Valued Customer
Leading Member
- Messages
- 892
- Reaction score
- 424
You will soon be able to add a GF500.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
GF 110 vs. GF 120
- Thread starter ptambori
- Start date
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
While your examples here may be suitable for some scientific journal or possibly a house of horrors on Halloween they are not something I would hang in my house. And your setup for shooting those, how do you like carrying it with you for a walk through the woods.It's not an overstatement. It's accurate.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67180601
The effect gets worse the more tubes you use (and the higher the magnification gets).
Even in the example you posted here the image quality outside the center portion is really, really bad. More pixels don't help, the distortions, aberrations, smears, coma can't be fixed with more "data".
I've sampled a lot of really affordable alternative lenses that deliver a much better image quality at magnifications higher than 0.5x - and those deliver pretty much the same high image quality over the whole image, not just the center portion.
I wouldn't use the 120mm with tubes, that's just a waste of image quality and doesn't do the lens (or the sensor) any justice. Instead it would be a better idea to just crop the image, even a crop of an image taken with a 50 MP sensor at 0.5x would be preferable to a 100MP image taken at 1x.
Here's a comparison between the APO-Rodagon D 75mm 4.0 (1:1) and the GF 120mm with tubes:
APO Rodagon 75mm left / GF120mm with tubes right.
So you can see that while the GF120mm is an amazing lens when left alone, it's... well... a glorified ashtray when used with extension tubes.
EDIT: besides, the native Fuji-Tubes are complete and utter rubbish. They're too narrow, resulting in vignetting when using multiple tubes. They aren't flocked so you'll get in trouble with internal reflections too. So avoid them at all cost.
The best tubes I've found so far are the ones made by Fotodiox, they're totally flocked, have a wide throat with 0 vignetting and just as solidly made. They're not the cheapest tubes around but still far cheaper than the Fuji tubes.
--
Professional naysayer. Occasionally.
Naw, I’m sticking with gross overstatement with a dose of narrow mindedness.
I tested the Canon 100-400 II, the Canon 200/2.8 II and a Nikkor 300/4 PF; all with Fringer adapters.
The zoom was heavy and optically unimpressive. The 200 and 300 were outstanding.
(And I sold my 110 and 100-200, and bought the 120 macro.)
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Hi,While your examples here may be suitable for some scientific journal or possibly a house of horrors on Halloween they are not something I would hang in my house. And your setup for shooting those, how do you like carrying it with you for a walk through the woods.It's not an overstatement. It's accurate.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67180601
The effect gets worse the more tubes you use (and the higher the magnification gets).
Even in the example you posted here the image quality outside the center portion is really, really bad. More pixels don't help, the distortions, aberrations, smears, coma can't be fixed with more "data".
I've sampled a lot of really affordable alternative lenses that deliver a much better image quality at magnifications higher than 0.5x - and those deliver pretty much the same high image quality over the whole image, not just the center portion.
I wouldn't use the 120mm with tubes, that's just a waste of image quality and doesn't do the lens (or the sensor) any justice. Instead it would be a better idea to just crop the image, even a crop of an image taken with a 50 MP sensor at 0.5x would be preferable to a 100MP image taken at 1x.
Here's a comparison between the APO-Rodagon D 75mm 4.0 (1:1) and the GF 120mm with tubes:
APO Rodagon 75mm left / GF120mm with tubes right.
So you can see that while the GF120mm is an amazing lens when left alone, it's... well... a glorified ashtray when used with extension tubes.
EDIT: besides, the native Fuji-Tubes are complete and utter rubbish. They're too narrow, resulting in vignetting when using multiple tubes. They aren't flocked so you'll get in trouble with internal reflections too. So avoid them at all cost.
The best tubes I've found so far are the ones made by Fotodiox, they're totally flocked, have a wide throat with 0 vignetting and just as solidly made. They're not the cheapest tubes around but still far cheaper than the Fuji tubes.
Naw, I’m sticking with gross overstatement with a dose of narrow mindedness.
Jim has also used the GF 120 macro with tubes. But, someone was complaining that the GF 120 with tube didn't work for reproducing slides.
After that, Jim has investigated that a bit more and found that the GF macro was a poor performer with tubes.
The problem is that the GF 120 is a floating lens design, where the movement of internal elements corrects for aberration caused by close focusing. With extension tubes, that correction is applied incorrectly (screwed up).
A good part of the introduced error is field curvature.
Shooting many kinds of macro subjects the zone of best focus is very thin so only part of a 3D subject will be sharp. On subjects like that the GF 120 with tubes will work well.
Shooting flat field subjects like slide dupes and coins, it will not work well with tubes.
Stopping down increases DoF, but it also increases diffraction.
In the end, the GF 120 Macro is with all probability excellent for it's intended range which is from infinity to half life size. Going beyond that it will work for a range of subjects.
But, it will not be a good lens for critical work where good sharpness is required across the field.
The info that the Fuji extension tube is not flocked may be an important one. I have seen a lot of issue with adapters having internal reflections. Flocking is not the only cure, though.
So, I would say that Crispy Bee's comments are probably on the spot, considering his work.
Best regards
Erik
--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic tends to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles
C
CrispyBee
Guest
I've actually shot some outdoor macros using both the GFX and Sony E mount cameras using bellows and a very portable but still excellent focussing rail
Even with the bellows and the rail (and of course the lens) the overall weight is similar to equal to the GF120 and it's only slightly bulkier. But you could just as well use a simple M42 helicoid focussing tube, there are ones with quite a long focus throw.
Of course you don't have autofocus but for macro stuff that doesn't really matter, especially with the GFX system the AF isn't really quick enough for moving macro subjects.
My point is that I really don't see a reason to spend thousands of dollars/euros for a camera and another couple of thousands of dollars/euros for a lens and hundreds of dollars/euros for extension tubes only to end up with images that have a worse image quality than a cheap entry level APS-C with a decent (and still cheap) macro lens.
The latter is even more portable and comfortable for walking through woods or hiking.
--
Professional naysayer. Occasionally.
Last edited:
I got both.They are excellent lenses for what they are intended t
ne is macro and the other is fast short tele.
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Jim has a more complete test including off axis data:
Best regards
Erik
Greg7579
Forum Pro
This has been an interesting and really good thread. I didn't learn anything that I didn't already know, but it made me think.
My summary is this:
- The 120 is the GF macro lens. It is excellent at what it does close up at 1:2. but getting it to 1:1 with an extension tube is not the best way to shoot macro 1:1.
- The 120 is not great at flat reproduction copy work, but it is really nice at 1:2 for objects and with focus stacking.
- Crispy Bee, who I have come to believe is a very high-end professional 1:1 focus stacking macro shooting expert and who does extreme magnification and gets parts of ant legs or half a grasshopper's eye (while alive) says that using the Fuji extension tube with the 120 to get to 1:1 is just plain awful. I believe him because the only 1:1 I have ever shot with the 120 and extension tube was a part of a ring, some tiny roman glass, and part of a piece of driftwood. I thought it looked great, but what do I know in terms of comparing those results to Nikon or Canon FF at 1:1? So, I believe Jim and Crispy Bee. That said, Fuji vehemently disagrees with them. That I know for sure. I have also read several reviews that say the 120 is great with the tube and an outstanding macro lens. But like I said, I believe Crispy Bee, so enough said.
- That leads to my next point. Would you buy GFX only to do 1:1 high-level true macro? No. But you would not buy GFX to only do wildlife, BIF, fast action sports or auto/motorcycle racing either. But if you already own GFX, adding the 120 is a nice addition to the arsenal and it does an outstanding job at 1:2 and also for general shooting at 120mm, where it delivers the famous and highly sought-after amazing GFX image fidelity.
- The 110? Getting that lens is a no-brainer if you are a portrait shooter. Many portrait pros say it is quite simply the best portrait lens in the World, and everyone gushes with praise for that lens. But if you are not interested in shooting it wide open, where the GFX DOF would be a very tiny sliver of half an eyeball at head shot range, then I would say the 120 does about the same thing at the normal shooting apertures for scenic and regular street or landscape type shooting.
I don't care because I have both and if I had to give one up, I would for sure sacrifice the 110 and keep the 120. But I don't do portraits anymore. Yuch .... portraits ... boring, unless you make a living at it. No offense Manzur - I love your work and man have you progressed as a fashion portrait guy!
My summary is this:
- The 120 is the GF macro lens. It is excellent at what it does close up at 1:2. but getting it to 1:1 with an extension tube is not the best way to shoot macro 1:1.
- The 120 is not great at flat reproduction copy work, but it is really nice at 1:2 for objects and with focus stacking.
- Crispy Bee, who I have come to believe is a very high-end professional 1:1 focus stacking macro shooting expert and who does extreme magnification and gets parts of ant legs or half a grasshopper's eye (while alive) says that using the Fuji extension tube with the 120 to get to 1:1 is just plain awful. I believe him because the only 1:1 I have ever shot with the 120 and extension tube was a part of a ring, some tiny roman glass, and part of a piece of driftwood. I thought it looked great, but what do I know in terms of comparing those results to Nikon or Canon FF at 1:1? So, I believe Jim and Crispy Bee. That said, Fuji vehemently disagrees with them. That I know for sure. I have also read several reviews that say the 120 is great with the tube and an outstanding macro lens. But like I said, I believe Crispy Bee, so enough said.
- That leads to my next point. Would you buy GFX only to do 1:1 high-level true macro? No. But you would not buy GFX to only do wildlife, BIF, fast action sports or auto/motorcycle racing either. But if you already own GFX, adding the 120 is a nice addition to the arsenal and it does an outstanding job at 1:2 and also for general shooting at 120mm, where it delivers the famous and highly sought-after amazing GFX image fidelity.
- The 110? Getting that lens is a no-brainer if you are a portrait shooter. Many portrait pros say it is quite simply the best portrait lens in the World, and everyone gushes with praise for that lens. But if you are not interested in shooting it wide open, where the GFX DOF would be a very tiny sliver of half an eyeball at head shot range, then I would say the 120 does about the same thing at the normal shooting apertures for scenic and regular street or landscape type shooting.
I don't care because I have both and if I had to give one up, I would for sure sacrifice the 110 and keep the 120. But I don't do portraits anymore. Yuch .... portraits ... boring, unless you make a living at it. No offense Manzur - I love your work and man have you progressed as a fashion portrait guy!
If the subject is centered and periphery focus is not a concern, the 120 macro is fine at 1:1 with the 45mm tube.
The 120 is okay for flat field work at 1:2.
In some circumstances.
Do you have a link?
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Jim, I didn't mean that as a slap at all. That sentence came out wrong. I just know Fuji stands by that lens at 1:1 w tube. When I say "Fuji" what does that mean? That means I have spent a fortune on Fuji gear in the past ten years and have had a lot of X and GFX shots published various places over the years. They know who I am, just like they know who you are, and they read DPR, or did back in the day for sure.
Now, when I say they know who I am.... That is an overstatement when you use the word 'they." I mean I have known and met a lot of people who are employed by Fuji over the years - service reps, marketing staff leaders, most of the guys out in NJ (mostly retired or worse but a few still there) and I have talked to some fairly senior guys at Fuji over the years about a variety of Fuji-related subjects.
One subject that particularly interested me was about the 120 and you and Doppler might remember why. I got in very serious trouble here on a thread about that lens that resulted in me being gone a long time. I can promise you that everyone at Fuji saw that thread and had opinions about it and I talked to a bunch of people there about it because I was very unhappy. I mean very very unhappy. Very like in very very. But I'm very happy now and loving DPR. This is a great forum.
Anyway, it doesn't matter now. That's all water under the bridge and I agree with you about the 120 and probably 95% of everything else. Funny thing is, I haven't shot a single shot of macro in almost 30 months!
I did shoot the 120 a lot on landscapes and city scenic shots on this recent road trip and left the 110 at home.
Fuji? As you know I am completely unaffiliated and pay full retail for all their gear. I'm not a Fuji Photographer (not nearly good enough). I have zero interest in getting free sample gear to shoot or test ahead of time and I get no discounts. Proof - I'm still on the waiting list for that dang 30 TS! Come on Fuji! This is Greg7579 begging here....
Valued Customer
Leading Member
- Messages
- 892
- Reaction score
- 424
If macro tubes on GF120 provide some benefit when subject centered and periphery not as important, how is the GF110 with Fuji 18mm or 45mm tube? If you are working with the GF110 and you happened to come across a nice close up or macro object, how much more degraded are the 110 images? GF110 has a min focus distance of about 3 feet so you need a tube to get close to anything.
Do any Fujifilm GF lenses not have floating elements? If so are these a better Fujifilm choices with extension tubes than the GF120? My understanding is most all modern lenses have floating elements.
Also is there anything like CrispyBee's suggestion that can more easily fit on the GFX and utilize GFX focus bracketing?
Do any Fujifilm GF lenses not have floating elements? If so are these a better Fujifilm choices with extension tubes than the GF120? My understanding is most all modern lenses have floating elements.
Also is there anything like CrispyBee's suggestion that can more easily fit on the GFX and utilize GFX focus bracketing?
Hi Greg
Many thanks for these very interesting considerations.
My reasoning for buying the GFX110 was: 1 f-stop faster is a dimension in itself, regardless of all the other super-positive reports.
I don't do portraits, I'm more of a vacation shooter, but I want to get the best out of my pictures.
And since the GFX zoom 100-200, since my last Sunday outing, is rather a disappointment (in terms of sharpness), and macros are not my domain either, my final conclusion is that I can do without the GFX 120mm.
Maybe I'll be persuaded to buy the GFX500mm next year.
In short: for the time being, the GFX 110 and 250 are enough for me in the range above 100mm; the experiments with Canon EF 100-400 and EF 300mm 2.8 IS USM with and without 1.4 converter + Fringer Adapter are still to come and will be very exciting.
Thanks again for the extremely useful (albeit budget-busting) tips
Best regards
pt
C
CrispyBee
Guest
I'm thinking a high quality diopter with a large enough diameter could be a much better solution. I've tried the Raynox DCR 150 / 250 but they're just too small - great tube lenses though.
I think the Raynox DCR 5320Pro could work but haven't tested it (yet).
That would at least preserve focus bracketing and I don't think it would impact the image quality as much.
dbateman
Senior Member
You can see these reviews:
Moving in close – A look at the Fujifilm MCEX-18G and MCEX-45G
So this post is more like a supplement to the GF250mm f/4 R LM OIS WR review than an actual review, cause let’s face it – it’s a bit silly to do reviews of macro-tubes, right? (ye…
jonasraskphotography.com
Field curvature with the 110/2 and 120/4 GF lenses at close distances - the last word
This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 100. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series;
blog.kasson.com
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Based on what you just said about vacation shooting, let me offer some further advice. Are you planning on shooting that 110 wide open on your travel scenic or landscape shots? If so, why? That would not be ideal in my opinion. The DOF is nonexistent, unless in a rare case that is what you are actually going for.
Anyway, for travel shooting and since you don't do portraits, you don't need the 110 or 120 as your top picks (or at all really unless you want to do some fun 1:2 macro w the 120). I would suggest to you that the 45-100 is numero uno on your list followed by 20-35 and then 35-70 in the middle.
The 100-200 is a great lens. If you actually noticed softness of any kind, take some more shots on a tripod and peep it at 1:1 full res on a nice big 4K monitor if you have one (which you should). If it is "soft" or you don't think it is really awesome res, send it back because you have a bad copy or something else is wrong.
--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
Last edited:
Great summary Greg7579! I have the 120mm and thoroughly enjoy it for close up work (not necessarily at 1:1, and general landscape photography. I enjoy 1:1 work with my other smaller format cameras (full frame and APS-C). I found that the shallow depth of field with the larger sensor can be limiting for 1:1 work and many other factors are involved to get sharp results (solid tripod, camera and lens stabilization off), and then there's the sheer weight and size of the system to factor in unless you're in the studio etc.). I'll try my hand at focus stacking with the GFX but really, I think some systems are just more straight forward to use for certain purposes.
I'll be watching for some reviews on the 110mm macro tilt/shift lens that may bring an interesting alternative for medium format macro (although that lens will also need a tube to get it to 1:1).
I'll be watching for some reviews on the 110mm macro tilt/shift lens that may bring an interesting alternative for medium format macro (although that lens will also need a tube to get it to 1:1).
Greg7579
Forum Pro
Yes, I agree. I used to shoot a lot of 1:1 macro for fun with my Fuji X cameras and their 1:1 macro lens - the XF 80mm macro lens (127mm equivalent). I think I paid 1200 bucks for that lens. I sold all my Fuji X gear years ago.
I plan on doing some more focus stacking at 1:2 with the 120. I have been scared off ever trying to shoot 1:1 with that extension tube I bought. How much did I pay for that thing? I forgot.
Hi Greg
Well, let me specify it as follows:
As a vacation walk-around lenses, I primarily need the 3 zooms that I practically bought first:
GF20-35mm, GF32-64mm and the GF45-100mm.
I have already tested all 3: they are absolutely fabulous.
I bought the GF 110 (+ the new GF55mm 1.7) primarily for my "hobby within the hobby", namely panos. And for that, speed is the most important thing (besides IQ). But I make the settings practically by hand, so I can set the aperture as I like (according to the motto: "f/8 and be there"). And both lenses are absolutely great for that.
I haven't completely written off the GF100-200 yet, but in my experience I rarely take pictures in the 101-199 range, so the 45-100 and the 250 are more than enough.
And yes: I tested the GF100-200 with a monopod, so I'm not so sure whether a 3-legged tripod would be much use.
By the way: I still have a whole range of high-quality Canon EF lenses that I'm going to test with the Fringer Adapter and compare with the GF equivalent.
The only problem at the moment is: time, time, time.
Thank you very much for your considerations
pt
Benjamin Kanarek
Veteran Member
I own both the GF110 and GF 120 and the GF 120 is brutally sharp and renders lovely bokeh.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum