Request: Test 45-100 vs. 100-200 (Fuji)

[JimKasson]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

 

[mplkn]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Wow! Best it's going to you - I managed to put a preorder put in early so I'm hopeful for arrival shortly after the 27th.

If you have it in hand sooner than that I'll be watching for your impressions and tests - probably many of us will!

 

[Greg7579]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

 

[Apollon]

Would anyone please compare these lenses? After seeing results of the 110 vs. the 100-200, I'm not excited about Fuji's zoom lenses.

Is the 45-100 much better? Is it much sharper than the 100-200?

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.

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.

X-day is 27th February in Japan. It should be similar world-wide.

Ya'll hurry up and buy it and let us know how it performs.

+1

I have already placed an order and expect to receive it next week for sure. I may be able to get it earlier than most of you due to time difference just as beaujolais nouveau.

 

[Rick Knepper]

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 seem to remember some folks having issues with the 63mm. I like the lens. We had a recent thread where the near universally revered 32-64 was compared unfavorably to the new 50mm prime and we had some piling on. Opinions = YMMV.

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....

 

[JimKasson]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

 

[icor1031]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

 

[JimKasson]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[icor1031]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

Excellent, thank you sir!

 

[JimKasson]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

Excellent, thank you sir!

Now that I think about it, I'll have to test it on the GFX 50S of 50R against the Nikkor S on the Z7, to be fair. And that will be the first time I've used either of those cameras in months. The GFX 100 has converted me. And it's not just the pixel count; it's -- laying aside PDAF banding, which is a most infrequent problem -- the clean files.

Jim

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[Greg7579]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

Excellent, thank you sir!

Now that I think about it, I'll have to test it on the GFX 50S of 50R against the Nikkor S on the Z7, to be fair. And that will be the first time I've used either of those cameras in months. The GFX 100 has converted me. And it's not just the pixel count; it's -- laying aside PDAF banding, which is a most infrequent problem -- the clean files.

Jim

Hey Jim, I can't wait to hear your observations and I know you will have plenty of technical details, but I am also very interested in just your gut feel, general impressions. Few people have shot as many lenses and systems as you, so I trust your instincts when it comes to calling a lens very good, very very good, or great. I don't shoot Nikon anymore but still like reading about it and I think they are doing very good stuff with that Z system.

I am like you and so many of us. I haven't touched the 50r since getting the GFX 100. That is not a slight on the 50r. Maybe it is just because I am just excited to have the GFX 100 and decided to carry it on this trip. There are times I wish I had the "little" 50r with me!

I wish you had the Fuji X system. I would love to see some general comments about Fuji APSC, Sony/Nikon high-res FF and GFX/Hassy MF from you. Sometimes I wish I could box up my XT-3, XH-2, X110f and 14 XF lenses and just ship them all to you to play with and write some observations about.

I will buy the XT-4 just to get me shooting some Fuji X again. Man it is good to travel with, I can tell you that!

 

[icor1031]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

Excellent, thank you sir!

Now that I think about it, I'll have to test it on the GFX 50S of 50R against the Nikkor S on the Z7, to be fair. And that will be the first time I've used either of those cameras in months. The GFX 100 has converted me. And it's not just the pixel count; it's -- laying aside PDAF banding, which is a most infrequent problem -- the clean files.

Jim

Cleaner in what way? ISO noise? If so, is it cleaner even at ISO100?

I'm hoping to get a GFX100 in the next two years, if I'm happy with the lenses. My reason is because I want to do massive prints; perhaps up to 6ft long. Even 100MP is insufficient for that, but it'll do far better than my 5Ds.

 

[Greg7579]

I absolutely guarantee you will like the GF lenses. Everybody does.

 

[icor1031]

I am like you and so many of us. I haven't touched the 50r since getting the GFX 100. That is not a slight on the 50r. Maybe it is just because I am just excited to have the GFX 100 and decided to carry it on this trip. There are times I wish I had the "little" 50r with me!

How miserable would it be to carry the GFX100 for 14-hour portrait sessions, multiple days in a row -- compared to full frame DSLRs?

Also, is there much more (or less) hassle involved in changing lenses, compared to doing so e.g. with Canon DSLRs?

 

[JimKasson]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

Excellent, thank you sir!

Now that I think about it, I'll have to test it on the GFX 50S of 50R against the Nikkor S on the Z7, to be fair. And that will be the first time I've used either of those cameras in months. The GFX 100 has converted me. And it's not just the pixel count; it's -- laying aside PDAF banding, which is a most infrequent problem -- the clean files.

Jim

Hey Jim, I can't wait to hear your observations and I know you will have plenty of technical details, but I am also very interested in just your gut feel, general impressions. Few people have shot as many lenses and systems as you, so I trust your instincts when it comes to calling a lens very good, very very good, or great. I don't shoot Nikon anymore but still like reading about it and I think they are doing very good stuff with that Z system.

The 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S is the best 24-70 FF lens I've ever tested -- not by a lot, but enough to be unambiguous -- so that's why I want to throw it in the mix. The problem with listening to a reviewers attempts to reduce the incredibly complex performance of a lens to a scalar like very good, very very good, or great is that the reviewer -- even moi -- may not have the same priorities as you do when deciding how to reduce 20 or 30 dimensions to just one.

So take my overall conclusions -- very good, very very good, or great -- with a lot of salt (which you probably know a lot more about than before your Asian trip).

I am like you and so many of us. I haven't touched the 50r since getting the GFX 100. That is not a slight on the 50r. Maybe it is just because I am just excited to have the GFX 100 and decided to carry it on this trip. There are times I wish I had the "little" 50r with me!

After seeing what the Fuji G lenses can do with more res and conventional microlenses, I look at some GFX 50x files and cringe.

I wish you had the Fuji X system. I would love to see some general comments about Fuji APSC, Sony/Nikon high-res FF and GFX/Hassy MF from you.

I've been tempted. The Fuji X system is a tour de force. But I'm sticking with my not testing what I don't plan to use for general photography (OK, I broke that rule a few months ago when I tested the Z50 before giving it to my pro-am daughter-in-law, and I'm glad I did, because it way an eye-opener).

Sometimes I wish I could box up my XT-3, XH-2, X110f and 14 XF lenses and just ship them all to you to play with and write some observations about.

That might be fun. When you come out to visit your friend in Danville, maybe we could get together. It was great when Rand came up to look at my Monterey Museum of Art exhibition and I got to put a face to the name.

I will buy the XT-4 just to get me shooting some Fuji X again. Man it is good to travel with, I can tell you that!

I'll bet the Q2 is, as well. I did like traveling with the RX1, but it was a little fragile.

Jim

 

[JimKasson]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

Excellent, thank you sir!

Now that I think about it, I'll have to test it on the GFX 50S of 50R against the Nikkor S on the Z7, to be fair. And that will be the first time I've used either of those cameras in months. The GFX 100 has converted me. And it's not just the pixel count; it's -- laying aside PDAF banding, which is a most infrequent problem -- the clean files.

Jim

Hey Jim, I can't wait to hear your observations and I know you will have plenty of technical details, but I am also very interested in just your gut feel, general impressions. Few people have shot as many lenses and systems as you, so I trust your instincts when it comes to calling a lens very good, very very good, or great. I don't shoot Nikon anymore but still like reading about it and I think they are doing very good stuff with that Z system.

The 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S is the best 24-70 FF lens I've ever tested -- not by a lot, but enough to be unambiguous -- so that's why I want to throw it in the mix. The problem with listening to a reviewers attempts to reduce the incredibly complex performance of a lens to a scalar like very good, very very good, or great is that the reviewer -- even moi -- may not have the same priorities as you do when deciding how to reduce 20 or 30 dimensions to just one.

So take my overall conclusions -- very good, very very good, or great -- with a lot of salt (which you probably know a lot more about than before your Asian trip).

I am like you and so many of us. I haven't touched the 50r since getting the GFX 100. That is not a slight on the 50r. Maybe it is just because I am just excited to have the GFX 100 and decided to carry it on this trip. There are times I wish I had the "little" 50r with me!

After seeing what the Fuji G lenses can do with more res and conventional microlenses, I look at some GFX 50x files and cringe.

I wish you had the Fuji X system. I would love to see some general comments about Fuji APSC, Sony/Nikon high-res FF and GFX/Hassy MF from you.

I've been tempted. The Fuji X system is a tour de force. But I'm sticking with my not testing what I don't plan to use for general photography (OK, I broke that rule a few months ago when I tested the Z50 before giving it to my pro-am daughter-in-law, and I'm glad I did, because it way an eye-opener).

Sometimes I wish I could box up my XT-3, XH-2, X110f and 14 XF lenses and just ship them all to you to play with and write some observations about.

That might be fun. When you come out to visit your friend in Danville, maybe we could get together. It was great when Rand came up to look at my Monterey Museum of Art exhibition and I got to put a face to the name.

I will buy the XT-4 just to get me shooting some Fuji X again. Man it is good to travel with, I can tell you that!

I'll bet the Q2 is, as well. I did like traveling with the RX1, but it was a little fragile.

Jim

 

[JimKasson]

I am like you and so many of us. I haven't touched the 50r since getting the GFX 100. That is not a slight on the 50r. Maybe it is just because I am just excited to have the GFX 100 and decided to carry it on this trip. There are times I wish I had the "little" 50r with me!

How miserable would it be to carry the GFX100 for 14-hour portrait sessions, multiple days in a row -- compared to full frame DSLRs?

I've never even contemplated having that much business. And lots of portrait work is best done on a tripod. Ask Karsh. But if that is your usual mode of operation, I suggest APS-C.

Also, is there much more (or less) hassle involved in changing lenses, compared to doing so e.g. with Canon DSLRs?

If your hands are big enough to grasp the Fuji lenses, no.

 

[Greg7579]

I am like you and so many of us. I haven't touched the 50r since getting the GFX 100. That is not a slight on the 50r. Maybe it is just because I am just excited to have the GFX 100 and decided to carry it on this trip. There are times I wish I had the "little" 50r with me!

How miserable would it be to carry the GFX100 for 14-hour portrait sessions, multiple days in a row -- compared to full frame DSLRs?

Also, is there much more (or less) hassle involved in changing lenses, compared to doing so e.g. with Canon DSLRs?

It will be the same misery as carrying the D850 with grip because it is exactly the same size as that. Changing lenses is no different.

I'm lugging the GFX 100 and 6 GF lenses for two months in SE Asia right now. I have been on 8 airplanes and countless cars with all of it.

I have walked around for days on end with the GFX 100 around my neck and a bag on my shoulder with three GF lenses in it and a monopod in my other hand. If you don't believe it, look at my mediocre images of SE Asia with the GFX 100. I posted 600 of them.

But I admit I'm getting fatigued with it. If you don't believe that, look at the 700 mediocre images I have posted the last month with the Leica Q2! Why? Because I'm getting g lazy and the Q2 is easy to walk out the door with. Hahaha.

You are already there Man. Just do it. We all know how to spot someone who is already crossing the line. Welcome to the Club of deranged people who bought the GFX 100! You will be number 60, I think.

 

[JimKasson]

Sorry about the double post. DPR threw up a red flag on the first. When I went back, it wasn't there. I reproduced it. Then the first one showed up.

 

[JimKasson]

There's a 45-100 on a FedEx truck headed my way...

Can't wait till you shoot it and run your checks. But Jim, I'm gonna buy it anyway no matter what. It has to be at worst, very good, and at best, as great as the 32-64, right?

We'll see. No point in speculating when the actual lens is so near.

After you get it, will you compare it to the 32-64?

Sure. And the 63/2.8. And the 24-70/2.8 Nikkor S.

Excellent, thank you sir!

Now that I think about it, I'll have to test it on the GFX 50S of 50R against the Nikkor S on the Z7, to be fair. And that will be the first time I've used either of those cameras in months. The GFX 100 has converted me. And it's not just the pixel count; it's -- laying aside PDAF banding, which is a most infrequent problem -- the clean files.

Jim

Cleaner in what way?

Aliasing.

ISO noise?

No.

If so, is it cleaner even at ISO100?

DNA.

I'm hoping to get a GFX100 in the next two years, if I'm happy with the lenses. My reason is because I want to do massive prints; perhaps up to 6ft long. Even 100MP is insufficient for that, but it'll do far better than my 5Ds.