Fujifilm GF 120mm F4 Macro sample gallery updated

Because it's a superb lens.

Jan 19, 2021permalink

Because it wants to.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Jer81

Fatshaming is a no-go in 2021. ;)

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Space the final frontier

I know macro lenses can also be used at normal distances. However, there are very few true macro pictures here to showcase strengths of this particular macro lens.

Jan 18, 2021permalink

Crappy weather makes it hard to judge a 100 mpixel image.
But for portraiture that makes perfect sense.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Khun_K

crappy weather is an excuse for amateur for poor pictures

Jan 20, 2021permalink

Space the final frontier

Macro photography is usually not weather dependent. If the weather is crappy, then all the more reason to post macro pictures.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

I agree - Macro photography has no issues with weather lol but the original post mentioned “normal distances”....

Jan 20, 2021*permalink

Greg7579

I have been playing with the GF 120 and the MCEX-45G extension tube. You need that tube to get to 1:1 macro. GFX shooting is DOF challenged anyway. With this beast you have to focus stack and it is fun to do with the new Fufi auto focus bracketing app in camera. Shoot raw and export to Helicon Focus from LR as DNG files and render as a DNG stacked image. I did a 175 file stack the other day for fun and it turned out pretty well. Stacking 175 GFX 100 raw files takes a bit of PC power to do it quickly but it is not that big a deal. I think the resulting DNG file was about 800 MB, but it exported as a full size 50 MB jpeg at 85% quality. No worries. I have a bunch of focus stacked GFX 100 images here but only a few 1:1 macros.
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Jan 18, 2021permalink

Hugo808

Very impressive, love the one of the ring. You have a lot of talent for such a young un.

Jan 21, 2021permalink

MrBrightSide

And there you have it: proof that the endlessly touted, supposedly "professional" full frame sensors that get everyone here so hot and bothered are just toys…toys we give to children to keep them quiet and out of the way while the real work gets done.

Jan 14, 2021permalink

Michael B 66

You are partially right ... for me it would be a toy because things I need can be done with APS-C or 35mm sensors but ...
If you need more res for larger prints this is a tool.

But if we will see a 55mm x 55mm sensor maybe I would buy this toy: ultimate quality and no longer any decisions about portrait or landscape ... :)

Jan 16, 2021permalink

Panachromic

Sometimes I'm worried about what will happen with all this first gen digital medium format gear when in some years a full 645 format becomes the low standard. None of these lenses cover that circle of image. There will be a lot of cheap gear on second hand stores....

Jan 14, 2021permalink

mferencz

APSC all over again.

Jan 14, 2021permalink

Thoughts R Us

If that does happen...and that's a big if...that is several years away. One should just buy what one wants and needs today, and not worry to that extent about the evolution of the market in a considerable amount of time.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

Out took Fuji to push down the price of the smaller MF cameras to where the GFX system is now an aspirational alternative for regular photographers; compare the prices of the GFX50S and the first X1D. In five years small medium format will be the low standard and 645 large medium format will be the high standard. In ten years who knows.

Jan 17, 2021*permalink

Thoughts R Us

The Fuji GF lenses for their medium format GFX bodies are all excellent, and really, compared to other medium format lenses, not that expensive.

I really like that shot of the lightbulb; it's just a bit different.

Jan 14, 2021permalink

IamJF

It's also not that medium format ... ;-)

Nevertehless - these results are stunning. I can imagine to run a (portrait/product) photography bussiness with just this lens and a body.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

MERLEWINE

Not very inviting, IMO.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

stevo23

Ooh, Ah. A macro for 100Mp...

Jan 13, 2021permalink

thedarknight87

It is a 0.5x lens, so not a macro lens, just like Canon RF 35mm and 85mm are not true macro lenses. I hope companies stop with this false advertisement.

Jan 20, 2021permalink

stevo23

@thedarknight - point taken. not sure it's an important distinction anymore, but what should they be called? Semi Macros? Closeup?

Jan 20, 2021permalink

AlephNull

Semi macro sounds fair. I would prefer to see “macro” unqualified reserved for 1:1 macro lenses, although we might let them use it for lenses that do even larger (there’s that Canon manual focus macro that does 2x up to 5x, for example - I think can genuinely be called a macro lens :D

Jan 22, 2021permalink

gassedout

Olympus would sell a shed load of re-issue 35RC cameras

Jan 13, 2021permalink

Tom_A

Samples are very good indeed. It may be “small” medium format offering 1.67 times the surface of FF, but it does yield excellent results, for those who need that bit extra.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

IdM photography

Wouldn't you like a 67% salary increase?

Jan 17, 2021permalink

MirkoK

so sharp you get lots of moire again, creepy

Jan 13, 2021permalink

JE River

I've been saying for years now how high MP sensors will allow for converting prime lenses into effectively digital zoom lenses. With such sharp optics, one can crop down by an amazing margin and still have a very nice photo that compares to shots from the best of smaller format cameras. I can crop a shot from this camera and lens combo to 15MP and have a great image still left to work with in Photoshop.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

TWChua

Too bad that in many of the close up shots the lens has to be stopped down to f/11 or more due to shallow DOF of the large format. Otherwise this lens is really amazing, the detail captured is astonishing.

Jan 13, 2021*permalink

Weia

Macro DOF only depends on magnification factor. So when you shot at 1:1 on FF you can go to only 1:1.6 on MF, and will have more DOF at the same aperture.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

And if you are serious enough about Macro that you would buy this lens, you would be focus stacking/bracketing anyway.

Jan 17, 2021permalink

Mariano Pacifico

Absolutely this was shot using and taking advantage of lens field curvature.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

Oooo, expensive :)

Jan 13, 2021permalink

RhonaldJR

Perhaps, when I buy the GFX 100S

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Holy cow, that's check of a lens.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Theo Ghefner

Well, I was literally licking my whiskers, about this lens, after using it for few moments(handheld) at Vistek Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, during the second introductory demo of the GFX 50S.
Was sorry Fuji Film did not organized an introductory demo for the GFX 100.
Today, I'm still dreaming about this lens, and wondering what it can do, with the 1.4X Teleconverter attached as well.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

highdesertmesa

The 1.4x TC does not attach to the GF 120, only the GF 100-200 and GF 250.

Jan 16, 2021permalink

whitelens

"...A hundred megapixels is a lot of resolution, no doubt about that, and such resolution places extraordinary pressure on lenses.."
Every Sony lens on a A7R4 has to handle the same extraordinary pressure and every Olympus lens has to resolve even higher.
Not really extraordinary.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Not really.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Knock Knock Who is There

Nope - There is nothing special about these lenses.

It is pixelpitch that in the makes resolving power of a lens.

The GFX 100 sensor has exactly the same pixelpitch as Fujifilm X-T4 and Sony A7r4. The only reason why the GFX resolves more pixels is because of sensorsize. That makes a higher resolution, but does not make the lenses any ‘better’ than those of the X-Series, Sony, Canon or Nikon.

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

phouphou

i too thought that the advantage of larger formats is that they are less demanding for resolving power of the optics and therefore give sharper results at same MP than smaller formats.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Because the sensor is larger, creating a lens with similar performance stretching said larger size is more complicated. Therefore, these lenses are indeed different than smaller formats.

Whether one needs that image file size or not, is another discussion. Most applications do not require a GFX. I only rent one on the occasion when the lesser Sony, Canon or Nikon would not cut it. Furthermore, other medium format rigs are extremely expensive and much slower to operate.

You can now go back to your regular online influencers.

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

shigzeo

Relaxed:

No, it is easier to make a sharp lens for a larger film or sensor size. I have used many 'bitingly sharp' macro lenses for digital medium format on sensors larger than the GFX and the same size that were not sharp with smaller sensors.

Only a few lenses from the MF field in macro are as sharp as their counterparts also shot on smaller sensors. They are sharp for their film/sensors but not sharp on sensors that are packed tighter.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

This was true for film medium/large format but Incorrect in this instance.

You’re assuming that the pixel pitch for the GFX 100 is less than full frame or apsc. It is already known it’s exactly the same as the a7r4 or XT4. Larger size, same pixels per mm == more difficult lens design.

Jan 13, 2021*permalink

shigzeo

I am not directly talking about the GFX. The sensor size difference between it and FF is too small to really make a difference, but going from large MF to FF and of course to APS-C reveals all the trouble of lenses designed to be sharp over large formats.

I have one lens that covers 4x5 without movements that is blisteringly sharp on APS-C but it is probably the only one ever. And it allows massive movements on FF, GFX, and more. But again, it is unique.

Of course the 120/4 is a sharp lens, but so are all modern macro lenses. The point I am conveying is that sharp lenses for larger sensors/film sizes rarely are sharp on smaller sensors/film sizes.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

Wonderful.
But this discussion is about the GFX, and yes - it is as sharp as my 90mm Sony and my 80mm Fuji macros.

Jan 13, 2021*permalink

shigzeo

Relaxed:

Actually this branch appears to be about the claim of extraordinary revolution, which the OP took umbrage with and I think everyone agrees about.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

Funny, it’s under a GFX article. And yes, this sensor and lens combo slaughters the a7r4 with the same application, because you simply gave a larger sensor with more pixels, at the same resolving capabilities.

But you’re entitled to your own beliefs.

Jan 13, 2021*permalink

whitelens

@Relaxed:
You just said yourself
"...... larger sensor with more pixels, at the same resolving capabilities...."
So the resolving power is not really extraordinary.
My original statement!

Jan 13, 2021permalink

No.
I said same resolving power over a larger area.
Namely, 100 sharp megapixels vs 60.

But again, you’re entitled to your own beliefs. Most people don’t need 100 sharp megapixels.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

PeterWallace

Impressive...

Jan 12, 2021permalink

phouphou

beautiful details on those images. Everyone that thinks 100MP or even 50MP is overkill should look at it fullscreen (no 1:1 pixel peep) on 4K+ monitor, no way a 12-24 MP image comes close.
Would even go so far as to say you can crop the 120mm to 240mm (190mm in FF terms) and still have very usable 24MP images.

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

jnd

You can crop from exisiting 45-60MP cameras too and I bet the look as good on 4K full screen. The Sony macro in particular is very highly rated, costs much less and it's faster and more compact. And allows higher magnification that this half-macro, especially for medium format.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

badi

I would have said probably that 100MPx is overkill, and it is in most cases :)
But those portraits (especially the ones shot at F8 and ISO100) are something out of this world...

Jan 12, 2021permalink

DrCastle

People who say 100MP is overkill probably will never require such tools nor understand the use of such tools 🤷🏻‍♀️ They are definitely not targeted for an average Instagram photographer.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

@jnd can the Sony lens attach to and autofocus on the GFX camera series? Are there any Sony bodies with 100mp of stabilized sensor, large enough that APS-C (Sony A6xx0) is the same equivalence to them that m43 is to full frame?

I've shot GFX-although not nearly as much as I'd like to-and it's very fair to say it's in a different league to other systems of any smaller sensor size.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

John C Tharp

A 4K monitor is all of 8.3MP... they're not very sharp, if that's your definition.

If digital output mediums without cropping is a primary goal, then 50MP or 100MP sensors are absolutely, objectively, unnecessary.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

Oh, it wasn't me who said it was necessary *for my own needs or workflow.* It isn't. But damn, if that GFX gear isn't sexy! And when I zoom in on images taken with it, it gets sharper and sharper the more I zoom in, versus getting fuzzier. It's really kinda spooky the first time you zoom in on a 100mp image!

Jan 13, 2021permalink

spider-mario

@John C Tharp: a high-resolution shot properly downsampled to 8.3 MP will generally be sharper than an image that was shot with a native 8.3 MP sensor.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

John C Tharp

@spider-mario: that's correct, but only to a point!
Taking into account the color filter array, at most you'd need 4x the photosites to ensure that you get 'full color' to each pixel, i.e. 33.2MP for 4k.

In reality, it doesn't take nearly that much, because half of the pixels in a Bayer array are green.

Which goes to the point that say 50MP or more is objectively unnecessary :).

Jan 15, 2021permalink

spider-mario

The subsampling because of the CFA is not the only reason for this. Another reason is that the photosites, since they capture over a certain area instead of being true point samples, act as blur filters and thus attenuate frequencies even below Nyquist. That’s likely the reason why the Z7 uses a smaller-than-100% fill factor, as it allows it to provide more sharpness at the same number of pixels: https://www.strollswithmydog.com/nikon-z7-insane-sharpness/

But without filling the empty space with more pixels, it means less light captured and more aliasing.

Jan 15, 2021*permalink

jazja

Fuji GFX 100S+Fuji 120 mm f/4 macro=my dream combination

Jan 12, 2021permalink

Opera207

I have this combination, they're really bloated.

Apr 24, 2021permalink

Leonp

That's sharp! You can actually see the individual aluminum molecules of which the Olypus 35 RC is made. ;-)

Jan 12, 2021permalink

You can also see some gruesome "worm" artefacts in out-of-focus backgrounds on the ISO 1600 images at 1:1, although it's unlikely that a 100MP image would be printed at 100%.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

PandaSA

hmm. don't see that. Which photo are you talking about?

Jan 12, 2021permalink

PandaSA - I see a weird "clumping" of noise artefacts in all the high ISO images when viewed at 100%.

e.g. even the ISO 800 shot #1 exhibits this in the defocused areas towards the top of the frame. It's more obvious in the dark green defocused areas of #2.

It's in all the ISO 1600 images. Like a lot of things, many people won't even notice, but once you've spotted it, it's hard to ignore.

Maybe I'm hyper-critical, but on a 100MP camera costing £10K, I don't expect to see this.

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

D135ima

@entoman Why ? When you watch at 100%, you look at very dense sensor. It's basically same pixels that in 24-26mp aps-c cameras. I also don't really like looking at details and textures through noise.I prefer to scale down the picture until it's really clean. And I do this almost always. Except for bright studio portraits with good lighting.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

Buttery smooth when processed in Capture One. Worms are likely an artifact of raw conversion. I can see them when I use Adobe camera RAW. Despite being a sensor with a Bayer array. That being said, I don't think they are at a level in the image that would resolve in any output method I am aware of.

Jan 12, 2021permalink

D135ima - My 5 year old Canon 5DS which as you know has 50MP has slightly more noise at ISO 1600 than the GFX100, but it's very uniform and doesn't show this unpleasant "worm" clumping.

I happily admit to being a pixel-peeper, I find noise very distracting and spend a lot of time eliminating it as best as I can.

What software do you use to downsize your images?

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

(unknown member)

It's not noise. The worms are an error introduced by de-mosaicing software that isn't functioning properly. Adobe Camera RAW is notorious for doing this to FujiFilm RAF file as every Fuji owner knows. There is virtually zero noise in the images when they are processed in Capture One which is able to read and de-mosaic the RAF files properly.

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

CTMRIGuy

I do not see any such artifacts and these images look amazing to me... what are you using to develop the RAW images, entoman?

Jan 12, 2021permalink

CTMRI - I'm not processing the RAWs. My observations refer to the images as posted here in the gallery, and viewed at 100%.

I didn't have to search - I was just checking for noise at ISO 1600 and the artefacts looked pretty obvious to me, but I admit to being a pixel-peeper.

Check the parts of the images that I referred to. I'm assuming that you're viewing on a 4K monitor (?) - they may not be apparent on coarser HD monitors.

Jan 12, 2021*permalink

Those are not the "wormy artifacts" you're looking for :). It's not an xTrans chip. Seriously.

Excuse me, guys, but why are arguing about high ISO quality (which doesn't even belong at high ISOs) while the samples are F22 and soft (diffraction limited). Can't you see? The F22 is no good for a senor barely larger than a FF. You are beating the wrong dead horse! :)

Jan 13, 2021permalink

CTMRIGuy

Huh. I'm viewing on a 6K Pro Display XDR and cannot see what you mean. Are you actually downloading the files, or is it possible these are artifacts caused by just zooming in on the compressed gallery shots?

I'm really curious now as to whether or not this is like an optical illusion thing that I am so far unable to see but might click for me if I look hard enough or if there might be some other explanation.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

(unknown member)

No you aren't really missing anything. If you download the second gallery image, process it with ACR and blow it up to 200 or 400% you will see pronounced "worms" in the dark green OOF areas. The dark green Just below the hanging bulb is a good area to look.

I don't know for sure what's causing the problem, Demosaicing or something to do with sharpening I'd assume. You can see also see it a little by calling up the loupe or 100% view in the gallery but it's not as pronounced. When I process the RAW in Capture One it goes away but I can bring it back with extreme sharpening. It's at a level in the file that would never be resolved in output. 200% view of a 100 MP file.

I'm not sure all of the issues that ACR has with RAF files are directly related to Xtrans. I don't have a GFX so that's just my opinion from processing the odd random GFX raw file I've had access to.

Jan 13, 2021*permalink

Blow it up all you want, there are no worms. The noise and excessive sharpening are causing the grain. Not a single worm found though. Perhaps the blowing (at over 100%, which forces the software to make stuff up) is making you see things that are not there. It's just noise.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

I don't know whether to call it "worms" or "noise", but it is sufficiently apparent in the ISO 1600 images to have drawn my attention, and was unexpected in a camera costing $10K.

If some of you guys find it insignificant then clearly you'd be happy with the camera. I've thought once or twice about getting a GFX50, which is reasonable value, and I like Fujifilm cameras in general, but I just don't think the cost of the GFX100 is justified.

Now, the 120mm macro is a different proposition. A very high percentage of my photography is macro, and a GFX50 with this lens would be of interest, although it tops out at half life size, which means farting about swapping extension tubes in the field.

Jan 13, 2021permalink

ecka84: It's just noise stop making things up.

Also ecka84: FUJI IS LYING TO YOU THAT ISN'T JUST NOISE ONLY FULL FRAME HAS NO NOISE!!

Jan 15, 2021permalink

onlyfreeman

Looks like noise, the files could handle some decent NR quite easily without any issue.

Jan 15, 2021permalink

@Mr Bolton
Stop stalking me, kid. Go get help, visit a doctor. Buy some pills and relax. It's all in your head. I'm not your enemy, your ignorance is.

Jan 16, 2021permalink