Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR: Your opinion

[Pansottin]

Hello everybody,

I've read that the quality of the Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR is quite good and for the price, especially in a kit with the GFX50SII, it would have been unthinkable until a few years ago. Another relevant aspect seems to be the portability and lightness of this lens.

I would like to ask if anyone here on the forum has the GF35-70mm, if you are satisfied and what kind of work do you use it for? Did it even happen to replace a prime in your system?

Your opinions as users are very important and much appreciated by me.

Thank you very much in advance.

 

[JimKasson]

Hello everybody,

I've read that the quality of the Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR is quite good and for the price, especially in a kit with the GFX50SII, it would have been unthinkable until a few years ago. Another relevant aspect seems to be the portability and lightness of this lens.

I would like to ask if anyone here on the forum has the GF35-70mm, if you are satisfied and what kind of work do you use it for? Did it even happen to replace a prime in your system?

Your opinions as users are very important and much appreciated by me.

Thank you very much in advance.

Have you seen these tests?

Loading…

blog.kasson.com

 

[Pansottin]

Hello everybody,

I've read that the quality of the Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR is quite good and for the price, especially in a kit with the GFX50SII, it would have been unthinkable until a few years ago. Another relevant aspect seems to be the portability and lightness of this lens.

I would like to ask if anyone here on the forum has the GF35-70mm, if you are satisfied and what kind of work do you use it for? Did it even happen to replace a prime in your system?

Your opinions as users are very important and much appreciated by me.

Thank you very much in advance.

Have you seen these tests?

https://blog.kasson.com/?s=35-70

Thank you Jim. I haven't seen it but I will for sure ,-)

 

[Pansottin]

Hello everybody,

I've read that the quality of the Fujinon GF 35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 WR is quite good and for the price, especially in a kit with the GFX50SII, it would have been unthinkable until a few years ago. Another relevant aspect seems to be the portability and lightness of this lens.

I would like to ask if anyone here on the forum has the GF35-70mm, if you are satisfied and what kind of work do you use it for? Did it even happen to replace a prime in your system?

Your opinions as users are very important and much appreciated by me.

Thank you very much in advance.

Have you seen these tests?

https://blog.kasson.com/?s=35-70

It looks like a great lens even more for a kit zoom. It slightly loses the best performance on the 70mm, but not that it prevents you from working with it I assume. I wish the diffraction wasn't so present at f/11, but it is what it is. Maybe with f/8 I can get the depth of field I need and keep an almost optimal sharpness.
Your tests have shown that these Fujinon GF lenses almost always reach their peak performance at f/5.6. Thank you Jim.

Now missing some real-world usage feedback in varying situations.

 

[BobsYourUncle]

Testing focus stacking here is a downsampled image:

Full res focus stack....just 3 images. Clicking on original size notice the crispness of the spines on top of the tail. I know this is focus stacked but it also shows off the quality of the lens. BTW focus stacking does poorly with moving clouds, especially since I did these manually.

t is a very light lens and paired with either GFx makes for a lighter carry, kit.

Bob

 

[kristian1]

I Replaced 50 and 30 for this zoom, I found that lens is really great for landscapes, it is sharp across the frame from f8, at 70mm maybe f9-f11, but all this is great results for this little lens.

There is also no field curvature visible as 32-64 has.

Kristian

 

[Sam in Hawaii]

Love it. Affordable, light, small, decent performance.

 

[Rob de Loe]

There's also this thread, with more insights: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4638125

 

[SigmaChrome]

Here's one:

Some more examples here - the Churchill Island shots.

--
Regards,
Vitée
Capture all the light and colour!

Galleries by Vitee

www.pbase.com

 

[rbf]

All this praise for the 35-70 has me getting a little GAS to pick up as I'm known to love small & light lenses (I once had the job of carrying my father's camera bag of system V gear including a massive wide angle). I already have the 32-64 and love it so I've been holding off.

 

[rbf]

I Replaced 50 and 30 for this zoom, I found that lens is really great for landscapes, it is sharp across the frame from f8, at 70mm maybe f9-f11, but all this is great results for this little lens.
There is also no field curvature visible as 32-64 has.

Kristian

I've seen you mention this before. I like the 35-70 and will likely pick one up for a lighter option but I don't really notice pronounced field curvature with the 32-64. The very few tests I've run show the field of focus to seem reasonably flat. In what circumstances are you seeing field curvature and how do you think it is curved? Some recent shots with Photoshop's find edges, I know Roger Cicala says the best test is with a grassy field but didn't have those I'll try that out.

View attachment 1df8352f67184f59a1d37b772a8e4c9a.jpg
At f/4

View attachment d1735858eb2340d9bef14a8b82fd8bbe.jpg
At f/4

View attachment 21de5fbfeba44228ae0eb503bc4a133b.jpg
f/8

 

[bobby350z]

There is also no field curvature visible as 32-64 has.

Kristian

Can someone show me real world examples of this. Thanks.

 

[alpshiker]

There is also no field curvature visible as 32-64 has.

Kristian

Can someone show me real world examples of this. Thanks.

I don't know if this is a good example, but here is a picture taken the other day. I had ordered that lens for an assignment that I had on the week-end, and wanted to test it quickly.

View attachment 4aa4bdd3ec5a4cb2bdc6d05a1bc677ce.jpg
GFX 50S, GF 35-70 at 37mm, 1600 ISO, 1/100, f9.0, hand held.

My first impressions after using that lens for one day only, is that the lens is small and compact, light and sharp enough. It doesn't provide the weight balance and inertia that heavier lenses provide for a non stabilized body like my 50S, but at 1/100 and beyond, you are good. I can unfortunately not publish the people's images I took, but what I noticed is that the focus point is sharp. At f9, people who are misaligned will not be all in focus, which is more a consequence of the medium format than of the lens itself. Shots from 6 people taken at 40mm as to fill the frame in width, needed to pass through the Photoshop lens correction filter to reduce the stretching towards the corners. Again, I suppose that this is a consequence of the format /focal used, more than of the lens itself.

It could be too soon to draw a conclusion, but I think that it is a good lens, especially since it is small, light and cost effective, which is rather uncommon in the GF world.

 

[Pansottin]

There's also this thread, with more insights: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4638125

Thank a lot Rob .-)

 

[Pansottin]

There is also no field curvature visible as 32-64 has.

Kristian

Can someone show me real world examples of this. Thanks.

I don't know if this is a good example, but here is a picture taken the other day. I had ordered that lens for an assignment that I had on the week-end, and wanted to test it quickly.

View attachment 4aa4bdd3ec5a4cb2bdc6d05a1bc677ce.jpg
GFX 50S, GF 35-70 at 37mm, 1600 ISO, 1/100, f9.0, hand held.

My first impressions after using that lens for one day only, is that the lens is small and compact, light and sharp enough. It doesn't provide the weight balance and inertia that heavier lenses provide for a non stabilized body like my 50S, but at 1/100 and beyond, you are good. I can unfortunately not publish the people's images I took, but what I noticed is that the focus point is sharp. At f9, people who are misaligned will not be all in focus, which is more a consequence of the medium format than of the lens itself. Shots from 6 people taken at 40mm as to fill the frame in width, needed to pass through the Photoshop lens correction filter to reduce the stretching towards the corners. Again, I suppose that this is a consequence of the format /focal used, more than of the lens itself.

It could be too soon to draw a conclusion, but I think that it is a good lens, especially since it is small, light and cost effective, which is rather uncommon in the GF world.

Thanks to everyone who is sharing images and comments.

 

[kristian1]

Here are some samples from recent trip to Norway:

View attachment 1637f7ad75a3453db4efe32c6245f5c2.jpg

View attachment e107df5827a6452bb8965436117afe54.jpg

View attachment 1251475abc5a488bbf56f8fd075b29c2.jpg

View attachment eddee33ba6624602a8953b633350aaa3.jpg



View attachment 6bb0b568502c4384beadb9159b76fc9e.jpg



View attachment a781f3ebd85845f68cb739d11d84f3cd.jpg



--
https://www.kristiansekulic.com
https://www.instagram.com/kristiansekulic

 

[alpshiker]

Thanks to everyone who is sharing images and comments.

Another one taken near 50mm at f11, 1600 ISO, 1/60th.

It's sharp, you can see the captain's beard. This one went through Topaz Denoise.



View attachment 7a3125ddf9584b81bf35a7ef127f194e.jpg
GFX 50S, GF35-70mm, 48mm f11, 1/60th, 1600 ISO, Denoise.

 

[bobby350z]

Here are some samples from recent trip to Norway:

View attachment 1637f7ad75a3453db4efe32c6245f5c2.jpg

View attachment e107df5827a6452bb8965436117afe54.jpg

View attachment 1251475abc5a488bbf56f8fd075b29c2.jpg

View attachment eddee33ba6624602a8953b633350aaa3.jpg

View attachment 6bb0b568502c4384beadb9159b76fc9e.jpg

View attachment a781f3ebd85845f68cb739d11d84f3cd.jpg

Sorry I meant field curvature of the 32-64mm. My copy of the 32-64mm seemed quite sharp end to end, sad that I sold it to fund the 45-100mm. To me they are almost the same in everything. Maybe some copies of the 32-64mm had issues, just like a lot of folks had issues with earlier 35-70mm.

 

[alpshiker]

Here are some samples from recent trip to Norway:

Sorry I meant field curvature of the 32-64mm. My copy of the 32-64mm seemed quite sharp end to end, sad that I sold it to fund the 45-100mm. To me they are almost the same in everything. Maybe some copies of the 32-64mm had issues, just like a lot of folks had issues with earlier 35-70mm.

Would you or anyone, mind mentioning some of the issues that people had with the early 35-70mm so that I can be aware and check if Fuji did a good job at correcting those early batch flaws?

 

[bobby350z]

Thanks to everyone who is sharing images and comments.

Another one taken near 50mm at f11, 1600 ISO, 1/60th.

It's sharp, you can see the captain's beard. This one went through Topaz Denoise.

View attachment 7a3125ddf9584b81bf35a7ef127f194e.jpg
GFX 50S, GF35-70mm, 48mm f11, 1/60th, 1600 ISO, Denoise.

I don't shoot high ISOs but something is off to me, maybe it is the denoise messing up or how it was uploaded with compression etc. Look at the faces of the people, I see quite a bit of strange artifacts.