GF 100-200/5.6 with 1.4x TC on GFX 100s

[JimKasson]

There was a request to see how well the GF 100-200/5.6 did with the Fuji 1.4c TC. I made some photographs focusing respectively in the center, the right side, and the upper right corner, with the same part of the subject in the focusing area in each case.

RRS legs, C1 head, manual focusing, wide open (effective f/8), 200mm (effective 280mm), 10-second self timer, developed in LR with defaults except WB = cloudy, Sharpening amount = 20, a bit of shadow boost, some exposure boost. Target distance 95 meters.

View attachment febd9634ef4749e9b05535117d9e7768.jpg
Subject in center.

View attachment 962f9120b3e14dae82942103514c8388.jpg
Subject on right side

View attachment 2d32322ed2f24306867d2d1c9411824a.jpg
Subject in upper right corner

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[kristian1]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

 

[alpshiker]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

Useful test, Jim, and results are as expected. Thanks.

Yes I have never been much of a "cropper", but when a good lens is used on the GFX100S and the main subject is in sharp focus, this gives a lot of possibilities for pulling some decent crops. Here is one from a shot I took this afternoon with the GF 110mm f2. The Robin is still detailed. Not even up-scaled.




GF 110mm f2 on GFX100S cropped

 

[Rodenmg]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

Useful test, Jim, and results are as expected. Thanks.

Yes I have never been much of a "cropper", but when a good lens is used on the GFX100S and the main subject is in sharp focus, this gives a lot of possibilities for pulling some decent crops. Here is one from a shot I took this afternoon with the GF 110mm f2. The Robin is still detailed. Not even up-scaled.




GF 110mm f2 on GFX100S cropped

I’ve not used my 100-200 with the 1.4 TC mainly because it’s just too slow. But I’ve compared cropping my 110 to the 100-200 at the same image size and there is no substitute for mm’s. The longer lens wins every time. FYI.

 

[Painter19]

There was a request to see how well the GF 100-200/5.6 did with the Fuji 1.4c TC. I made some photographs focusing respectively in the center, the right side, and the upper right corner, with the same part of the subject in the focusing area in each case.

RRS legs, C1 head, manual focusing, wide open (effective f/8), 200mm (effective 280mm), 10-second self timer, developed in LR with defaults except WB = cloudy, Sharpening amount = 20, a bit of shadow boost, some exposure boost. Target distance 95 meters.

View attachment febd9634ef4749e9b05535117d9e7768.jpg
Subject in center.

View attachment 962f9120b3e14dae82942103514c8388.jpg
Subject on right side

View attachment 2d32322ed2f24306867d2d1c9411824a.jpg
Subject in upper right corner

Thanks a lot, Jim, I’ve been out without cell service this afternoon. The images look good to me. How do you feel about the IQ of the combo as opposed to the bare 100-200 f 5.6 ? Are there any gross or subtle degradations? Love to have your impressions.

 

[Painter19]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

Useful test, Jim, and results are as expected. Thanks.

Yes I have never been much of a "cropper", but when a good lens is used on the GFX100S and the main subject is in sharp focus, this gives a lot of possibilities for pulling some decent crops. Here is one from a shot I took this afternoon with the GF 110mm f2. The Robin is still detailed. Not even up-scaled.




GF 110mm f2 on GFX100S cropped

I’ve not used my 100-200 with the 1.4 TC mainly because it’s just too slow. But I’ve compared cropping my 110 to the 100-200 at the same image size and there is no substitute for mm’s. The longer lens wins every time. FYI.

Thanks that’s helpful. I have a friend with a 100s which allows more cropping for compositions . I’m using a 50s Ii which I love, but is a bit more limited that way.

 

[JimKasson]

There was a request to see how well the GF 100-200/5.6 did with the Fuji 1.4c TC. I made some photographs focusing respectively in the center, the right side, and the upper right corner, with the same part of the subject in the focusing area in each case.

RRS legs, C1 head, manual focusing, wide open (effective f/8), 200mm (effective 280mm), 10-second self timer, developed in LR with defaults except WB = cloudy, Sharpening amount = 20, a bit of shadow boost, some exposure boost. Target distance 95 meters.

View attachment febd9634ef4749e9b05535117d9e7768.jpg
Subject in center.

View attachment 962f9120b3e14dae82942103514c8388.jpg
Subject on right side

View attachment 2d32322ed2f24306867d2d1c9411824a.jpg
Subject in upper right corner

Thanks a lot, Jim, I’ve been out without cell service this afternoon. The images look good to me. How do you feel about the IQ of the combo as opposed to the bare 100-200 f 5.6 ? Are there any gross or subtle degradations? Love to have your impressions.

I don't like the edge and corner performance.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[Painter19]

There was a request to see how well the GF 100-200/5.6 did with the Fuji 1.4c TC. I made some photographs focusing respectively in the center, the right side, and the upper right corner, with the same part of the subject in the focusing area in each case.

RRS legs, C1 head, manual focusing, wide open (effective f/8), 200mm (effective 280mm), 10-second self timer, developed in LR with defaults except WB = cloudy, Sharpening amount = 20, a bit of shadow boost, some exposure boost. Target distance 95 meters.

View attachment febd9634ef4749e9b05535117d9e7768.jpg
Subject in center.

View attachment 962f9120b3e14dae82942103514c8388.jpg
Subject on right side

View attachment 2d32322ed2f24306867d2d1c9411824a.jpg
Subject in upper right corner

Thanks a lot, Jim, I’ve been out without cell service this afternoon. The images look good to me. How do you feel about the IQ of the combo as opposed to the bare 100-200 f 5.6 ? Are there any gross or subtle degradations? Love to have your impressions.

I don't like the edge and corner performance.

I see. Have you seen the same issue when using it with the gf 250, f4? Any way to minimize those problems using it with the 100-200? I don’t think I’m on Santa’s list for the 250mm this year! Thanks a lot for your help.

 

[JimKasson]

There was a request to see how well the GF 100-200/5.6 did with the Fuji 1.4c TC. I made some photographs focusing respectively in the center, the right side, and the upper right corner, with the same part of the subject in the focusing area in each case.

RRS legs, C1 head, manual focusing, wide open (effective f/8), 200mm (effective 280mm), 10-second self timer, developed in LR with defaults except WB = cloudy, Sharpening amount = 20, a bit of shadow boost, some exposure boost. Target distance 95 meters.

View attachment febd9634ef4749e9b05535117d9e7768.jpg
Subject in center.

View attachment 962f9120b3e14dae82942103514c8388.jpg
Subject on right side

View attachment 2d32322ed2f24306867d2d1c9411824a.jpg
Subject in upper right corner

Thanks a lot, Jim, I’ve been out without cell service this afternoon. The images look good to me. How do you feel about the IQ of the combo as opposed to the bare 100-200 f 5.6 ? Are there any gross or subtle degradations? Love to have your impressions.

I don't like the edge and corner performance.

I see. Have you seen the same issue when using it with the gf 250, f4? Any way to minimize those problems using it with the 100-200? I don’t think I’m on Santa’s list for the 250mm this year! Thanks a lot for your help.

I don’t think the TC does much for the 250, either.

Loading…

blog.kasson.com

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[Painter19]

There was a request to see how well the GF 100-200/5.6 did with the Fuji 1.4c TC. I made some photographs focusing respectively in the center, the right side, and the upper right corner, with the same part of the subject in the focusing area in each case.

RRS legs, C1 head, manual focusing, wide open (effective f/8), 200mm (effective 280mm), 10-second self timer, developed in LR with defaults except WB = cloudy, Sharpening amount = 20, a bit of shadow boost, some exposure boost. Target distance 95 meters.

View attachment febd9634ef4749e9b05535117d9e7768.jpg
Subject in center.

View attachment 962f9120b3e14dae82942103514c8388.jpg
Subject on right side

View attachment 2d32322ed2f24306867d2d1c9411824a.jpg
Subject in upper right corner

Thanks a lot, Jim, I’ve been out without cell service this afternoon. The images look good to me. How do you feel about the IQ of the combo as opposed to the bare 100-200 f 5.6 ? Are there any gross or subtle degradations? Love to have your impressions.

I don't like the edge and corner performance.

I see. Have you seen the same issue when using it with the gf 250, f4? Any way to minimize those problems using it with the 100-200? I don’t think I’m on Santa’s list for the 250mm this year! Thanks a lot for your help.

I don’t think the TC does much for the 250, either.

https://blog.kasson.com/?s=250+1.4

I see, thanks.

 

[SigmaChrome]

Thanks for posting these shots, Jim.

I was in my local camera shop a couple of days ago contemplating this TC for my GF 100-200. After seeing these shots I'm glad I didn't pull the trigger.

 

[Painter19]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

Useful test, Jim, and results are as expected. Thanks.

Yes I have never been much of a "cropper", but when a good lens is used on the GFX100S and the main subject is in sharp focus, this gives a lot of possibilities for pulling some decent crops. Here is one from a shot I took this afternoon with the GF 110mm f2. The Robin is still detailed. Not even up-scaled.




GF 110mm f2 on GFX100S cropped

I’ve not used my 100-200 with the 1.4 TC mainly because it’s just too slow. But I’ve compared cropping my 110 to the 100-200 at the same image size and there is no substitute for mm’s. The longer lens wins every time. FYI.

Thanks that’s helpful. I have a friend with a 100s which allows more cropping for compositions . I’m using a 50s Ii which I love, but is a bit more limited that way.

Alpshiker, Rodenmg, and Kristian 1 , In thinking further about what you said I may try a GF1.4 TC with my GF100-200 f. 5.6 to see how useful those center crops are for me, and how good they are. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[alpshiker]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

Useful test, Jim, and results are as expected. Thanks.

Yes I have never been much of a "cropper", but when a good lens is used on the GFX100S and the main subject is in sharp focus, this gives a lot of possibilities for pulling some decent crops. Here is one from a shot I took this afternoon with the GF 110mm f2. The Robin is still detailed. Not even up-scaled.




GF 110mm f2 on GFX100S cropped

I’ve not used my 100-200 with the 1.4 TC mainly because it’s just too slow. But I’ve compared cropping my 110 to the 100-200 at the same image size and there is no substitute for mm’s. The longer lens wins every time. FYI.

Thanks that’s helpful. I have a friend with a 100s which allows more cropping for compositions . I’m using a 50s Ii which I love, but is a bit more limited that way.

Alpshiker, Rodenmg, and Kristian 1 , In thinking further about what you said I may try a GF1.4 TC with my GF100-200 f. 5.6 to see how useful those center crops are for me, and how good they are. Thanks for your thoughts.

Another possible approach if you don't need lens AF and IS, is to find a used Mamiya 300mm f5,6 ULD and a simple GFX adapter. This lens is much sharper than what you would get from your 100-200 plus TC. It is also relatively small and costs less than the converter.

 

[Painter19]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

Useful test, Jim, and results are as expected. Thanks.

Yes I have never been much of a "cropper", but when a good lens is used on the GFX100S and the main subject is in sharp focus, this gives a lot of possibilities for pulling some decent crops. Here is one from a shot I took this afternoon with the GF 110mm f2. The Robin is still detailed. Not even up-scaled.




GF 110mm f2 on GFX100S cropped

I’ve not used my 100-200 with the 1.4 TC mainly because it’s just too slow. But I’ve compared cropping my 110 to the 100-200 at the same image size and there is no substitute for mm’s. The longer lens wins every time. FYI.

Thanks that’s helpful. I have a friend with a 100s which allows more cropping for compositions . I’m using a 50s Ii which I love, but is a bit more limited that way.

Alpshiker, Rodenmg, and Kristian 1 , In thinking further about what you said I may try a GF1.4 TC with my GF100-200 f. 5.6 to see how useful those center crops are for me, and how good they are. Thanks for your thoughts.

Another possible approach if you don't need lens AF and IS, is to find a used Mamiya 300mm f5,6 ULD and a simple GFX adapter. This lens is much sharper than what you would get from your 100-200 plus TC. It is also relatively small and costs less than the converter

Thanks for that interesting suggestion. I’ll look into it. How is that Mamiya lens IQ aside from its’ sharpness?

 

[alpshiker]

Thank you for doing this test.

I think there may be some benefit in the centre of frame compared to bare lens but at edges upscaling image without tc may give better result.

All the best

Kristian

Useful test, Jim, and results are as expected. Thanks.

Yes I have never been much of a "cropper", but when a good lens is used on the GFX100S and the main subject is in sharp focus, this gives a lot of possibilities for pulling some decent crops. Here is one from a shot I took this afternoon with the GF 110mm f2. The Robin is still detailed. Not even up-scaled.




GF 110mm f2 on GFX100S cropped

I’ve not used my 100-200 with the 1.4 TC mainly because it’s just too slow. But I’ve compared cropping my 110 to the 100-200 at the same image size and there is no substitute for mm’s. The longer lens wins every time. FYI.

Thanks that’s helpful. I have a friend with a 100s which allows more cropping for compositions . I’m using a 50s Ii which I love, but is a bit more limited that way.

Alpshiker, Rodenmg, and Kristian 1 , In thinking further about what you said I may try a GF1.4 TC with my GF100-200 f. 5.6 to see how useful those center crops are for me, and how good they are. Thanks for your thoughts.

Another possible approach if you don't need lens AF and IS, is to find a used Mamiya 300mm f5,6 ULD and a simple GFX adapter. This lens is much sharper than what you would get from your 100-200 plus TC. It is also relatively small and costs less than the converter

Thanks for that interesting suggestion. I’ll look into it. How is that Mamiya lens IQ aside from its’ sharpness?

It is a late addition to the Mamiya 645 line and has some ultra low dispersion elements. Mind that there are older M645 300mm that are not as good. Not completely free from CA as you can see on these crops, but these are 100% crops from GFX50S taken handheld at f8, 1600 ISO 1/400 sec. with focus peaking. They have not been corrected for CA. You can download full size samples from this link if you wish. Of course, the EF 100-400 II is a much better lens for someone who uses it regularly for this kind of moving subjects, due to the zoom, the IS and the AF. I would say, the Mamiya is a good choice when occasional longer reach is sought, especially when working on tripod.

 

[alpshiker]

I made some quick tests on a snowy rainy morning.

Speaking of the long end of the GF 100-200 which I have only had a few days now, Jim has proven in a scientific manner that the lens is in fact quite good in the centre, but weaker in the periphery. That is also what my field tests show. Now, weaker doesn't mean ugly. It is certainly quite good for most photography. But adding a TC will emphasise the weakness as Jim tests show.

Here is the infamous brick wall test. It is compared it to the EF 200mm f2.8 II, both at f8.









Now, the lens seems to deliver quite detailed close ups and would probably be fit for portraiture as well.

I compared it here with the Mamyia 300 ULD.
The Mamiya closer focus distance is just under 4m, 12 feet!

At same working distance:





Taking a step forward with the GF lens :



So I'm a little perplexed, and cropping the central part instead of using a TC on the 100-200 could be a valid option as some suggested, since this keeps the best part of the image.

 

[Rodenmg]

I made some quick tests on a snowy rainy morning.

Speaking of the long end of the GF 100-200 which I have only had a few days now, Jim has proven in a scientific manner that the lens is in fact quite good in the centre, but weaker in the periphery. That is also what my field tests show. Now, weaker doesn't mean ugly. It is certainly quite good for most photography. But adding a TC will emphasise the weakness as Jim tests show.

Here is the infamous brick wall test. It is compared it to the EF 200mm f2.8 II, both at f8.









Now, the lens seems to deliver quite detailed close ups and would probably be fit for portraiture as well.

I compared it here with the Mamyia 300 ULD.
The Mamiya closer focus distance is just under 4m, 12 feet!

At same working distance:





Taking a step forward with the GF lens :



So I'm a little perplexed, and cropping the central part instead of using a TC on the 100-200 could be a valid option as some suggested, since this keeps the best part of the image.

I have to say that after balancing the exposures and viewing at 200% on my 4K monitor I have to give a slight advantage to the GF100-200 compared to the 200 f2.8. In both resolution and contrast at the edge of the frame. Center too close to call. Just my observations.

 

[alpshiker]

Gosh, I have to start all over again but never mind, it's my fault, I shouldn't have just edited the post. It would be nice if the information added would be still available once you get the dreaded red message!

Here it goes:

I made some additional comparative shots with the EF 100-400mm II.









The far corners fall on the 100-400 at f8.



At f5,6, the GF lens centre is stunning.



At f8, things get more even.



Additional shots at 300 and 400mm f8:





No additional sharpening or lens correction was applied to any of the images. The embedded profiles were automatically applied. To anyone new to the adapted EF lenses, this sample of the EF 100-400 II has the rear baffle removed, something not difficult to do and fully reversible. It is fully supported by the Fringer Pro EF to GFX adapter.

Cheers, Paul

 

[alpshiker]

I have to say that after balancing the exposures and viewing at 200% on my 4K monitor I have to give a slight advantage to the GF100-200 compared to the 200 f2.8. In both resolution and contrast at the edge of the frame. Center too close to call. Just my observations.

Yes, even at 200mm, the GF lens is more consistent in the corners than any of the FF lenses. Some chromatic aberration as it reaches the edges bring a touch of softness, probably helpful to give a gentle blur to the background in some cases. I like this effect. Overall the lens is very good, and not too big or heavy.

 

[kristian1]

I have to say that after balancing the exposures and viewing at 200% on my 4K monitor I have to give a slight advantage to the GF100-200 compared to the 200 f2.8. In both resolution and contrast at the edge of the frame. Center too close to call. Just my observations.

Yes, even at 200mm, the GF lens is more consistent in the corners than any of the FF lenses. Some chromatic aberration as it reaches the edges bring a touch of softness, probably helpful to give a gentle blur to the background in some cases. I like this effect. Overall the lens is very good, and not too big or heavy.

From my tests (my copy) 100-200 is quite sharp at close distances, and not so good at longer distances (actually my copy of lens is quite soft on edges)

--

Nature and Wildlife photography

www.kristiansekulic.com

Instagram

Create an account or log in to Instagram - Share what you're into with the people who get you.

www.instagram.com