Currently have GFX 100S with GF 20-35 and GF 100-200. Looking to fill the gap between them. I shoot landscapes, interiors and low light stuff (not stars), and I like to use the XPAN crop. Any thoughts between 32-64, 35-70 and 45-100? I would consider non-GF also. Thanks
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
GF Lens Opinions
- Thread starter kmonroe99
- Start date
If cost and size are important to you, get the 35-70. Otherwise, go for the 45-100.
darinb
Senior Member
I have the 20-35 and the 100-200 and fill the gap mostly with my 32-64. (I also have the 50, 65, and 80, but I rarely use them.)
The 35-70 is said to be, like all GF lenses, excellent but also small by GF standards, and inexpensive (by GF standards).
People also love the 45-100.
You really can't go wrong.
--Darin
I have the 35-70. It's half the weight, and half the length, and it's even a little bit less big around. I like it a lot. I have never owned the 45-100 though. I can tell you this though: the gap between 35 and 45 is less than the gap between 70 and 100. This makes me want to get the 45-100, once I have a 20-35 and a 100-200 (if I ever have both of those lenses, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to get at least the 20-35). I've been thinking about getting the 80mm 1.7 and 110mm f2, rather than getting the big, heavy 45-100 and the 100-200. I figure I can crop shots from the 110 to get the equivalent of a shot from the 200. Then again, Maybe I can get a 180mm macro, and have that longer focal length covered (just not with auto-focus).
I'd say try the 35-70 first. It's very affordable on the used market. (I got mine for about $600.) Then there's the 45mm f2.8 and the 63mm f2.8. As a pair they would fit well between 35mm and 100mm. Believe it or not, there is not a huge difference between 63mm and 100mm. A little cropping will fill in that gap, and the gaps between 35 and 45 and between 45 and 63 are not even as big as that.
See the four focal lengths I'm referring to below:
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
Big Print Photos - Photography by Scott Barton Kennelly
Landscape and nature photography, photographic prints by Scott Barton Kennelly, an Australian photographer living in south Florida.
www.bigprintphotos.com
DavidMillier
Forum Pro
Keep it up, Scott, in no time you'll have talked yourself into poverty 
Yeah, I know David. If I was smart I would have bought Tesla stock back when someone wanted to sell me his Nikon D810 (and then his 85mm f1.4 G). If I had, I would be many thousands of dollars richer right now, but I would probably still be shooting with my 24 MP Sony A65 . . . which probably wouldn't be all that bad, frankly.Keep it up, Scott, in no time you'll have talked yourself into poverty
You touched a nerve there, Scott. Some years ago I shorted Tesla stock based on some idiot's prediction of it's imminent demise ... it immediately soared ... lost a few grand on that one, grump.Yeah, I know David. If I was smart I would have bought Tesla stock back when ...Keep it up, Scott, in no time you'll have talked yourself into poverty
--
What you got is not what you saw.
Last edited:
I also have the GF 20-35mm, GF 45-100mm, and GF 100-200mm trio for my landscape work. I also throw in the 1.4x TC for a little more reach with the 100-200.
I'm not too concerned with weight, this pack is still about 20 pounds lighter than my 4x5 bag!
I'm not too concerned with weight, this pack is still about 20 pounds lighter than my 4x5 bag!
35-70mm is better then it looks, it is worth for sure, no field curvature which is great. I am sure 45-100 is great as well but it is a lot heavier and also I noticed on same samples here little softness on sides.
I wish Fuji would bring mk2 version of 100-200 and make it 80-200 f5.6 that is on par with latest FF lenses.
Kristian
Hmmm . . .
It appears that when the 100-200 came on the market it wasn't exactly up to par . . .
Fuji 100-200/5.6 on GFX 50R and Nikon 70-200/2.8E on Z7, part 2 - the last word
This is one in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX 50S and 50R. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in
blog.kasson.com
Has something changed? Are new 100-200 lenses made better?
I'd be interested to know, because a ten year old Nikon lens made for their line of DSLR cameras shouldn't be better than Fuji's 2x zoom . . . especially when that was a 3x zoom from Nikon. If Nikon's native Z mount lens is even better, than it handily beats the Fuji 2x zoom, and that should not be the case. Maybe we need a replacement from Fuji (a Mark 2 version) . . . or a new approximately 3x lens, such as a GF 75-200mm f5.6 OIS WR APO macro (with 1:3 capability) . . . right?
There are better copies out there than the one I tested.
It's about the same.
A fairly recent convert to the GFX system here - I have the 35-70, 45-100 and 100-200. I would love to add an UWA to that list but I don’t shoot those focal lengths enough to justify a hefty investment, so for the time being my Tamron 11-20 on my x-mount gear does the job.
I do prefer the longer focal lengths so the 100-200 was always going to be my second lens after the 35-70 which I got as a kit. I am very happy with my 100-200, no qualms whatsoever. It easily beats anything on the x-mount side and it’s easily as good as anything I ever used back in my FF DSLR days - if not a little better.
The 45-100 I settled on oddly because I wanted to add a prime but couldn’t decide which one - so I bought the zoom which covers 4-5 of the primes in that range. Yes some of them are f2.8 or faster but I don’t tend to shoot with super shallow DOF nor could I justify an investment into one single focal length.
Anyhow, the 45-100 is hands down the best zoom lens I’ve ever used - maybe even best lens overall.
I don’t see any overlap with the 35-70. The latter is so small and light (for MF) that it’s always worth keeping around for travelling light - and it’s IQ is up there with the other lenses once you stop down to f8.
I do prefer the longer focal lengths so the 100-200 was always going to be my second lens after the 35-70 which I got as a kit. I am very happy with my 100-200, no qualms whatsoever. It easily beats anything on the x-mount side and it’s easily as good as anything I ever used back in my FF DSLR days - if not a little better.
The 45-100 I settled on oddly because I wanted to add a prime but couldn’t decide which one - so I bought the zoom which covers 4-5 of the primes in that range. Yes some of them are f2.8 or faster but I don’t tend to shoot with super shallow DOF nor could I justify an investment into one single focal length.
Anyhow, the 45-100 is hands down the best zoom lens I’ve ever used - maybe even best lens overall.
I don’t see any overlap with the 35-70. The latter is so small and light (for MF) that it’s always worth keeping around for travelling light - and it’s IQ is up there with the other lenses once you stop down to f8.
Greg7579
Forum Pro
I didn't read the responses, but I bet almost everyone told you that you must get the 45-100 (by far my favorite GF lens) , which nis a perfect companion to the 20-35.
Now that you will have the 45-100 (a no brainer of you can afford it), then you will for sure go ahead and get the 35-70 at some point after that (like literally everyone else does) for all the reasons you already know. It is inexpensive (for GFX), small (for GFX), light (for GFX) and great IQ at F8. It is the perfect daylight walk around lens and the perfect companion to the 20-35 and 45-100.
I have said many times (and I mean it seriously) that if I could only have 3 of my 14 GF lenses, I would for sure pick the 20-35, 45-100 and 35-70 and it is not even close in my book.
Now that you will have the 45-100 (a no brainer of you can afford it), then you will for sure go ahead and get the 35-70 at some point after that (like literally everyone else does) for all the reasons you already know. It is inexpensive (for GFX), small (for GFX), light (for GFX) and great IQ at F8. It is the perfect daylight walk around lens and the perfect companion to the 20-35 and 45-100.
I have said many times (and I mean it seriously) that if I could only have 3 of my 14 GF lenses, I would for sure pick the 20-35, 45-100 and 35-70 and it is not even close in my book.
i have tested 45-100 on my 50s ii and it seem to have quite fast autofocus. that is one thing that holds me from 35-70 as it dont have LM. i have tested also 80mm 1.7 without LM and it was very slow. how fast is 35-70 compared to 45-100? how fast 35-70 is compared to 80 1.7?
First of all, from a technical point of view, while neither of those lenses have linear motor AF, the 35-70 has the better STM (stepping motor) compared to the older micro motor AF on the 80mm.
I can't speak for the 80mm in real world terms but between the two zooms the difference is negligible. The 45-100 is quieter to focus and I feel does lock on focus a hair faster but it really is nitpicking. I've never once missed a shot due to slow(er) AF on the 35-70. Additionally, you'll probably find that the CDAF on the 50s ii will be the bottleneck anyway.
Last edited:
I’m afraid that’s the limit of my GFX knowledge and relatively recent convert. The third lens in my line up is the 100-200 which is also LM so needless to say I’m very happy with it.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum