I really like both of these lenses. The images I shared in the video were surprising in many ways. What is your experience with these lenses? Which one do you prefer?
Thank you for the comment. Sorry if there was any confusion. The GFX 50S doesn't have image stabilization which makes the IS is the GF 120mm lens all that more important. The later GFX Cameras have image stabilization, but I have not used them with the CZ Jena 120 to test if the IS works.
I have the 120 CJZ lens which I originally used on a Kiev 60 and now use with a Pentax 67 adaptation. I have always found this lens to be sharp but better is its beautiful rich and natural color rendering. It is also very light to carry!
Thank you for your comment and experience with the 120mm. The color is fantastic with this lens. This lens, like the 80mm CZJ are both really light, and that is super helpful carrying them around.
Is the 120 CZJ a macro lens? I wonder how it compares to the GF 110 f/2. If you are going to use portraits in your examples, it seems like comparing it to the GF 110 is a better choice over the GF 120 macro.
VERY interesting comparison, Marshall! As a Nikon Z landscape, macro and product photographer contemplating going to MF (researching the Fuji GFX100 ll and the Hasselblad X2D), I am particularly interested in this Fujinon GF 120 Macro. It's refreshing to see that it's sharper than the Zeis lens, but how do you think it compares to the equivalent Hasselblad XC 120? Thank you!
Thank you for the comment, and that is a great question. There are a lot of things to consider to compare the Hasselblad to the Fuji. First is the Hasselblad has a Leaf Shutter and Fuji does not. This is really important for studio strobe work, as the sync speed on the Hasselblad will be much faster. This would be a huge difference if someone is shooting say products with strobes a lot or a lot of portraiture. The Hasselblad is also much more expensive, but if money is no worry the Hasselblad produces beautiful files. I would also say the Fuji 120 produces beautiful files as well, probably a really close second though. I digitize a fair amount of art for artists, for publication, website, advertising, etc. I do that work with the Fuji 120 and the results are absolutely amazing. I went with the Fuji system mostly because I like shooting with vintage lenses. The leaf shutter of the Hasselblad makes that a little more difficult. Hope the answer helps it's getting a little long, sorry. Overall, I shoot with MF and FF both, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in the files. Maybe not as drastic as 6X7 and 35mm film, but there is a difference.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Hi Marshall. Thank you for your detailed and informative reply! I shoot the NIkon Z8 for landscapes, ocassional wildlife, macro and small products. The latter I shoot in studio with Godox strobes, and since I don't shoot fashion or moving subjects in studio, I don't think the 1/125 sync speed would be an issue. I guess my main concern would be, at what print size would I begin to see the difference in image sharpness and detail in a GFX 100 ll print over an already good Nikon Z8 print? (I realize that the Z8 with the NIkkor Z 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 combo for wildlife would be superior to what the GFX (or any) MF system can offer.) I would mainly use the GFX 100 ll for landscapes and small product photography. Thanks again sir!
@@stevelink3 For wildlife I would definitely stick to full frame for sure. As for print, that is a tough one. I routinely print images 40X60 inches after cropping them some, from the Fuji GFX 50s files, and don't think twice about it. With Full Frame at that size I definitely see the difference, but I have printed FF that size and clients love them do to viewing distance. There are a lot of variables to consider with print that effect size limits(substrate/paper makes a huge difference, ISO noise, etc). I think a biggest component of printing large is having the best file possible. ie, make sure you're using a tripod, and good glass. There are a lot of variables to consider, not just the camera. That said I can definitely print landscapes shot with MF larger than ones shot with FF. A shorter, quick answer is at around 20X30 inch prints I can start telling a small difference between MF and FF if all things about the files are similar. Thank you for the dialogue!
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Excellent, Marshall...thank you! Yes, I do agree that FF is better for wildlife. And yes, I do use a solid tripod (a Leofoto LS-365C with LH-40 ballhead), 10 second self-timer to eliminate any potential vibration, low ISO (64) when possible, and good post processing technique, and also focus stacking when needed for my small product photography, which are sometimes composites of 20-50 images. So, I think I'm getting the maximum image quality from my FF gear. However, I 've always been interested in Medium Format ever since I began printing rather large, plus being a sharpness/detail fanatic. Anyway, thank you for your professional and valuable insights! I'm still researching between the GFX 100 ll and the X2D, while considering my "tight" photography budget at the same time...my online website isn't exactly as popular as most. Thanks again!
@@stevelink3 Thank you for the conversation. I totally enjoy nerding out on photo gear and talking shop. Based on my experience with MF digital you can't go wrong with either of the GFX 100 II or the X2D. They are both fantastic camera systems. I have never once regretted purchasing the 50S over 6 years ago. It was amazing then and I was out shooting with it earlier today (good equipment lasts a long time). The images always blow me away. If you're on a tight budget don't forget to save some coin to have the resources to travel for the landscape photog. On a side note you could rent the Fuji and the Hasselblad at a time you are going to need them. Trying them both out, and see which is right for you. That way you don't pick a camera until after a test drive. Most of all, enjoy your photography journey!
Thank you for the comment. I can definitely share how to set up a vintage lens on the GFX. You need an adapter that has the lens mount and the GFX mount. Then you just use that between the camera and lens. I will follow up with a video to with much more detail.
a couple of points to keep in mind about these lenses, Carl Zeiss made the hasselblad lenses, and therefore most likely is keyed around film formats,so the testing would be done around a 6x6 cm sensor size; Fuji is renown for Both types, Fujinon (cinema and LF film glass) and Fuji GF the latter is designed from the word go to be put on their camera sensor (33x44 mm or thereabouts), so is adapted for it, the camera can add lens data to the processing, also this is a clinical lens, for precise imaging, the Carl Zeiss is a 'classic', designed for a look, not to be absolutely clinical (like the phase one glass); this 'character' is why people bought 500c\m s to get this look, and the dof it offers, not completely sharp, but the BOKEH and the feathering of it to the in-focus area, that's where the money lies. ( for the people a fan of this look). Also, off topic, but the reason people get leica's too, is for this exact reason, so they can shoot the infamous 50mm f0.95 ! or the Contax 645, for its glass, the bokeh effect does have a following, it adds something different, for certain genre of photography, and photographers' tastes.
Thank you for the comment! Very good points, and a lot of the reason I shoot vintage glass. The look, the bokeh, the uniqueness the vintage glass creates makes them special compared to the "clinical" look. Enjoy.
Thanks for the video. I'm considering buying a GFX 50S II with the kit lens; the other choice is a Sony A7R V. I currently have a Sony A7A III and set of lenses; but i also like to shoot my medium format analog camera's. I have a Kiev 60 with the Zeiss 180mm and also the 80mm lenses; the results on 6x6 film is amazing. My main use for the camera is studio photography with strobes. I also do photo walks in town, bit of architecture and street. I'll keep the Sony A7 III; so it is an additional camera. So ... can you help me chose? ;-) Just collecting thoughts.
Thank you for the comment. I have a similar set up with the A7 II and the GFX 50s. I think a mirrorless full frame and digital medium format are a great pairing. I print large, and when I'm printing 40X60 inches and bigger I really do start to see a big difference (Outside of all the other FF/Med format differences like depth of field etc). For slow work, like studio, tripod landscapes, and more I enjoy the Fuji GFX system. It's not just about more resolution. I still shoot with film from time to time on a Mamyia RB67 and the slower process of composing my shots, focusing, setting up and waiting for the perfect light really resonates with me. Then I use the A7II for faster, up and moving around types of things, mostly just when I'm out walking around. I have and use other cameras, but those are primarily how I use these cameras. I see them as tools that complement each other rather than one or the other. I've also shot with high megapixel full frame cameras and they weren't for me. The images were a little to crispy right out of the camera. Lots of pixels shoved in a small area. I'm not saying they are bad, just my taste/preference. A good thing so many companies make so many different cameras to choose from. Hope this helps.
Thank you for the comment. I currently don't have a Contax 645 120/4, but I do really like that lens. I used it before in the film days. That makes me think about going shopping.
I'm excited about your video. I have owned the CZ 180mm 2.8 for a long time and the quality of the images is great. The Fuji 120 GFX was actually too expensive for me because I can cover almost all focal lengths with my Canon system. I immediately bought the CZ 120mm 2.8 because of your video (as good as new for 179 euros). I am very happy with this decision, so I will forgo the Fuji 120mm for the time being. I also have the 80 mm 2.8 from CZ since yesterday. I myself am from East Germany. For us, Carl Zeiss Jena lenses have always been the epitome of quality.
Thanks. Very interesting. I use a number of gf lenses. But also use Pentax 645. The Pentax are a mixed bag. The 35mm is very good. Even when using a tilt shift adapter. The little 75mm if any thing Iis better than the Fuji 45-100. Which is surprising bc the 45-100 is very good. Any noticeably better than the Pentax 45-85mm. Note that these Lenses can be used with tilt shift adapters. And are very very cheap on eBay. But the Fuji 120 does seem in a class by itself.
very interesting - did you check the CZ at slightly shorter distance (not set to infinity) usually the adapters are a little off and I found that my CZ lenes er very sharp at slightly closer than infinity. Great comparison 🙂
That is a great question. I definitely find that the CZ lenses are sharper at not set to infinity. As you mention this is due to the adapter not the lens. I was surprised at just how amazingly sharp the Fuji is, and the comparison showed that. It shouldn't be to surprising though given that it was made for the GFX system. I did have to really zoom in (not completely pixel peeping but close) to see the sharpness difference. It was easily corrected with sharpening though. The CZ lenses are absolutely amazing lenses and even better for the price. Thanks for the comment.
That’s awesome! Yes, I remember the peppers image, and Sexton’s name on one of the Adams postcards. I used to use a dark red filter to simulate IR, and would love to see your resulting images! (Not sure if it’s permitted to give an email address here.)
Since you were asking about the Fuji GFX, I have some IR examples in a video I did not long ago. I used an IR specific filter on the Fuji GFX 50s. You can find it here- ruclips.net/video/vajc6wkp-TY/видео.html Or if you prefer it's also on my RUclips home page. I currently don't have any of my IR images on my website.
I don't understand fuji. the 120 is a macro lens that fails at macro. yet Fujion makes the 120mm f4 HC lens for Hasselblad, the greatest macro lens ever made in my opinion. so wtf are these guys doing?!
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto it Could be 1:1 for a start.. and since it’s not, I don’t see the point of it with the 110mm in the lineup. A superior lens in every way.
@@Juventinos I really went back and forth over the 110mm and the 120mm. I went with the 120mm for a few reasons, but the big ones were the image stabilization and the 72mm filter size. I already had a lot of filters for 72mm and my budget was tight buying into the Fuji system. It was a way to spend less on accessories so I could afford an extra lens. I agree though, the 110mm is an amazing lens. One day I would like to have it in my bag.
@@Juventinos Yes, it could have been 1:1, but that would have made the lens much bigger and more expensive. I have the 110mm and it's a fantastic lens, but it's not superior in every way. I also have the mcex-45g extension tube, which is a total waste of time on the 110mm. the DOF is laser thin and you have to stack over a 150 images to get a decent shot. Alternatively, the 120mm was designed to work with the 45mm extension tube, and produces a marvelous image at 1:1. Additionally, the 120mm has a minimum focusing distance of 45cm, compared to nearly three feet for the 110mm. With magnification of.5, the 120mm can accomplish photography that the 110mm can only crop to. They're very different lenses.
I really like both of these lenses. The images I shared in the video were surprising in many ways. What is your experience with these lenses? Which one do you prefer?
Thanks for your time and dedication. You mentioned the image stabilization from Fuji Camera, does it work with the Carl Zeiss as well?
Thank you for the comment. Sorry if there was any confusion. The GFX 50S doesn't have image stabilization which makes the IS is the GF 120mm lens all that more important. The later GFX Cameras have image stabilization, but I have not used them with the CZ Jena 120 to test if the IS works.
Thanks anyway 😀
I have the 120 CJZ lens which I originally used on a Kiev 60 and now use with a Pentax 67 adaptation. I have always found this lens to be sharp but better is its beautiful rich and natural color rendering. It is also very light to carry!
Thank you for your comment and experience with the 120mm. The color is fantastic with this lens. This lens, like the 80mm CZJ are both really light, and that is super helpful carrying them around.
Is the 120 CZJ a macro lens? I wonder how it compares to the GF 110 f/2. If you are going to use portraits in your examples, it seems like comparing it to the GF 110 is a better choice over the GF 120 macro.
Thanks for the feedback. The CZ120 is not a macro lens. I wish I had the 110 to compare, but did not have it available.
VERY interesting comparison, Marshall! As a Nikon Z landscape, macro and product photographer contemplating going to MF (researching the Fuji GFX100 ll and the Hasselblad X2D), I am particularly interested in this Fujinon GF 120 Macro. It's refreshing to see that it's sharper than the Zeis lens, but how do you think it compares to the equivalent Hasselblad XC 120? Thank you!
Thank you for the comment, and that is a great question. There are a lot of things to consider to compare the Hasselblad to the Fuji. First is the Hasselblad has a Leaf Shutter and Fuji does not. This is really important for studio strobe work, as the sync speed on the Hasselblad will be much faster. This would be a huge difference if someone is shooting say products with strobes a lot or a lot of portraiture. The Hasselblad is also much more expensive, but if money is no worry the Hasselblad produces beautiful files. I would also say the Fuji 120 produces beautiful files as well, probably a really close second though. I digitize a fair amount of art for artists, for publication, website, advertising, etc. I do that work with the Fuji 120 and the results are absolutely amazing. I went with the Fuji system mostly because I like shooting with vintage lenses. The leaf shutter of the Hasselblad makes that a little more difficult. Hope the answer helps it's getting a little long, sorry. Overall, I shoot with MF and FF both, and there is definitely a noticeable difference in the files. Maybe not as drastic as 6X7 and 35mm film, but there is a difference.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Hi Marshall. Thank you for your detailed and informative reply! I shoot the NIkon Z8 for landscapes, ocassional wildlife, macro and small products. The latter I shoot in studio with Godox strobes, and since I don't shoot fashion or moving subjects in studio, I don't think the 1/125 sync speed would be an issue. I guess my main concern would be, at what print size would I begin to see the difference in image sharpness and detail in a GFX 100 ll print over an already good Nikon Z8 print? (I realize that the Z8 with the NIkkor Z 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 combo for wildlife would be superior to what the GFX (or any) MF system can offer.) I would mainly use the GFX 100 ll for landscapes and small product photography. Thanks again sir!
@@stevelink3 For wildlife I would definitely stick to full frame for sure. As for print, that is a tough one. I routinely print images 40X60 inches after cropping them some, from the Fuji GFX 50s files, and don't think twice about it. With Full Frame at that size I definitely see the difference, but I have printed FF that size and clients love them do to viewing distance. There are a lot of variables to consider with print that effect size limits(substrate/paper makes a huge difference, ISO noise, etc).
I think a biggest component of printing large is having the best file possible. ie, make sure you're using a tripod, and good glass. There are a lot of variables to consider, not just the camera. That said I can definitely print landscapes shot with MF larger than ones shot with FF.
A shorter, quick answer is at around 20X30 inch prints I can start telling a small difference between MF and FF if all things about the files are similar.
Thank you for the dialogue!
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Excellent, Marshall...thank you! Yes, I do agree that FF is better for wildlife. And yes, I do use a solid tripod (a Leofoto LS-365C with LH-40 ballhead), 10 second self-timer to eliminate any potential vibration, low ISO (64) when possible, and good post processing technique, and also focus stacking when needed for my small product photography, which are sometimes composites of 20-50 images. So, I think I'm getting the maximum image quality from my FF gear. However, I 've always been interested in Medium Format ever since I began printing rather large, plus being a sharpness/detail fanatic. Anyway, thank you for your professional and valuable insights! I'm still researching between the GFX 100 ll and the X2D, while considering my "tight" photography budget at the same time...my online website isn't exactly as popular as most. Thanks again!
@@stevelink3 Thank you for the conversation. I totally enjoy nerding out on photo gear and talking shop. Based on my experience with MF digital you can't go wrong with either of the GFX 100 II or the X2D. They are both fantastic camera systems. I have never once regretted purchasing the 50S over 6 years ago. It was amazing then and I was out shooting with it earlier today (good equipment lasts a long time). The images always blow me away. If you're on a tight budget don't forget to save some coin to have the resources to travel for the landscape photog.
On a side note you could rent the Fuji and the Hasselblad at a time you are going to need them. Trying them both out, and see which is right for you. That way you don't pick a camera until after a test drive.
Most of all, enjoy your photography journey!
Appreciate your comments. Was wondering if you could share how one sets up a vintage lens for use on a GFX? Sorry to bother.
Thank you for the comment. I can definitely share how to set up a vintage lens on the GFX. You need an adapter that has the lens mount and the GFX mount. Then you just use that between the camera and lens. I will follow up with a video to with much more detail.
a couple of points to keep in mind about these lenses, Carl Zeiss made the hasselblad lenses, and therefore most likely is keyed around film formats,so the testing would be done around a 6x6 cm sensor size; Fuji is renown for Both types, Fujinon (cinema and LF film glass) and Fuji GF the latter is designed from the word go to be put on their camera sensor (33x44 mm or thereabouts), so is adapted for it, the camera can add lens data to the processing, also this is a clinical lens, for precise imaging, the Carl Zeiss is a 'classic', designed for a look, not to be absolutely clinical (like the phase one glass); this 'character' is why people bought 500c\m s to get this look, and the dof it offers, not completely sharp, but the BOKEH and the feathering of it to the in-focus area, that's where the money lies. ( for the people a fan of this look). Also, off topic, but the reason people get leica's too, is for this exact reason, so they can shoot the infamous 50mm f0.95 ! or the Contax 645, for its glass, the bokeh effect does have a following, it adds something different, for certain genre of photography, and photographers' tastes.
Thank you for the comment! Very good points, and a lot of the reason I shoot vintage glass. The look, the bokeh, the uniqueness the vintage glass creates makes them special compared to the "clinical" look. Enjoy.
You are absolutely right! Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for the video. I'm considering buying a GFX 50S II with the kit lens; the other choice is a Sony A7R V. I currently have a Sony A7A III and set of lenses; but i also like to shoot my medium format analog camera's. I have a Kiev 60 with the Zeiss 180mm and also the 80mm lenses; the results on 6x6 film is amazing.
My main use for the camera is studio photography with strobes. I also do photo walks in town, bit of architecture and street.
I'll keep the Sony A7 III; so it is an additional camera.
So ... can you help me chose? ;-) Just collecting thoughts.
Thank you for the comment. I have a similar set up with the A7 II and the GFX 50s. I think a mirrorless full frame and digital medium format are a great pairing. I print large, and when I'm printing 40X60 inches and bigger I really do start to see a big difference (Outside of all the other FF/Med format differences like depth of field etc).
For slow work, like studio, tripod landscapes, and more I enjoy the Fuji GFX system. It's not just about more resolution. I still shoot with film from time to time on a Mamyia RB67 and the slower process of composing my shots, focusing, setting up and waiting for the perfect light really resonates with me.
Then I use the A7II for faster, up and moving around types of things, mostly just when I'm out walking around.
I have and use other cameras, but those are primarily how I use these cameras. I see them as tools that complement each other rather than one or the other.
I've also shot with high megapixel full frame cameras and they weren't for me. The images were a little to crispy right out of the camera. Lots of pixels shoved in a small area. I'm not saying they are bad, just my taste/preference. A good thing so many companies make so many different cameras to choose from.
Hope this helps.
@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Thanks for the feedback, insightful and indeed a match for my setup. I've sent a mail to a retailer for an offer. ;-)
How about the Contax 645 Zeiss 120/4 macro compared with the Fuji GF 120/4 macro?
Thank you for the comment. I currently don't have a Contax 645 120/4, but I do really like that lens. I used it before in the film days. That makes me think about going shopping.
The fringes adapter should work. The adapter and contax 120 combination is still cheaper than Fuji 120.
@@qm9588 Totally agree. The vintage lenses offer great value on the modern mirrorless cameras.
informative video. I have a Takumar 2.8/120mm that i use for street work. It is a nice focal length
Thank you for the comment. The 120mm focal length on the Fuji MF is a really awesome focal length.
I'm excited about your video. I have owned the CZ 180mm 2.8 for a long time and the quality of the images is great. The Fuji 120 GFX was actually too expensive for me because I can cover almost all focal lengths with my Canon system. I immediately bought the CZ 120mm 2.8 because of your video (as good as new for 179 euros). I am very happy with this decision, so I will forgo the Fuji 120mm for the time being. I also have the 80 mm 2.8 from CZ since yesterday.
I myself am from East Germany. For us, Carl Zeiss Jena lenses have always been the epitome of quality.
Thank you for the comment. The CZ Jena lenses are great and super high quality. Enjoy those lenses.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto I'll do it. Thank you for your video.
Thanks. Very interesting. I use a number of gf lenses. But also use Pentax 645. The Pentax are a mixed bag. The 35mm is very good. Even when using a tilt shift adapter. The little 75mm if any thing Iis better than the Fuji 45-100. Which is surprising bc the 45-100 is very good. Any noticeably better than the Pentax 45-85mm. Note that these Lenses can be used with tilt shift adapters. And are very very cheap on eBay. But the Fuji 120 does seem in a class by itself.
That is super cool. I really like the idea of using a tilt shift. Thank you for the comment and the ideas going through my head now.
Is this a Zeiss lens from old medium format or 35mm?
This is a vintage medium format lens with the Pentacon Six mount.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto thanks.
very interesting - did you check the CZ at slightly shorter distance (not set to infinity) usually the adapters are a little off and I found that my CZ lenes er very sharp at slightly closer than infinity. Great comparison 🙂
That is a great question. I definitely find that the CZ lenses are sharper at not set to infinity. As you mention this is due to the adapter not the lens. I was surprised at just how amazingly sharp the Fuji is, and the comparison showed that. It shouldn't be to surprising though given that it was made for the GFX system.
I did have to really zoom in (not completely pixel peeping but close) to see the sharpness difference. It was easily corrected with sharpening though. The CZ lenses are absolutely amazing lenses and even better for the price.
Thanks for the comment.
That’s awesome! Yes, I remember the peppers image, and Sexton’s name on one of the Adams postcards. I used to use a dark red filter to simulate IR, and would love to see your resulting images! (Not sure if it’s permitted to give an email address here.)
Since you were asking about the Fuji GFX, I have some IR examples in a video I did not long ago. I used an IR specific filter on the Fuji GFX 50s. You can find it here- ruclips.net/video/vajc6wkp-TY/видео.html
Or if you prefer it's also on my RUclips home page.
I currently don't have any of my IR images on my website.
great video. thanks man.
Thank you for the comment. Glad you liked the video.
Very neat presentation
Thank you!
Здравствуйте, интересно было бы сравнить их в условиях контрового света
That is an interesting idea. Thank you for the comment.
Very informative but please Jena is pronounced “Yenah” 😅
Thank you for the feedback.
I don't understand fuji. the 120 is a macro lens that fails at macro. yet Fujion makes the 120mm f4 HC lens for Hasselblad, the greatest macro lens ever made in my opinion. so wtf are these guys doing?!
Thank you for the comment. You bring up a great question. The Fuji 120mm could definitely be better than it is for macro.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto it Could be 1:1 for a start.. and since it’s not, I don’t see the point of it with the 110mm in the lineup. A superior lens in every way.
@@Juventinos I really went back and forth over the 110mm and the 120mm. I went with the 120mm for a few reasons, but the big ones were the image stabilization and the 72mm filter size. I already had a lot of filters for 72mm and my budget was tight buying into the Fuji system. It was a way to spend less on accessories so I could afford an extra lens. I agree though, the 110mm is an amazing lens. One day I would like to have it in my bag.
@@Juventinos Yes, it could have been 1:1, but that would have made the lens much bigger and more expensive. I have the 110mm and it's a fantastic lens, but it's not superior in every way. I also have the mcex-45g extension tube, which is a total waste of time on the 110mm. the DOF is laser thin and you have to stack over a 150 images to get a decent shot. Alternatively, the 120mm was designed to work with the 45mm extension tube, and produces a marvelous image at 1:1. Additionally, the 120mm has a minimum focusing distance of 45cm, compared to nearly three feet for the 110mm. With magnification of.5, the 120mm can accomplish photography that the 110mm can only crop to. They're very different lenses.