GF vs XF

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
mikeodial Senior Member • Posts: 2,219
Re: Clinical?

JimKasson wrote:

Tonio78 wrote:

I find that the Fujifilm X resolution is more than adequate for my use. My main interest is the "rendering": do GF lenses render an image more beautifuly than XF lenses? Contrast, saturation, focus fall off, color transition, bokeh creaminess...

In general the rendering of the GF lenses is along the same lines as the Zeiss Otus and some of the regular Zeiss DSLR lenses like the 135/2 Apo-Sonnar. Low aberrations, highly corrected. Some people call that look "clinical", and prefer lenses with greater aberrations, particularly spherical. Light falloff is lower than APS-C lenses at equivalent stops because of the 33x44 mm formats two-stop light gathering advantage.

I happen to like well-corrected lenses in general, although I appreciate some lenses with adorable flaws like the Leica 90/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH and the Nikon 58/1.4.

The 110/2 has great bokeh.

Jim

Jim,

I have been looking for a comparison with the GF lenses and the Zeiss ones. I have a few of the Zeiss Classic ZF lenses, which I love and use on the GF, but am gradually increasing the number of GF lenses (I have the 50mm at the current special price) and the 63mm.

Do you think these lenses really stack up against the Otus line? I know you have done a huge amount of testing, but I still have a hankering for different rendering that comes from the Zeiss lenses at different apertures. (There is a creative side to this which I love)

 mikeodial's gear list:mikeodial's gear list
Leica X Vario Sigma SD1 Nikon D810 Sony a7R II Sigma sd Quattro H +11 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow