Fujifilm GF 30mm F3.5 R WR field review

Nope

Who cares? Just a tool for a purpose, eh?

Oh don’t worry you didn’t missed anything, you actually haven’t tried.

Fuh if you use a gfx, preferably on a tripod with a cable release the results are jaw dropping and you find yourself losing interest in anything else, that's why fans are so keen on medium format

Lolz, just keep telling yourself that. Humans are amazing at using illogical leaps to justify our irrationality.

No one can tell the difference between a 50 MP GFnoonecares and a Z7 or D850 at base ISO. The others are ever so slightly more noisy but good luck finding that noise. The 100 MP? Sure, there's a perceptible difference in resolution if you're printing enormous but otherwise that's just measurebation by a different name.

But sure, just continue your babbling. I'll be here laughing.

I don’t think you know anything about cameras or photography, shoot a full length portrait on a gfx100 you can zoom in on the eyeball see the contact lens, veins in the eye, flecks of makeup... you don’t need to make huge prints to have those benefits. Incredible subject separation, huge dynamic range, zoom lenses that better primes from other manufacturers, I suspect you couldn’t afford it and it would be wasted on you :-)

I think you're a measurebating faux-tographer troll.

You wander around these comment sections pretending you know everything about everything because you have nothing better to do with yourself.

But perhaps I can educate whoever may read this inane blathering - subject separation is a function of the true aperture of your lens in mm. This is the focal length of your lens divided by your f number.

In the case of the Fuji attempt at medium format, there are zero Fuji lenses that do what a full frame lens can do for a fraction of the price.

For example -
The Fuji 110 f/2 (true aperture is 55 mm) is $2800. There is zero advantage between that and a full frame 85 mm f/1.4 such as the Sony GM (true aperture 61 mm) for $1800.

Indeed you notice that the Sony has superior subject isolation because of its 10% larger true aperture.

Canon RF 85 mm f/1.2 (true aperture is 71 mm) is $2700 and has the advantage of vastly superior AF on the cameras AND a much larger aperture.

Fuyteng,
I have heard that a lot from FF shooters who have never shot GFX and have no idea what they are talking about.
The differences in image fidelity are profound. I still am blown away by it after shooting and peeping 50,000 GFX 50 and 100 shots in the past two years.
Why do you think we spend all of that money? To get the same IQ as high-res FF or to brag about our gear? No....
You are entitled to that misinformed opinion and to recite yet another mindless FF = MF rant, but no one who shoots Fuji/Hassy cares.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

you seem to think everyone makes 10x8 prints and never explores or works on files. your next canon r5s will be 90mp are you going to say thats rubbish too? to say a FF 45mp sensor is as good as a 102mp medium format one makes you look foolish to say the very least

Initially I thought GFX is not really any different than hi-MP FF body with a good lens until I bought a used 50R and GF50mm lens. I wanted to see what it is all about. The difference is there and can be described with one word - brutal. It is impossible to create a properly focused start trails stack with the 50R + GF50mm, end result is so badly aliased that the star cirles looks like a fractal (50MP sensor is not enough for standard GF lenses). Raw details can be compared to Pentax K-1 pixelshift file with a modern good lens but with a single exposure. Pixelshift has the edge when it comes to moire and aliasing though (none).

Switch from Z7/D850/42MP Sony to GFX50 series is already like a switch from Canon 450D to Canon 5D. This is when comparing base ISO images. If one cannot see the difference, check shooting technique and fix eyesight problems first.

Yeah, it seems pretty silly. Why not just stick with the same filter thread size?

I'm sure it is. Specs comparisons are pretty much pointless without comparing the handling and the look lenses produce.

I only use my GFX handheld with EFCS (so zero mirror shock), and have found that at 1/(FL*2) second, all shots are tack sharp, at a slower 1/FL most are tack sharp, or all are with some elbow on knee or fence etc. But at 1/(FL*2) second, no problem. Also the larger the sensor size the slower the shutter speed is possible hand-held - as shake is spread over a larger area so appears less at the same image/print size. Hand-holding non-IBIS MF is easier than non-IBIS APS-C or FF.

"the only convincing rationale I've heard for the acceleration effects is using cheaper fly by wire sensors"

The reason is precision and focus throw. Getting high precision on a fly by wire sensor requires a long focus throw which is counterproductive for fast focusing. A modern FF lens (here the Leica sl lens as an example because we have the data for that) has 12800 different focus positions.
Even if you have a long focus throw of 180° that would require a readout precision of 0.014° something no current fly by wire ring delivers.

"small focus movements tend to be ignored about as often as they're picked up"

That's exactly why you have accelerated rings. No movements need to be small.
-Fine movement >large but slow
-Big movement >large but fast

The inability to pick up small movements is exactly what accelerated rings set out to solve

Yes I know how to use a calculator thanks. The combination of a stop wider aperture and dramatically closer focusing make a significant difference in the kind of images the two lenses can achieve.

Interesting to read someone on this forum saying a full stop doesn't make any difference in DOF when differences as small as a tenth of a stop are vigorously debated.

Right? I recall recently being rather sternly corrected that the difference between APS-C is 1 and 1/6 stop (not just one stop) and that's super important because it makes FF even better.

But the 2/3 stop Toneh advantage to Fuji GFX is "insignificant."

@Mr Bolton
?
None of the numbers here are FF numbers

The numbers I mention aren't for a specific lens, but the 2/3 stop advantage in DoF compared to full frame, is still significant.

My point isn't the numbers themselves, but that us crop shooters have been put down for a decade because "FF advantage." Now that Fuji GFX is, with the impending new camera, becoming ever less rarified while still having significant advantages in DoF, resolution, tonality, and dynamic range those same forum warriors are all about how the difference is "insignificant" compared to full frame.

The differences are not insignificant, they are notable, and for those who need it are quite valuable. This is evidenced by Fuji's inability to keep up with the demand for GFX.

The criticisms leveled at crop sensors compared to full frame seem leveled again against GFX, except that GFX has the advantage-but somehow it's.. not an advantage because FF is lighter?

The F2.7 is the equivalent IN GFX TERMS. Nobody here mentioned any FF numbers.
The Fuji APS-C would be equivalent to F2.1 in FF terms, the Fuji MF would be equivalent to F2.8 in FF terms. You are the first in this thread to bring up FF. Nobody overlooked any conversions here. You are fighting for some weird cause that nobody asked for

It is a little amusing that when the Fuji X lens is faster by a full stop, the difference is judged to not be significant. But, when a Fuji X lens is slower by a fraction of a stop it's offered as evidence that the entire system is fatally flawed.

@LowpassFilter

You are aware that we are arguing about Fuji vs Fuji here. Fuji can only come out as a winner

I get the irony and I'm not arguing I'm commenting.

I wasn't knocking the GF lens. My point was that the other Fuji 24mm equivalent lens seems to be a more interesting choice for casual shooting despite being for the smaller format.

@DrCastle
I haven't compared it to anything in my comment
-Phase detect AF enabled is not a lens feature
-light and cheap are relative, but to me, this lens is neither. Maybe my expectations are wrong

Just talking in a broader sense. Also, it IS a lens feature. To be AF-enabled, the lens must accommodate for great mechanical designs whose size grow more than linearly as the size of the optical elements grow.
Also the only direct competitor may be Hasselblad's XCD 30mm f/3.5, which has similar weight but is more than twice the price(@ $3995).

If you have a GFX100, you can't use smaller format lenses and expect 100MP.

@DrCastle
A lens can be AF or not AF. But PDAF or not is not a lens feature and instead a body feature

Panther fan: Do point my at any comment coming from your fingers that seems to exhibit any form of enthusiasm for any piece of gear. I cannot recall.

Panther fan, phase detect AF is a camera and lens feature. Olympus 43 (DSLR) lenses are phase-detect only so contrast-only AF bodies work horribly with those lenses.
For example Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4.0 has a very fast AF on E-5 but very bad AF on Olympus EM5. On EM1 II with phase detect AF, it still has great AF.

If you have a GF camera this lens is a great an exciting addition. It doesn't make sense to look from "outside", from a no-owner perspective. Similar to the Leica world, MF has never intended to be a popular product for generak use by the people. It is a niche market mainly targeted to some kinds of professional use.

For example, in MF a wide angle with f/3.5 is quite "fast". If you need more than this then you are looking in the wrong place.