens for GFX Camera
I haven't actually used the 63mm, so I can't really comment.
I own both. Both are brutally sharp, even wide open
I'm a bit confused.
From an objective perspective, it appears like a glowing review: In every optical test sample your conclusion is that it does great, exception being the focusing where it's 'just passable'. Comparing one by one to other lens reviews you've done, this one does better in more tests than almost all of them.
However, it appears that subjectively you don't really like it. Don't get me wrong; I like your channel exactly because you aren't one of those that heap praise and positive adjectives on any and all lenses coming through the door.
What I'm getting at is that there's some downside to this lens that makes you not too impressed and the EF 35mm into "the probably superior lens", but I don't see from the video specifically what it is. Could you elaborate on that?
It's a little difficult to quantify, but while some lenses do well in tests, images from them are just okay; not radically special. Other lenses have something special about their rendering that make people love them. If you go to my website and look at the galleries for the Fuji and then the Canon, I think you'll see what I mean. The smaller aperture and low MFD on this lens really limits its versatility.
It’s a very strange world out there regarding Fujifilm lens reviews. I’ve seen all too many who reviews Fujifilm lenses say (like for the XF90mm F2, XF200mm F2, GF110mm F2, GF45mm F2.8) that they are optically near perfect but ended the reviews saying that these lenses are just clinical without any “character”, so not recommended. On the other hand, when Fujifilm releases portrait lenses that apparently have “character”, like the XF50mm F1 and GF80mm F1.7, the same reviewers or channels than complain that these lenses have optical issues, that they are not “sharp” at all (mind you, these reviews mostly shoot brick walls, not any human faces) and than go as far as naming these lenses the worst lens of the year. These same review channels review Sony lenses differently....when Sony turns out optically “perfect”, tack sharp lenses with virtually no flares (which means no character) these reviewers say the Sony lenses are the best you can get across any platform 🤷♂️
I think for us, the consumers, it’s better to take these reviews with a pinch of salt, or just for references. The best thing to do is to try rent one, and use it yourself for a period of time to see if it lives up to your expectations, then decide if it is a good buy
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok, thanks for taking the time to answer. I'll have a look at the website and see if I see the same as you see :)
Hi Ryan, I do think your final suggestion is a great one. I always tell people that their opinion matters more than mine; it is their money and their photography.
Hi Dustin, I have been trilled about the quality of the GFX system so far, but when you demonstrated the AF performance, I got chilled. Based on that, MF glass would be a much better option, as AF does not seem to add much of a value, in fact for video it is less advantageous than MF and also would help keeping weight and size smaller. Would not you agree? Also I am afraid there are not many MF lenses available for the GFX system except maybe the LAOWA 17mm f/4.
Yes and no. If you were pairing amazing MF lenses, you could certainly get great value out of them due to the fantastic sensor, but the AF is good enough to be useful in a lot of situations. I definitely would prefer shooting portraits using the Eye AF than trying to MF all of them.
The autofocus is good enough for capturing non-fast moving still photography, for sports/wildlife and video it is deficient. However, using a GFX for primarily either of those purposes is a classic case of wrong-tool-for-the-job. Get an A1 or A7SIII and be happy.
@Bayonet - exactly right.
Iam a beginner in photography, yours explanation about crop factor is confusing, normally equivalent 35 mm has to be reduced by the crop factor, I don't know weather iam right or wrong
That's only if a crop factor is great than 1 - medium format is larger than full frame/35mm, so in this case the focal length has to be multiplied by 0.79x. And yes...it is a little confusing!
Medium format sensors are 75-80 pct larger in area than full frame, so for a focal length equivalence, you have to multiply the focal length by a favor 1, to get their full frame focal length equivalents. Do remember that this is merely the field of view equivalence, an 85 mm depth field compression will always be 85 mm, and the same for all other lenses.
Great review. I’ve had both the GFX50S and the GFX100 for an extended trail period. For various reasons I decided to stay with my H6D. However, I was very impressed with the 110 and the 32-64 esp. considering the price. I’ve also heard that the 45-100 and the 50 were a bit ‘less great’. Similar to what you describe here for the 45. Unintentionally you also touch upon some other concerns of the GFX platform. I’ve talked to various non-pro owners that were actually disappointed in the platform. They came in thinking that it is a sort of super full frame (fueled by marketing) not realizing that in daily practice a (cropped) medium format -even the GFX’- has some serious limitations in useability compared to full frame while the actual difference in IQ is not always evident. Most users simply don’t print large (and well-)enough to notice the difference. The key benefit of the resolution is as you describe the possibility to crop even further. Next to that the tonality of a medium format camera is a step above full frame. Many however are hard-pressed to point out that difference. In short, I advise potential buyers to really think before entering medium format. Do you really need it and are you willing to make the sacrifices that come with a medium format camera? Rent a medium format camera for a week to find out for yourself.
The 45-100 (presuming you get a good copy) is a great lens, equal to the 32-64 in resolution, and with an advantage in field curvature. I don't know who in their right mind would criticise it for anything other than size/weight and focus breathing. The 50mm trades off optical quality for a smaller build, so that was to be expected.
Regarding the GFX platform: the only real limitations are in autofocus, sensor readout speed, and size/weight, which are non-issues for a lot of photography. The only benefits over full-frame is in resolution potential and dynamic range. The choice comes down to whether the trade offs advantage one's photography or not.
I certainly would not recommend a GFX as one's only camera, unless you are very specialised exclusively to its advantage, but paired with a full-frame or APS-C system it certainly makes sense.
Great discussion here. I think the truth of the matter is complicated, and that people need to carefully research and then choose the right tool for their own needs. The image quality from the GFX-100 is overall the best I've seen, but I'm still not sure I would want to own it for my kind of work.
@@Bayonet1809 thanks for confirming that the 45-100 is a great lens too. I didn’t have hands-on experience myself. I agree to the limitations of a medium format camera you mention, but would add two more: the 200+ Mb files-sizes require a pretty decent computer. The second point is that medium format cameras are quite intrusive compared to APS-C or FF. Family and holiday snapshots are not their forte so to speak. It definitely makes sense to add a smaller system next to it. One remark you made worries me: presuming you have a good copy. Over the years I’ve purchased 6 X-series cameras, 14 XF lenses and used a couple of GFX cameras and GF lenses too. Of my purchases 2 cameras were flawed and in total 4 lenses had to be returned as they were showing manufactoring defects out of the box. I’ve never experienced so many ‘bad copies’ with any of the brands I’ve used over my 45 years of experience in photography. Not even close. I’m quite sure it’s not only me. The words ‘bad copy’ are often used on Fuji forums. I seriously think that Fuji needs to step up it’s QA. Their cameras are no longer inexpensive and point-and-shoot style.
@@jacobh5817 The file size of GFX100/s 14bit lossless compressed raw files is 100mb. If you won't see the slight magenta colour shift in recovered deep shadows then 14bit precision is no different otherwise from 16bit on the GFX100/s.
Storage is relatively inexpensive these days, and as far as I can tell, processing speed has not suffered to a noticeable degree compared to high megapixel full frame cameras. When you go from making multi-gigabyte stitched panoramas of upwards of 500MP (which is a slog), 100MP single images are a breeze.
Yes, lens copy variation seems to increasingly be an issue as manufacturers require tighter tolerances due to increasingly pixel-dense sensors. There has been a surprising rate of bad copies reported with Fuji's GF lenses in particular, and although I have never had a bad copy of a lens from any manufacturer (yet) I suppose I can just count myself lucky.
A year ago I was extremely close to buying this lens with the 50r. I am so glad that I went full frame instead. This platform has serious limitations and the advantages are not as obvious as they are hyped up to be...
Another excellent and honest review!
The advantages are the potential for more resolution (ergo less aliasing), and for more dynamic range (ergo less noise). That is it, there is no such thing as a, "medium format look".
I think you have to pick the right tool for the job. Medium format is the right tool for some photographers, while modern full frame cameras are definitely superior "jack-of-all-trades" platforms.
Just switched from d850 to gfx. Very good decision.
@@miljo2146 it depends on which gfx and also what you shoot. I shoot a lot of action, so for me this is not an option....
@@NVIK5 it doesn't really depend which gfx. I only shoot slow stuff. Main problem was that there are no really good lenses for the nikon f mount. On top of that I felt that I was calibrating my lenses more than actually shooting. That's a no go for me.
The GF 32-64 is incredibly good for a zoom lens… you’ll never see from the results, that this lens is a zoom lens, and not primes in the same range… it’s that good!
Nice. I'll have to check it out at some point.
Thanks for the review. However, I think you can put more effort into the pictures. Photographing a dry leaf in the snow, well, I don't know. I find that when there are great sample images in a video it firstly makes it fun to watch the video and secondly it establishes credibility on your part. Why would anyone believe you if you weren't a good photographer? Sure you are. Just a small suggestion for improvement. I hope that's okay.
LOL. I think my reputation as a photographer is pretty well established at this point - and obviously people DO believe me.
Imma be honest with you man. It looks like a cheap 18-55mm Canon lens, but other than that, great video man!
Fair enough - it's not the world's most sleek lens.
Nice review. A reviewer you can depend on for a straight forward review you can base your purchase decisions against. GFX lens quality keeps me out of GFX system.
It's definitely a smaller range of choice compared to FF, though the two lenses that I have tested so far have been of good quality.
The GF lenses are great quality, if you are actually interested in the system then rent it to try out for yourself. The lenses are more than a match for the 102MP sensor; I really don't know what comments Dustin was referring to in this video that claimed otherwise. Just avoid the 100-200mm if you demand the best image quality, as it is probably the weakest.
Ridiculous comment… the GF lenses are well amongst the best in the business, save for the 3-6 times more expensive phase one mount lenses
I don’t think you can do a definitive review on a camera and lens you don’t own. You can have an opinion about something you’ve had for a few weeks - but calling it a definitive review is a little misleading.
Hmmm, and what qualifies you to have that definitive opinion?
@@DustinAbbottTWI “Definitive review” is the title of the video. The onus is on you… not me.
All I’m saying is… maybe just say it’s your opinion based whatever experience you had - and be up front with it.
Calling it definitive based on ?? what a week of use… ?? (I don’t know… did you rent it?)… that’s a big call… don’t you think?🤔
You can probably count on one hand the # of mf cameras that have af & most of those are single point af. I'd call this a quantum leap for mf. I'm guessing they used dc motors to keep the size of the lens down.
Fair enough - though in many ways Fuji is competing more with full frame than they are other medium format cameras, which is part of why I say that Fuji's success has also created a liability...
Gee, what an intriguing review. By watching it doesn't come out clear to me whether you are a preconceived being against Fuji products or the medium format system, by and large. Although using ad hoc positive terms such as good, satisfactory, etc, the overwhelming presence of utterly negative expressions, either referring to the Fuji brand or to the larger format system, suffix to unveil your personal dislike (only God knows why) and thus your biased comments. OOPS, not really, I mean ...UTTERLY biased comments. I'm not really sure but it might be due the fact that you are, in fact a salesman of photo gears, not really endowed to embark onto the realms of serious, well grounded, technical analysis on, particularly, optical gear. After all, medium format system gear are not best sellers, no?
I will show what I mean by giving your readers/viewers a quick example of the untrustworthy nature of your attempt to be digested as a reliable source of photographic gear parameters:
You bluntly state that ALL medium format systems, both camera bodies and their lenses, are "primitive" compared to FF system and lessees, including, of course, this particular GF lenses, the Fugi 45mm 2.8. On the other hand, you praise much higher the Canon equivalent lens, its FF 35mm.
Well, well, Mr. Abbott, readers and viewers of this guy's blog, have a close look ate figures below. They show the AF speed of response of Canon and Fuji GF lenses.
CANON LENSES
Lens Focal Length Time ∞→MFD
(dark / light in s) ∞→MFD→∞
(dark / light in s)
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM 16 0.238 / 0.246 0.868 / 0.517
EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM 35 0.517 / 0.234 0.859 / 0.505
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM 24 0.292 / 0.321 0.913 / 0.663
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM 70 0.300 / 0.296 0.947 / 0.626
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM 24 0.317 / 0.304 0.909 / 0.634
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM 105 0.392 / 0.317 1.047 / 0.626
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 70 0.321 / 0.329 0.934 / 0.684
EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM 200 0.947 / 0.334 2.507 / 0.734
EF 50mm f/1.8 STM 50 0.672 / 0.630 1.706 / 1.376
FUJI GF LENSES
GF 23mmF4 R LM WR - 0,140 sec
GF 45mmF2.8 R WR - 0,183 sec
GF 63mmF2.8 R WR - 0,186 sec
GF 110mmF2 R LM WR - 0,208 sec
GF 120mmF4 R LM OIS WR Macro - 0,181 sec
GF 250mmF4 R LM OIS WR - 0,212 sec
GF 32-64mmF4 R LM WR - 0,168 sec
See? Compare them all. See the Canon 35mm AF response time (0.234 to 0,517 - depending on the lighting condition)? Now, see Fuji's equivalent, the GF 45mm 2.8: 0,183 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in average lighting condition. Easy to conclude that in optimal lighting conditions the Fuji GF 45mm will yield an AF performance almost 1.5 times faster than its Canon FF equivalent lens.
I'm done with you, Mr. Abbot. Go knock at somebody else's door to sell your whatever stuff.
Guys, when reading Fuji's data on the GFX100, please read instead the data of its latest GFX100S, with phase AF and better overall AF performance.
Hi Ricardo, it seems like you've focused on the negatives and oblivious to the many positives. And your final statements only betray your ignorance, as Fuji is the one that seeks me out to do reviews of their products. The fact that I give a balanced review that INCLUDES the negatives show that I am far from a "salesman".
@@DustinAbbottTWI , yes, I might be ignorant, maybe not. However, pointing at my presumed ignorance is a shallow, ineffective attempt to divert attention from the core of my comments, the high discrepancy of your statements vis-a-vis the outlined irrefutable technical figures on Canon X Fuji GF AF performances. Yes, I may be ignorant about many facts of life but my hard working existence taught me how to differentiate image conjurers from truth heralds. At all instances, Dustin, I'd rather watch Robins as harbingers of springtime, than taking for granted your reviews, harbingers of doom.
Sorry, Dusting you ARE a salesman. A notable one, by the way.
Your past and present activities obliterate your claim as pretending not being a 100% selling geared person.
You sell all kinds of stuff. Let me show your followers three of those:
1- You are commissioned, meaning, YOU GET PAID when your followers buy photo gear through the links spread all over your media outlets, including here.
2- You run a photography business in Nova Scotia, Canada, SELLING photo gear.
3- An ordained minister with the United Pentecostal Church International, serving as the pastor of Emmanuel Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada and as the director of the Ontario District Media Missions Directory, YOU SELL HOPE.
HOPE is the HOTTEST & FASTEST SELLING commodity now. That’s why many pastors have STUDIED how to PACKAGE it and sell it. The DEMAND is so high and the product is addictive. You can never buy enough HOPE.
Promoted to provide final marketing strategies to sell HOPE at your church media missions directory explains somehow your innate vocation to sell stuff. Regretfully, for you, in the scientific domains of photography, that attribute provides no solid pillars to substantiate meaningful advices to the incautious, generally naive photography rookies, falling preys to your elaborated marketing scheme.
Photo science, my dear, is not taught in the bible. To this end, one needs some more palpable insights which, surely, cannot be found in a book selling ethereal products.
PLEASE, Dusting, STOP with all this farse, for the sake of all those poor people who, under your irresponsible guidance, will be spending zillions of dollars out of their so nurtured savings before finding out it's too late to reverse the ill fate of destiny to have fallen into your so tempting web of lies.
@@djstuc I never said this guy is not genuine. On the contrary, he is 100% legitimate and genuine in his lack of consistency. I am even more baffled than you noting his silence over my comments on his misleading statements regarding Fuji's GFX system vs Canons AF performances. Not a word, just insults.
SILENCE GIVES CONSENT.
Read it over or join him in silence, DJ.
Thank you very much for the Text Review :) Will you review th 30mm GF lens ? But let us be honest, it is NOT a medium format camera, yes it is larger than 35mm format ( full frame), but medium format starts at 45x60mm ! In fact the 44x33mm could have been in an old analog 35mm film if the film had been without perforation in top and button as fx the 127 analog film :)
Hi J - I'm not going to dive into the semantics of the what is and is not medium format in every review. The information is there (I mentioned the crop factor and showed the graph that shows the Fuji sensor compared to full frame and the larger "true" medium format, but people get sick of the same conversation over and over.
You do realise that even the h6d 100c doesnt have a sensor that big....
I always get a little cranky when people decide they’re the experts on what is and is not medium format, and then decide that it matters somehow. 35mm full frame used to be called “small format” and now it’s called “full frame” and APS-C was “half frame” and had nothing to do with the APS film format... so we can surmise that names don’t really matter. 127 film (or 4x4) format was considered medium format, and that’s about where most Hasselblad, Fujifilm, Pentax, and PhaseOne cameras live. Nobody really started complaining about this until Fujifilm and Hasselblad started making affordable cameras, and full frame owners (and, I would imagine, people who bought into really expensive PhaseOne and Hasselblad systems) decided they needed to comfort themselves with the “it’s not medium format and therefore it’s not good” argument.
Medium format is anything larger than 24x36mm and smaller than 90x120mm, which 44x33 is, therefore the Fuji GFX is medium format. It is a smaller medium format, but still medium format by definition.