One Lens for GFX100s

I am in the same boat. Just purchased a 100s and could only afford one GF lens at that time. After a bit of research I went with the 32-64 and it a nice sharp lens.

Don't be afraid to use any lenses you may still have with adapters.

Im getting great results with a variety of my existing Nikon kit and xpan lenses Ive had for many years. Looking forward to an adapter for my mamiya 7 kit as well.

So far my favourite is Nikon 105-1.4, very sharp and autofocus works well.

Hope this helps.

Great discussion! Question: is the one lens strictly driven by budget or that you’re not completely sure about Fuji Medium Format?

If budget only….Given your circling mentality (I do the same), you have probably already considered buying used or maybe even the 50sii with 35/70, used kits sub $4k…the 100s is wonderful, but I still think the rendering of the 50mpx is special with more than enough resolution…

If I were starting over, would be very tempted by used 50sii/35-70 kit, plus 20-35 new, for the price of a 100s new…

i currently have 100s+32-64+45-100+45…the 20-35 plus 45-100 would be an ideal pairing for me for landscape, but if I had to choose only one lens, likely the 32-64 or 35-70 because I can go wider with ability to crop…have fun making your decision.

Rod

hypercore360 wrote:

Cars: yeah, don't worry about it. GT3 or 4 RS.

Get a 917-30, dress like Mark, and go vintage racing.

Mark at Laguna Seca. From when I was taking pictures for Competition Press and Autoweek.

Hi,

Cool! I do miss Mark. He was one of my favorites. I patterned my own racing career after him. Engineer, mechanic and driver. It makes one faster to truly understand the machine. One can apply it much better to any track. And Mark was Tops at that. I swear there was a computer diving his car. And it was. One with wetware, as I call it. Tragically stupid what happened to him.

Vintage racing is a blast. It doesn't have the pressure of normal racing. One can run at 9/10th and really enjoy it. Normal racing is all about holding the car on the track with the last ounce of grip. Vintage slows down just enough to allow thinking in the moment rather than in the very near future. I do like it.

My level was lower than a 917, although I did get to run a few practice laps in one. It's a handful. Much different than any of my Loti. (Or, if you prefer, Lotuses). From the true Days Of Thunder, those Can Am cars were engines with a steering wheel.

The vintage crowd does do a fair bit of car swapping. Something else that doesn't happen in real racing.

Once in a while, Auto Week would publish a shot or two I took for reports on the SCCA club scene. Mostly at Lime Rock or Watkins Glen. I would shoot guys in classes other than whatever I was running that day.

As far as fast cars in general goes, running on track is a far greater experience than anything on the street. I'm just as happy in the truck used to tow the trailer on the street. Or a station wagon. My dad (who was a far greater racer than I) was the same way. No interest in those hot street cars. Fun to look at but no interest in driving one. Save maybe at the track during a car club day to show the owners just how slow they really are. And at maybe 8/10th because I don't know their car well enough to go faster. It's bad form to shunt someone else's car.

Stan

Stan Disbrow wrote:

Hi,

Cool! I do miss Mark. He was one of my favorites. I patterned my own racing career after him. Engineer, mechanic and driver. It makes one faster to truly understand the machine. One can apply it much better to any track. And Mark was Tops at that. I swear there was a computer diving his car. And it was. One with wetware, as I call it. Tragically stupid what happened to him.

Vintage racing is a blast. It doesn't have the pressure of normal racing. One can run at 9/10th and really enjoy it. Normal racing is all about holding the car on the track with the last ounce of grip. Vintage slows down just enough to allow thinking in the moment rather than in the very near future. I do like it.

My level was lower than a 917, although I did get to run a few practice laps in one. It's a handful. Much different than any of my Loti. (Or, if you prefer, Lotuses). From the true Days Of Thunder, those Can Am cars were engines with a steering wheel.

The vintage crowd does do a fair bit of car swapping. Something else that doesn't happen in real racing.

Once in a while, Auto Week would publish a shot or two I took for reports on the SCCA club scene. Mostly at Lime Rock or Watkins Glen. I would shoot guys in classes other than whatever I was running that day.

As far as fast cars in general goes, running on track is a far greater experience than anything on the street. I'm just as happy in the truck used to tow the trailer on the street. Or a station wagon. My dad (who was a far greater racer than I) was the same way. No interest in those hot street cars. Fun to look at but no interest in driving one. Save maybe at the track during a car club day to show the owners just how slow they really are. And at maybe 8/10th because I don't know their car well enough to go faster. It's bad form to shunt someone else's car.

Serious thread drift, but still on photography, here's a shot of Mark in one of Bruce's M6As, with Lothar Motschenbacher behind him. Mark is in the transition between 6 and 6A at Laguna Seca, headed for the apex of 6A.

Hi,

Sweet!

I didn't get to many tracks when Can Am was going on. I was way too young, so I had to beg older cousins to drag me along. They weren't all that into the racing like I was. Even though three of my Grandmother's boys were into it. Dad and Uncle Bob seriously so. USAC, ARDC and the like. Including a midget race at Lime Rock. Road course with a one-gear short oval track car. That had to be.... strange!

Anyway, Competition Press was my friend. As was the Illustrated Speedway News. Dad was into the latter, but also enjoyed the former even though he got the subscription for me. Crazy kid wants to go racing and all that.

But I did get to The Glen once in a while. More often by the time Mario Andretri won the F1 championship in a Lotus. By 82, I was working at IBM and, still living at home, had the dough for some old race cars and the SCCA and...some photo gear to try and learn to shoot racing with.

So, yes, it's still about photography.

And now I'm thinking, can I do this with medium format rather than small? I've never tried that. I used to pick my spot on the track and manually focus there and so track a car to said spot and shoot. Worked most of the time. Of course, once I got a Nikon F4 and a few AF lenses, I'd acquire way early and track until I saw what I liked. But maybe MF can't do that well. I ought to give it a try though.

And, I see where the post count in this thread is at 66 prior to my posting this. And 66 makes me think of someone else in the old Can Am. Another super owner/driver.

And everyone else is wondering what Route 66 has to do with all this. He, he, he. Not a route but a car number. More famous to me than 43 is over in NASCAR. I remember thinking how NASCAR Grand National, as they originally called it, looked like slugs compared to so many other forms of racing. And the Can Am really was the Days Of Thunder (that stock car movie of the same name not withstanding).

Stan - used number 83 most often. Was my dad's first car number in the midgets

Stan Disbrow wrote:

And 66 makes me think of someone else in the old Can Am. Another super owner/driver.

This guy?

hypercore360 wrote:

I was in Iceland last week. Had an accident where my full-frame camera body and lens and myself ended up in a small river. Needless to say, the camera and body are destroyed. Put the insurance claim through and it's good to go.

I do not plan to replace the camera body and lens. For some time, I've been considering moving to the Fuji GFX100s. I'm not absolutlely sure, but maybe this is the time to do so.

As is, I cannot afford to get more than the GFX100s body and one lens (only one) for landscapes. This is for now. I will get other lenses with time. But for now, just one lens.

What recommendation for that "one" lens. Greatly appreciated!

Cheers

I would get the 45-100mm, because you can add the 20-35 later, and you'll have a great two-lens kit. Then, if you want a good, slightly longer portrait lens eventually, you can get the 110mm or the 120mm macro (depending on whether you would like to add macro capability to your kit). Of course you could always choose to add the 100-200 instead, giving yourself a third zoom lens to choose for the longer shots. Many photographers use a kit that includes three zooms (one long, one wide, and one "normal"). You might find the 45-100 just works great, and you'll never have a need for a second lens. I shoot wide stuff too much to be happy with just one lens, but you might be happy with how wide 45mm is on the GFX100s. Of course you don't have to get the 20-35 to go wider. You could choose the much smaller and lighter 30mm lens, which would give you a more portable wide option for much less money. Add the macro later on, and you'd have a great three-lens kit with two primes.

I have a friend with a GFX100s and many lenses (23, 32-64, 45, 80, 120 macro, and 250). He wants to switch to a four-lens kit, with the 20-35, 45, 80, and 120 macro. He has used the 45-100 a few times, and says it's excellent, but he loves his primes. He plans to get a Sony with a 200-600 for longer shots, because he wants something longer than his 250 for shooting wildlife (i.e. bison in Yellowstone, alligators in the Everglades, and flamingos at the zoo).

bofo777 wrote:

The 45. Lighter, faster and cheaper than all the rest.

A friend of mine loves this lens on his GFX100s, so as a single all-around prime I would say this might be a great choice, which could be "enhanced" at a later date by adding a 30mm or 80mm.

fcracer wrote:

I have almost every GF lens, but the one that is nearly always on my 100S is the 32-64 zoom. It’s a fantastic lens. You can see many images taken with it at my travel blog at fcracer.com.

To really fall in love with the 100S, I’d recommend picking up the 110 or 45 as your second lens. They’re spectacular and really make the GFX system for me.

Wow, yeah, I can see a two-lens system that includes the excellent 32-64 and 110. Hmmm . . . so many great choices!

🤪

Hi,

Yes, indeed.

Stan

hypercore360 wrote:

Well, as of right now, I'm slowing down on "circling" the subject / lens issue... Starting to lean towards the GF 32-64, for now.

Cheers

That would certainly be a good choice. That's a wide AND a normal, and its image quality is excellent. I've seen 8 ft. wide prints made from photos shot with the 32-64, and they look spectacular!

👍

Hi,

Me, too. Mostly the Aurora model motoring version of slot cars. Auto World (at least I think that's what they were called) always had plastic bodies for the slot cars. I had one hell of a racing garage.

And, since I began with this electronics stuff at the ripe old age of 8, I got into winding my own armatures and making silver brushes. With my toolmaker Dad's help, even alternate gear sets. I'd sit at the workbench for hours making this stuff. Even hand cutting tires out of oddball substances. The Art Gum Rubber and Tire Company, as it were.

Always looking for more power and grip.

Who says slot cars aren't real race cars?

One of my favorite bodies was of a Chaparral 2J. The 'sucker' car. What a hoot!

And that was my favorite form of the Unfair Advantage. I laughed so hard many years later when I saw Ferrari try the same sort of thing with a F1 car. Like the FIA had never heard of the idea or had forgotten all about what the crazy American had done.

I might still have some of those Aurora cars around. Maybe a subject for a little macro shooting?

Stan

hypercore360 wrote:

Seems like I should clarify a little. By "one" lens, I do not mean that all I'll ever get is one lens, but first (one) lens. I do not intend to get the camera body and 2 or 3 lenses all at once. I can, but I just don't want to go that route.

45-100 may in fact be a better choice. I don't know. That's why I started this thread, to get some feedback and insight, which I'm satisfactorily getting.

Appreciate yours and everyone else's comments.

Cheers

FWIW, I have seriously drooled over the system for a couple years now, and originally was considering buying the 32-64 to start. (the thinking was that if I had to sacrifice width for length for general purpose, I would go wide and crop if needing length)

But, now that the 20-35 has been released, I would likely not consider the 32-64 but would pair the 20-35 with the 45-100 as a 2 lens set.

That said, I actually don't know which I would buy first if I considered just one lens for an extended time; as I've mentioned before, on my Fuji X system the 10-24 gets the most use for landscapes, but the 16-55 gets used more for general photos. So, I would have to dial in exactly how I would use the system - if mostly for landscapes? Then I would start with the 20-35. But, if I'm unsure and think it would quickly have more general use? Harder choice; but, either way for me, I think I've moved past the idea of the 32-64 because once I had 2 lenses I think it would be the 20-35 and 45-100 combo and the 32-64 may become redundant.

You're not the only one that circles, huh? I've circled so much on what I would actually use the system for that I haven't pulled the trigger yet. I'm also following the reviews of the new X-H2 (40mb) to see if that might be a better choice for me, as I would keep all my existing lenses... one thing my circling has revealed, is that the tool behind the camera is probably making a bigger difference than the tool itself...

Hope my circling helps with your circling