Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR: Your opinion

bobby350z said:

Sorry I meant field curvature of the 32-64mm. My copy of the 32-64mm seemed quite sharp end to end, sad that I sold it to fund the 45-100mm. To me they are almost the same in everything. Maybe some copies of the 32-64mm had issues, just like a lot of folks had issues with earlier 35-70mm.

Click to expand...

bobby350z said:

alpshiker said:

Pansottin said:

Thanks to everyone who is sharing images and comments.

Click to expand...

Another one taken near 50mm at f11, 1600 ISO, 1/60th.

It's sharp, you can see the captain's beard. This one went through Topaz Denoise.

View attachment 7a3125ddf9584b81bf35a7ef127f194e.jpg
GFX 50S, GF35-70mm, 48mm f11, 1/60th, 1600 ISO, Denoise.

Click to expand...

I don't shoot high ISOs but something is off to me, maybe it is the denoise messing up or how it was uploaded with compression etc. Look at the faces of the people, I see quite a bit of strange artifacts.

Click to expand...

bobby350z said:

So is it more a lens design thing? I have seen sample shots where you or someone had posted about the grass not being sharp but I can't imagine that one would see the effect in the shots like the other poster kristian1 had posted. Maybe I am wrong with my assumptions.

Click to expand...

petreluk said:

1. petreluk wrote:

I use mine typically at f8 to f13. I'd guess that one of the F4 zooms would show slightly better IQ but at those apertures likely not that much. Perhaps the corners would be a little better. My copy cost me 500 bucks as the part a deal with the camera so, for me, I doubt the diminishing returns of replacing this with an f4 zoom costing 3-4 times that is worth it. I'd go for primes in other focal lengths instead, like a 30mm or an 80mm. Those would allow top IQ at wider apertures which the kit lens can't really manage. I'd say that's its drawback. If I was shooting for demanding high-end clients with knowledgeable picture editors then, yes, I very probably would go for something better but I'm not. My copy is not good at near minimum focus distance at the long end. That's definitely another drawback but then I rarely use it for that.

Click to expand...

petreluk said:

I use mine typically at f8 to f13. I'd guess that one of the F4 zooms would show slightly better IQ but at those apertures likely not that much. Perhaps the corners would be a little better. My copy cost me 500 bucks as the part a deal with the camera so, for me, I doubt the diminishing returns of replacing this with an f4 zoom costing 3-4 times that is worth it. I'd go for primes in other focal lengths instead, like a 30mm or an 80mm. Those would allow top IQ at wider apertures which the kit lens can't really manage. I'd say that's its drawback. If I was shooting for demanding high-end clients with knowledgeable picture editors then, yes, I very probably would go for something better but I'm not. My copy is not good at near minimum focus distance at the long end.

Click to expand...

petreluk said:

That's definitely another drawback but then I rarely use it for that.

Click to expand...

bobby350z said:

So is it more a lens design thing? I have seen sample shots where you or someone had posted about the grass not being sharp but I can't imagine that one would see the effect in the shots like the other poster kristian1 had posted. Maybe I am wrong with my assumptions.

Click to expand...