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

[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?

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.

No joy, I'm trying to make massive prints from those sessions.

 

[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?

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.

I have to get the money. I'm a broke student, but this year I should be subcontracting to two different wedding companies and hopefully I'll earn enough to get the GTX100 and count it as an expense.

60? Being silly, or are there really that few?

 

[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.

No joy, I'm trying to make massive prints from those sessions.

If you're doing that 14 hours a day, you must be raking in enough dough to afford an exoskeleton assist device.

 

[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?

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.

I have to get the money. I'm a broke student, but this year I should be subcontracting to two different wedding companies and hopefully I'll earn enough to get the GTX100 and count it as an expense.

60? Being silly, or are there really that few?

60 on this forum.

 

[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?

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.

No joy, I'm trying to make massive prints from those sessions.

If you're doing that 14 hours a day, you must be raking in enough dough to afford an exoskeleton assist device.

Hopefully.

I'll be losing money at first; I plan to hire model(s).

Without going into too many details: I may be able to monetize it at some point; perhaps by hosting workshops.

But even if I never earn profit, I want to do it because I enjoy it. I'll have a reasonably lucrative career once I finish school, so I won't need to earn money from photography. My career can support my hubby.

 

[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.

No joy, I'm trying to make massive prints from those sessions.

If you're doing that 14 hours a day, you must be raking in enough dough to afford an exoskeleton assist device.

Hopefully.

I'll be losing money at first; I plan to hire model(s).

Without going into too many details: I may be able to monetize it at some point; perhaps by hosting workshops.

But even if I never earn profit, I want to do it because I enjoy it. I'll have a reasonably lucrative career once I finish school, so I won't need to earn money from photography. My career can support my hubby.

We all hope for that, modulo gender. It might support your hobby, too.

 

[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?

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.

No joy, I'm trying to make massive prints from those sessions.

If you're doing that 14 hours a day, you must be raking in enough dough to afford an exoskeleton assist device.

Hopefully.

I'll be losing money at first; I plan to hire model(s).

Without going into too many details: I may be able to monetize it at some point; perhaps by hosting workshops.

But even if I never earn profit, I want to do it because I enjoy it. I'll have a reasonably lucrative career once I finish school, so I won't need to earn money from photography. My career can support my hubby.

We all hope for that, modulo gender. It might support your hobby, too.

Ah, that was an awkward typo.

 

[Apollon]

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....

I totally agree with you.

100-200 is absolutely one of the most excellent lens. Not merely just a good lens, it is outstanding lens even among GF family. In deed 110mm is superb and I love 110mm the most among all the lens I used in the past 40 years since I bought the first SLR. But 110mm is designed to focus on portrait shooting (and I do). Although I love 110mm, it is actually 100-200 which I bring more frequently. If 110mm is defeated by 100-200 in terms of image quality, who purchase such an expensive lens?

My personal view is 100-200mm is the lens which makes GF family an excellent system.

I use 50mm F3.5 as if it is a lens cap and it is easy first choice for daily use and the second lens when I put in the camera bag is 100-200mm.

Now 45-100mm is coming. I am sure it would be my favorite lens to bring with 50R the most frequently (it will fight against 50mm F3.5). Still I will not leave 100-200mm alone and it will be a good combination with new 45-100mm without doubt.

If compare with 45mm or 110mm pixel to pixel, definitely those prime will win but we are shooting a picture not testing a pile of glass in the laboratory.

 

[icor1031]

If compare with 45mm or 110mm pixel to pixel, definitely those prime will win but we are shooting a picture not testing a pile of glass in the laboratory.

When those images are expanded into 6ft prints, those pixels matter.

And I hope to do just that.

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

If compare with 45mm or 110mm pixel to pixel, definitely those prime will win but we are shooting a picture not testing a pile of glass in the laboratory.

When those images are expanded into 6ft prints, those pixels matter.

And I hope to do just that.

That is certainly true, but it may also depend on viewing distance. Also, it may matter if we have good pixels, rendering a true image, or pixels with a lot of artifacts.

In the end, what matters is that we have an image that the viewer feels engaged with.

Best regards

Erik

 

[Apollon]

If compare with 45mm or 110mm pixel to pixel, definitely those prime will win but we are shooting a picture not testing a pile of glass in the laboratory.

When those images are expanded into 6ft prints, those pixels matter.

And I hope to do just that.

That is certainly true, but it may also depend on viewing distance. Also, it may matter if we have good pixels, rendering a true image, or pixels with a lot of artifacts.

In the end, what matters is that we have an image that the viewer feels engaged with.

Best regards

Erik

Prime is prime, zoom is zoom.

GF Primes are excellent prime lens. GF Zooms are equally excellent zooms.

If you want 110mm focal length, no other lens can beat it. Let's use 110mm. But if you need zoom, 100-200mm will do a better job and can achieve what you want to take.

Since all the GF lens are so good, we want to have all. That is only a problem.

 

[JimKasson]

Prime is prime, zoom is zoom.

An elliptical antistasis. The first "prime" doesn't mean the same as the second one. But what do the terms mean? I've got my guess, but it may not be the same as yours.

GF Primes are excellent prime lens. GF Zooms are equally excellent zooms.

I wouldn't throw both G zooms into the same category. The 32-64 is the second best zoom I've used. The 100-200, at the long end, can't even keep up with the Nikon 70-200/2.8E on a FF camera. However, the 100-200 is cheaper. The 100-200 is a good example of what Fuji can do when they build a lens to a price, and, considering the price, it's a good lens.

If you want 110mm focal length, no other lens can beat it. Let's use 110mm. But if you need zoom, 100-200mm will do a better job and can achieve what you want to take.

Since all the GF lens are so good, we want to have all. That is only a problem.

Do you mean it's only a problem, or the it's the only problem?

Jim

 

[icor1031]

If compare with 45mm or 110mm pixel to pixel, definitely those prime will win but we are shooting a picture not testing a pile of glass in the laboratory.

When those images are expanded into 6ft prints, those pixels matter.

And I hope to do just that.

That is certainly true, but it may also depend on viewing distance. Also, it may matter if we have good pixels, rendering a true image, or pixels with a lot of artifacts.

In the end, what matters is that we have an image that the viewer feels engaged with.

Best regards

Erik

Prime is prime, zoom is zoom.

GF Primes are excellent prime lens. GF Zooms are equally excellent zooms.

If you want 110mm focal length, no other lens can beat it. Let's use 110mm. But if you need zoom, 100-200mm will do a better job and can achieve what you want to take.

Since all the GF lens are so good, we want to have all. That is only a problem.

I can't understand your adoration for the 100-200, considering my OP and Kasson's link to his review.

 

[icor1031]

I wouldn't throw both G zooms into the same category. The 32-64 is the second best zoom I've used. The 100-200, at the long end, can't even keep up with the Nikon 70-200/2.8E on a FF camera. However, the 100-200 is cheaper. The 100-200 is a good example of what Fuji can do when they build a lens to a price, and, considering the price, it's a good lens.

Currently, my plan is to use a 70-200/4 IS II with a 5Ds or R5 when I need more than 79mm (the 45-100's equivalent maximum), because of the 100-200's relatively poor performance.

Is there a better solution? I'd consider adapting the 70-200 to the GFX100, but as far as I understand (unlike with the Otus 85), I'd have to either shoot in crop mode or I'd have to use a light spreader (what's the proper name?), and in that case I assume that I'd gain little over using an FF camera.

What about using a different company's MF lens and pairing it with the GFX100 to cover approximately the same focal length? Is that possible? And would any of those perform much better?

 

[JimKasson]

I wouldn't throw both G zooms into the same category. The 32-64 is the second best zoom I've used. The 100-200, at the long end, can't even keep up with the Nikon 70-200/2.8E on a FF camera. However, the 100-200 is cheaper. The 100-200 is a good example of what Fuji can do when they build a lens to a price, and, considering the price, it's a good lens.

Currently, my plan is to use a 70-200/4 IS II with a 5Ds or R5 when I need more than 79mm (the 45-100's equivalent maximum), because of the 100-200's relatively poor performance.

The short end of the 100-200 is better than the long end.

Is there a better solution? I'd consider adapting the 70-200 to the GFX100, but as far as I understand (unlike with the Otus 85), I'd have to either shoot in crop mode or I'd have to use a light spreader (what's the proper name?), and in that case I assume that I'd gain little over using an FF camera.

Zeiss 135/2 Apo-Sonnar covers the 33x44 sensor pretty well, and is an excellent lens.

What about using a different company's MF lens and pairing it with the GFX100 to cover approximately the same focal length? Is that possible? And would any of those perform much better?

 

[icor1031]

Zeiss 135/2 Apo-Sonnar covers the 33x44 sensor pretty well, and is an excellent lens.

I just found your entry:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/zeiss-1352-apo-sonnar-on-gfx/

That's very helpful, and it could be the route I'll take; 45-100mm + 135mm may be sufficient for the types of shots I want to capture. Thanks for pointing me to a lens that I already own.

And you didn't mention it, so I assume that I don't have a better zoom option than what has already been discussed. That's a bummer.

 

[icor1031]

... Another good option:

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/two-leica-r-mount-180s-on-fujifilm-gfx-50s/

 

[Greg7579]

I can't understand your adoration for the 100-200, considering my OP and Kasson's link to his review.

I don't adore the lens but I do like it very much.

I respect the tests and don't deny them, but I just don't see the problems at the long end when I pixel peep my images. Maybe I have a really good copy, or maybe I'm just engaging n some subconscious wishhul thinking..... But to me the lens is really good for what it is and I was always amazed by it on the 50r and now with the GFX 100 I think it is very sharp.

I could be wrong and maybe it is just a matter of degrees of quality. Jim said it was a good lens for the price.

I need 100-200, so maybe I'm just happy we have that zoom for GFX.

I will say that when I'm traveling with my GFX gear (which is always now), I rarely take the 250. Yet when I have a shot at 200 with the 100-200, I always say to myself, "Man I wish I had brought the 250."

You know I had the 70-200 L lenses (F4 and 2.8) for years and shot them on the 5D cameras. Jow I look at those images and they can't hold a candle to the GFX with 100-200. But that is just a subjective and very general opinion. It is certainly not scientific. Just an impression.

Hey Jim ... you said the 100-200 is better on the short end. I read an article the other day that says all zooms are better at the wide end abd it explained the optical science of why that is so. Is that true? Have you reviewed or know of any zooms that are better at the long end then the short end? Just curious in terms of general photography knowledge.

 

[JimKasson]

I can't understand your adoration for the 100-200, considering my OP and Kasson's link to his review.

I don't adore the lens but I do like it very much.

I respect the tests and don't deny them, but I just don't see the problems at the long end when I pixel peep my images. Maybe I have a really good copy, or maybe I'm just engaging n some subconscious wishhul thinking..... But to me the lens is really good for what it is and I was always amazed by it on the 50r and now with the GFX 100 I think it is very sharp.

I could be wrong and maybe it is just a matter of degrees of quality. Jim said it was a good lens for the price.

I need 100-200, so maybe I'm just happy we have that zoom for GFX.

I will say that when I'm traveling with my GFX gear (which is always now), I rarely take the 250. Yet when I have a shot at 200 with the 100-200, I always say to myself, "Man I wish I had brought the 250."

You know I had the 70-200 L lenses (F4 and 2.8) for years and shot them on the 5D cameras. Jow I look at those images and they can't hold a candle to the GFX with 100-200. But that is just a subjective and very general opinion. It is certainly not scientific. Just an impression.

Hey Jim ... you said the 100-200 is better on the short end. I read an article the other day that says all zooms are better at the wide end abd it explained the optical science of why that is so. Is that true? Have you reviewed or know of any zooms that are better at the long end then the short end? Just curious in terms of general photography knowledge.

In my experience, that is true more often than not. But not universally so.

 

[Hamiltionian]

I can't understand your adoration for the 100-200, considering my OP and Kasson's link to his review.

I don't adore the lens but I do like it very much.

I respect the tests and don't deny them, but I just don't see the problems at the long end when I pixel peep my images. Maybe I have a really good copy, or maybe I'm just engaging n some subconscious wishhul thinking..... But to me the lens is really good for what it is and I was always amazed by it on the 50r and now with the GFX 100 I think it is very sharp.

I could be wrong and maybe it is just a matter of degrees of quality. Jim said it was a good lens for the price.

I need 100-200, so maybe I'm just happy we have that zoom for GFX.

I will say that when I'm traveling with my GFX gear (which is always now), I rarely take the 250. Yet when I have a shot at 200 with the 100-200, I always say to myself, "Man I wish I had brought the 250."

You know I had the 70-200 L lenses (F4 and 2.8) for years and shot them on the 5D cameras. Jow I look at those images and they can't hold a candle to the GFX with 100-200. But that is just a subjective and very general opinion. It is certainly not scientific. Just an impression.

Yep, we have been spoiled and bash on the 100-200 sometimes here, but it can compete with the best available 70-200 lenses on full frame, and no one complains about those. I'm looking to pick up a 100-200 at some point just to have a lighter and more versatile option than the 250.

Hey Jim ... you said the 100-200 is better on the short end. I read an article the other day that says all zooms are better at the wide end abd it explained the optical science of why that is so. Is that true? Have you reviewed or know of any zooms that are better at the long end then the short end? Just curious in terms of general photography knowledge.

LInk to the article? Am curious.