-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Request: Test 45-100 vs. 100-200 (Fuji)
- Thread starter icor1031
- Start date
Rick Knepper
Veteran Member
To my knowledge, the 45-100 has not been released.
While the 32-64 seemed sharper than many of the primes I had used before switching to Fuji, I do not believe it is sharper than the Fuji primes within its range (although Fuji posted an mtf chart that depicted the zoom at 64mm being near equal to the 63 prime).
I do not expect the 45-100 to be sharper than the 45, 63, 110 primes or the upcoming 80mm prime but that is not the primary purpose of a zoom.
As for your question, I hope it is sharper. I always hope a company releases a sharper lens, not to say that I believe the 100-200 is a dog.
mplkn
Forum Enthusiast
I agree that the 100-200 is anything but a "dog". It's interesting that Fujifilm, even early in the product lifecycle, released three lenses in the focal length range between 100 and 120 mm.
They did this out of recognition, I think, that there are areas of specialization in requirements for lenses at a given focal length. Any lens represents design decisions attempting to arrive at a combination of characteristics that meet use-case requirements. Different areas of specialty come with different aspects of compromise; you pick the set of compromises that best fit the requirements you're dealing with.
What's remarkable to me about Fujifilm is their willingness to acknowledge designs tradeoffs and to release lenses with such strengths in each lens's area of specialty.
In the 100 to 120 mm neighborhood they designed and released a high speed bokeh specialist (the 110), a macro specialist (the 120) with OIS, and a lens specializing in, well, general purpose flexibility (the 100-200), with OIS, at comparatively light carrying weight.
If your requirements call for dreamy, creamy bokeh, the 110 is a jewel. If you need to be able to produce near-macro work, neither the 110 nor the 100-200 will produce the best results. If your requirements call for flexibility to enable choosing between multiple focal lengths for a given situation without switching lenses, you reach for the 100-200.
Our British friends have an apt phrase, "horses for courses".
I think it's wonderful, and maybe a little surprising, and genuinely reassuring, that Fujifilm produces this range of offerings. They're serious about enabling photographers to make fine matches between their requirements and lenses to meet them.
It means one can decide which lens to reach for that best matches a given situation's requirements.
I'm looking forward to the arrival of the 45-100. If its performance is comparable to that of the rest of the lineup it's going to be an excellent "walking around" lens.
These are great days! We have amazing tools available to us!
They did this out of recognition, I think, that there are areas of specialization in requirements for lenses at a given focal length. Any lens represents design decisions attempting to arrive at a combination of characteristics that meet use-case requirements. Different areas of specialty come with different aspects of compromise; you pick the set of compromises that best fit the requirements you're dealing with.
What's remarkable to me about Fujifilm is their willingness to acknowledge designs tradeoffs and to release lenses with such strengths in each lens's area of specialty.
In the 100 to 120 mm neighborhood they designed and released a high speed bokeh specialist (the 110), a macro specialist (the 120) with OIS, and a lens specializing in, well, general purpose flexibility (the 100-200), with OIS, at comparatively light carrying weight.
If your requirements call for dreamy, creamy bokeh, the 110 is a jewel. If you need to be able to produce near-macro work, neither the 110 nor the 100-200 will produce the best results. If your requirements call for flexibility to enable choosing between multiple focal lengths for a given situation without switching lenses, you reach for the 100-200.
Our British friends have an apt phrase, "horses for courses".
I think it's wonderful, and maybe a little surprising, and genuinely reassuring, that Fujifilm produces this range of offerings. They're serious about enabling photographers to make fine matches between their requirements and lenses to meet them.
It means one can decide which lens to reach for that best matches a given situation's requirements.
I'm looking forward to the arrival of the 45-100. If its performance is comparable to that of the rest of the lineup it's going to be an excellent "walking around" lens.
These are great days! We have amazing tools available to us!
Last edited:
You're right. I just saw on B&H that it has a price and a page, so I assumed it was released -- but it's not.
Yes, I saw that the 32-64 is not as sharp as their primes. However, it was impressively close -- close enough for me.
On Kasson's website, I saw a comparison using the GFX50 with the 110-200 vs. the Sonnar 135 with a full frame (FF) body. The FF image was quite a bit sharper, which tells me that the same lens with the GFX100 probably wouldn't be a big upgrade, for my purposes (yet it is a lot more expensive and heavier.)
The 45-100 should be almost perfect for the style that I want to shoot; I may not need a second lens at all. If it's as sharp as the 32-64, I'd be happy. As for what I want to shoot: environmental portraits, to turn into make massive prints: I need high image quality, but not great bokeh.
Last edited:
norjens
Leading Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 606
Hi Jim;
What are your thought on the discrepancy between your comparison of the 100-200 vs. Nikon 70-200 E and PCMAG's Imatest results in their review of each?
I'm referring to these two reviews:
https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/120179/fujifilm-fujinon-gf-100-200mm-f56-r-lm-ois-wr
https://uk.pcmag.com/lenses/88641/nikon-af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed-vr
To summarize the relevant sections, they measure center-weighted average score in Imatest:
Nikon at 135mm f/4 resolves 3,593 lines with a 36MP sensor
GF 100-200 was not tested at 186mm, but scores
~4,937 lines at 150mm f/5.6 and 4,693 lines at 200mm f/5.6, with a 50MP sensor.
I can think of multiple hypothesis for the GF winning in PCMAG's imatest while losing in your comparison:
a) Imatest giving too many points for having more pixels, even if perceived resolution is not better.
b) Sample variation; that you have a faulty copy of the GF100-200
c) Smearing of different colors showing up in your test and not in Imatest. Thinking in particular of chromatic aberration here.
d) Misfocus or curved focus plane.
Which do you think are more likely?
Reason I ask is that I aspire to buy a GFX in the not too distant future for landscape photography, and pretty much the whole point of that is lens designs like the GF100-200mm: Conservative zoom ranges (just 2x zoom) and slow apertures should in theory result in really high image quality zooms for moderate weight. Your comparison indicates that it may not be the case for this zoom, though. Do you think your results or PCMAG's results would be more representative of what I'd get with the GF100-200mm in comparison to a 'Full Frame' camera like the Nikon?
PS: I have no reason to believe PCMAG's testing methodology is any better than yours just because they are a 'company' and you are an individual. The testing is done by some person at PCMAG, and may have been a bit different for the two reviews since they were not made at the same time.
Last edited:
The GFX 50x has a 50% effective fill factor, so it's got a huge advantage over a 100% fill factor FF camera like the D810 in Imatest slanted edge testing.
Jim
norjens
Leading Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 606
That sounds a lot like hypothesis a) among the ones I listed, but I'm not sure. Can you explain what fill factor is? A google search on "Imatest fill factor" yielded no obviously relevant results.
It's how much of the light falling the square one pixel-width wide and tall is used for imaging. As the fill factor goes down, the MTF goes up, but aliasing gets worse.
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/on-microlens-size-in-the-gfx-100-and-gfx-50r-s/
It also occurs to me that the Imatest measurements above and my comparison shots were made at vastly different subject distances.
Jim
norjens
Leading Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 606
OK, thanks for the information. Searching around a bit for more test results, I found more unfavorable experiences on its performance https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4406955
Not that bad, but for such conservative specifications and premium price, it is really disappointing. I'm not buying a system without a good telezoom that is worth the investment, so this has really killed my interest in GFX for the near future. If I get the interest again, I will bring a test chart, laptop, SD card and trusty X-T2 with me to the store for two hours of pixel peeping before considering a purchase.
Right now I am leaning towards sticking with APS-C, picking up the excellent 50-140mm and eventually a 30+ MP camera for 'close enough' results at less weight, less cost and higher flexibility. I've seen comparisons of the 50-140mm significantly out-resolving the most popular Canon DSLR equivalent. The new RF and Nikon Z lenses are probably better still, but as expensive as the GFX.
Not that bad, but for such conservative specifications and premium price, it is really disappointing. I'm not buying a system without a good telezoom that is worth the investment, so this has really killed my interest in GFX for the near future. If I get the interest again, I will bring a test chart, laptop, SD card and trusty X-T2 with me to the store for two hours of pixel peeping before considering a purchase.
Right now I am leaning towards sticking with APS-C, picking up the excellent 50-140mm and eventually a 30+ MP camera for 'close enough' results at less weight, less cost and higher flexibility. I've seen comparisons of the 50-140mm significantly out-resolving the most popular Canon DSLR equivalent. The new RF and Nikon Z lenses are probably better still, but as expensive as the GFX.
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean by that. If it's zoom range, I agree. Do you mean it's not a constant aperture f/4 lens, like the 32-64? It would be a lot bigger and more expensive if it were.
The price is quite low for an MF zoom with roughly those characteristics. I think that Fuji has excellent lens designers, and this lens was designed to size and price.
Rick Knepper
Veteran Member
Here's a side by side of the 110 vs the 100-200 both of which I shot with the GFX 50s. To me, the sharpest lens is self evident in this particular comparison.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62669860
It's interesting that you mention the 32-64 in terms of a standard to aspire to. I really like the 32-64, so much so that I am ignoring many of my other lenses, some like the 45 & 23 which are sharper, for the sake of convenience really. I am telling myself now that once I get the 30mm, I will leave the 32-64 at home on my next photo trip. Let's see if I have the will.
--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.
Last edited:
And you did your test at the good end of the 100-200's focal length range...
X-day is 27th February in Japan. It should be similar world-wide.
Rick Knepper
Veteran Member
Ya'll hurry up and buy it and let us know how it performs.
Greg7579
Veteran Member
Fuji's zoom lenses are incredibly good. Comparing those two lenses is apples and oranges other than general editorial observations. I can tell you the 100-200 is outstanding and I would probably not be shooting GFX without it. Well, maybe I would because we have the fantastic 250.
Can't wait to get the new zoom. I bet its a good one. Fuji GF lenses are superb. Fuji zooms are as good as zooms get.
The only GX lens that anyone has ever said is less than absolutely outstanding is the 100-200. Some critics have said it is less than superb and only very good.
I disagree with them because I love that lens. I think it is great. I dropped mine from 5 feet high and it is still so sharp it blinds me.... Fuji repaired it because it busted into 3 pieces when it hit the ground. But it was all housing material. The glass was fine.
That is a tough lens. And it is very good. The 110 is a portrait lens. The 100-200 is great general purpose and it has this thing called OIS....
Can't wait to get the new zoom. I bet its a good one. Fuji GF lenses are superb. Fuji zooms are as good as zooms get.
The only GX lens that anyone has ever said is less than absolutely outstanding is the 100-200. Some critics have said it is less than superb and only very good.
I disagree with them because I love that lens. I think it is great. I dropped mine from 5 feet high and it is still so sharp it blinds me.... Fuji repaired it because it busted into 3 pieces when it hit the ground. But it was all housing material. The glass was fine.
That is a tough lens. And it is very good. The 110 is a portrait lens. The 100-200 is great general purpose and it has this thing called OIS....
+1Ya'll hurry up and buy it and let us know how it performs.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum