-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
35-70 vs 32-64 for landscape/walkaround
- Thread starter Hoa Pham
- Start date
Sorry about that empty post - my slow satellite Internet hung up.
Based on all the diversity of opinion in this thread, I would say there's some lens copy variability, OR we're all pixel-peeping at such high X that we're bound to see some differences. I have used the GF 23mm, 20-35mm, 32-64mm, 35-70mm, and 45-100mm, and they're all very good. I frequently don't have to do any chromatic aberration correction in post, whereas that was common with FF lenses.
Based on all the diversity of opinion in this thread, I would say there's some lens copy variability, OR we're all pixel-peeping at such high X that we're bound to see some differences. I have used the GF 23mm, 20-35mm, 32-64mm, 35-70mm, and 45-100mm, and they're all very good. I frequently don't have to do any chromatic aberration correction in post, whereas that was common with FF lenses.
debo
Veteran Member
Couldn’t agree more. Gfx is the antacid for my gas.
tdl53 wrote:
Sorry about that empty post - my slow satellite Internet hung up.
Based on all the diversity of opinion in this thread, I would say there's some lens copy variability, OR we're all pixel-peeping at such high X that we're bound to see some differences. I have used the GF 23mm, 20-35mm, 32-64mm, 35-70mm, and 45-100mm, and they're all very good. I frequently don't have to do any chromatic aberration correction in post, whereas that was common with FF lenses
tdl53 wrote:
Sorry about that empty post - my slow satellite Internet hung up.
Based on all the diversity of opinion in this thread, I would say there's some lens copy variability, OR we're all pixel-peeping at such high X that we're bound to see some differences. I have used the GF 23mm, 20-35mm, 32-64mm, 35-70mm, and 45-100mm, and they're all very good. I frequently don't have to do any chromatic aberration correction in post, whereas that was common with FF lenses
Mortimer Snerd
New member
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
I've tried almost all the GFX lenses and bought the 100S to gain in detail and resolution. The use of zooms seems counter-intuitive since the larger captor would be begging for exceptional glass. The question one has to ask is do you want an ability to enlarge an image with just passable sharpness or do you want the image to really pop and maximize the full potential of that wonderful captor of 100m pixels...
Using 3rd party lenses or adapting analog lenses for digital captor is a slippery slope. Of all my close friends who are optics experts, some of whom design elite optics for satellites etc, all tell me the exact same thing - that the exit bundling of the light in analog lenses is not compatible with the requirements of a digital captor. I tested an Apo Makro Planar (Contax) 120mm vs the Fuji 120mm Macro using the exact same scene / camera and the Fuji out-performed it by an observable margin. The GF 30mm however is not the best lens in the Fuji lineup and I found that the 35mm Zeiss (Contax) Distagon performs excellently. I own the 45-100mm GF zoom which doesn't compare to the fixed focal length lenses either. I was extremely disappointed by the 32-64mm GF... Since my images are detail-driven and the rendering of each element is critical, I stay away from zooms and confirmed this after testing the Fuji GF lineup. I will be selling my 45-100mm which gets no use. I would hesitate to use the GFX cameras for handheld images - with the depth of field constraints and need for spontaneity an APS-C sized captor would be best - the lenses are much smaller and have an inherent depth of field which is far more manageable. I would imagine many of the contributors to this forum do handheld photography and accept the slight loss of image quality that occurs from camera shake or using a less than optimum aperture but my work is all done on a tripod and for still life photography, one does not "dumb down" IQ with a zoom when there are fixed focal length lenses which outperform them hands down.
Using 3rd party lenses or adapting analog lenses for digital captor is a slippery slope. Of all my close friends who are optics experts, some of whom design elite optics for satellites etc, all tell me the exact same thing - that the exit bundling of the light in analog lenses is not compatible with the requirements of a digital captor. I tested an Apo Makro Planar (Contax) 120mm vs the Fuji 120mm Macro using the exact same scene / camera and the Fuji out-performed it by an observable margin. The GF 30mm however is not the best lens in the Fuji lineup and I found that the 35mm Zeiss (Contax) Distagon performs excellently. I own the 45-100mm GF zoom which doesn't compare to the fixed focal length lenses either. I was extremely disappointed by the 32-64mm GF... Since my images are detail-driven and the rendering of each element is critical, I stay away from zooms and confirmed this after testing the Fuji GF lineup. I will be selling my 45-100mm which gets no use. I would hesitate to use the GFX cameras for handheld images - with the depth of field constraints and need for spontaneity an APS-C sized captor would be best - the lenses are much smaller and have an inherent depth of field which is far more manageable. I would imagine many of the contributors to this forum do handheld photography and accept the slight loss of image quality that occurs from camera shake or using a less than optimum aperture but my work is all done on a tripod and for still life photography, one does not "dumb down" IQ with a zoom when there are fixed focal length lenses which outperform them hands down.
There is no utility in using a lens so sharp that it causes aliasing on the sensor you’re using.
Whether that is an issue depends on the lens design. It is hardly ever a problem with lenses designed for SLR flange focal distances, unless used outside their design coverage.
I tested an Apo Makro Planar (Contax) 120mm vs the Fuji 120mm Macro using the exact same scene / camera and the Fuji out-performed it by an observable margin. The GF 30mm however is not the best lens in the Fuji lineup and I found that the 35mm Zeiss (Contax) Distagon performs excellently. I own the 45-100mm GF zoom which doesn't compare to the fixed focal length lenses either. I was extremely disappointed by the 32-64mm GF... Since my images are detail-driven and the rendering of each element is critical, I stay away from zooms and confirmed this after testing the Fuji GF lineup. I will be selling my 45-100mm which gets no use. I would hesitate to use the GFX cameras for handheld images - with the depth of field constraints and need for spontaneity an APS-C sized captor would be best - the lenses are much smaller and have an inherent depth of field which is far more manageable. I would imagine many of the contributors to this forum do handheld photography and accept the slight loss of image quality that occurs from camera shake or using a less than optimum aperture but my work is all done on a tripod and for still life photography, one does not "dumb down" IQ with a zoom when there are fixed focal length lenses which outperform them hands down.
jakelindsay
Leading Member
- Messages
- 843
- Reaction score
- 744
I've always found this theory (use primes for optimal IQ) a conundrum. More often than not, when I am shooting a prime in the field, I end up cropping the image. Sometimes slightly, but other times significantly. For a handful of reasons, but the most obvious being I'm physically unable to frame the composition how I want. So is the marginally better IQ in the corners worth giving up the resolution that gets tossed out?
I don't have the answer. Just noting that it's not an idea that should be easily discounted from my experience.
I had both but I ditched 35-70mm for portrait uses. However, if you gonna use it for landscape then 35-70 is better.
paulraphael
Senior Member
I don't know how someone could say one or the other is better for landscape. There are no rules for landscape photography. There's no one definition. Some people will prefer wider focal lengths, others will prefer longer ones. This alone should decide which of these lenses you choose, if either.
Any differences in optical quality are insignificant compared with the differences in focal length.
Any differences in optical quality are insignificant compared with the differences in focal length.
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
The 32-64 is known for suffering from field curvature which can cause problems in landscapes. But I don’t know how the 35-70 compares here. Might it have less?
paulraphael
Senior Member
I had this problem with most of my Nikon lenses, which is one reason I sold that system. I have not seen any problems in the real world with field curvature and the 32-64.
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
The comments at the end of Jim’s test are interesting.
Field curvature in the Fuji GF 35-70, part 2 - the last word
In a previous post, I tested the field curvature of the Fuji 35-70 GF using Roger Cicala's quick and dirty method. A reader said he was having difficulty with what appeared to be field curvature in the corners. That gave me an idea for a modifications of Roger's test. I rolled the camera so that
blog.kasson.com
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum