Sample gallery: The Fujifilm GF 45-100mm F4 on the GFX 100

At least from this gallery, it looks to me as if this lens at infinity is totally overwhelmed with 100 MP. Too bad, the GF system seems to be the most interesting digital MF system today, with nothing new coming from Hasselblad's X system and Phase One ridiculously overpriced.

11 months ago*permalink

mferencz

It's a tough to make a reasonable priced(sorty of) walk around that isn't huge and is super high quality optically to handle the sensor.

11 months agopermalink

Sure, but on the other hand, you probably don't buy that kind of camera primarily as a walk-around, do you? I'd buy it for the ultimate IQ, and I would certainly compromise on size and heft if necessary, not on IQ.

11 months ago*permalink

Tomasz_Wk

I think that Fuji wanted to give an option for such a walk around lens that could be paired with a camera such as the gfx50R.

11 months agopermalink

If you have already bought into the system, probably you're right, it's a nice option. Still, I don't quite get the enthusiam for this lens in this forum.

11 months agopermalink

Arcimboldo says, "The GF system seems to be the most interesting MF system..." is the understatement of the Century. Saying the 100 is the most interesting camera in the world would be more precise.

11 months agopermalink

@Greg7579 I see that you're heavily invested in the GF system ;) How do you feel about this lens in particular? Re. "most interesting camera" I'd say it depends on your kind of photography - if you shoot landscape, studio, and the like I tend to agree, sort of together with Sony's FE. Re. wildlife or sports, probably not so much.

11 months agopermalink

Arc, yes, you are correct. I would not get the GFX system specifically for sports or wildlife, although with the great 250 and 1.4x TC, one can get some great wildlife shots. Those get posted on the MF Board all the time. But yes, I would not use GFX specifically for wildlife. But for walk around, landscape, city scenes, product, event, portraits, fashion, macro and everything else, it is great.

11 months agopermalink

I mostly shoot models and use this lens 95% of the time I love it. So sharp and if I’m on a tripod the freedom to zoom a little rather than moving, with prime lens quality can’t say enough positive things about it.

11 months agopermalink

IdM photography

Sell this lens, buy the 45mm f2.8 and the 110mm f2

11 months agopermalink

Idm. Not a chance, I was literally aching for the 45-100mm to come out, I sold the 63mm straight away. I have the 110mm and NEVER use it preferring the 100-200mm. I only keep the 110mm as other GFX fans expect you to have one!

11 months agopermalink

No IdM, do not sell this lens and buy the 110 and 45. Do what I did and buy all three.

11 months agopermalink

askdpreview

Wolf:
waiting for a Fuji GF Tilt Shift lens.
The 32-64 is marvelous, but without the possibility to shift
the Campanile in Venice looks slanted, no way to correct it in CaptureOne smily.

11 months agopermalink

These photos convince me that it would be better to go for the 32-64, and eventually a 110 or a 120 macro, or even the 100-200. I think not having the 65-99mm range would probably be no big deal. Besides, Fuji will probably make a spectacular 80mm f2 for portraits soon enough.

11 months agopermalink

Still, it would probably be a good lens to add to a kit that starts with a 30mm lens on a camera. Then just add a 23mm for wider shots, and you'd be set with a three-lens kit. Add a 100-200mm zoom in the future, and you'd be pretty much set, unless you wanted to go a bit longer, with that excellent 250mm telephoto lens to complete a great set of five lenses.

11 months agopermalink

For full length and half length of people it’s perfect. Depends what you shoot

11 months agopermalink

GodSpeaks

I only wish that Fuji had a 45-200mm zoom for the GFX cameras. Could even cut it back to 180mm at the long end.

11 months agopermalink

FujifilmXT3

I'd be interested in the 100-200 but not this lens

11 months agopermalink

IdM photography

Buy only primes

11 months agopermalink

FujifilmXT3,
This lens is better than the 100-200, and I love the 100-200.

11 months agopermalink

Lan

Lots of pixels; lots of quality. Well done Fuji, and well done DPReview for the well taken samples :)

One question; why is the maximum ISO of this sample set ISO800, when the camera can go up to ISO102400 in extended mode? It's not likely you found too much light to shoot by at night, unless you're currently shooting in Antarctica ;) Please could you add an ISO ramp set when time allows? I agree that low light handheld isn't the primary use case, but given the sensor size it would be interesting to see how it compares with high pixel full frame sensors like those in the A7R4.

11 months agopermalink

Well since it is basically the exact same sensor as the A7R IV just a "slightly bigger cut out of the wafer" it should perform exactly 0.7 stops better than the A7R IV at a given ISO

11 months agopermalink

Lan

@panther: I'd still like to be able to see whether that's the case or not? As you know many of the "medium format" sensors in the past have lagged behind their full frame peers in terms of high ISO noise. It's often been a case of base ISO, wonderful, high ISO not so wonderful...

11 months agopermalink

@panther fan: I cannot follow your logic - are you talking of ISO performance after having been sampled to the same resolution? On pixel level, both sensors should have the same noise.

11 months agopermalink

Panther, saying it is just slightly bigger is just one of the four talking points that are false narratives. I call them the four great MF myths propagated by folks who are being very sensitive about their FF gear (and of course also SonCaNikon marketing efforts). But that is OK. All is fair in love and the camera FF war. But I hear what you are saying. That alphasevenarefour is a great camera.

11 months ago*permalink

fz750

Pretty amazing to view things at 100% - e.g. picture 3, beard hair , or details on the VW bus.

Very impressive! Handy range for a walkabout zoom lens for the GFX100s?

I wonder how the primes compare for detail?

11 months agopermalink

I’ve this and the 100-200, 110 and find I never use the 110 as the zooms are so good, stabilised too

11 months agopermalink

IdM photography

@bigsensor Why have a stabalized lens of the GFX 100 and 100S both have IBIS... No zoon has a bokeh as beautiful as the GF 110mm f2,,,

11 months agopermalink

fz750, I have all the GF primes but one and all the zooms. This zoom stands up about as well to these great primes as any zoom possibly could. It is an amazing zoom. Almost as good as the 32-64.

11 months agopermalink

Francis85

What Fujifilm needs is a single 24-105mm F4 or even a F5.0 would do.

The lens ranges in their lens line-up are really cumbersome.

No true wide angle zoom nothing like a 12-24mm or a 14-35mm
No true wide angle prime 23mm is the widest focal length available (17mm eqv).
No single zoom up to 70mm.
Instead you need to carry two zooms; 32-64mm and the 45mm -100mm)
And then there is only a mid-telezoom with only a limited reach available in the 100-200mm.

So to complete your 'kit' you used to use you will need:

- GF23mmF4 - 2599,- US. / 845 grams
- GF32-64F4 - 2299,- US / 875 grams
- GF45-100F4 - 2299,- US / 1005 grams
- GF100-200F5.6 - 1999,- US / 1050 grams

Or 3750 gram on lenses and 9196 US Dollars. That's a lot of weight and a lot of money you are carrying with you in your daypack for just the lenses and excluding the weight and cost of the camera. (4.5Kg and 15K US dollar).

So even with the 'sharp' price of the GFX100S this kit setup is still way too expensive for most of us.

11 months ago*permalink

30-125mm F5 would be 24-100mm f4 FF equiv. That sounds pretty sweet. But then nobody would buy this 45-100.

11 months ago*permalink

io_bg

While agree the focal ranges are more limited in comparison with FF systems, your 'complete kit' suggestion is far from optimal and has overlap.
Not everyone needs to cover the whole 14/17 to 200mm (FF equiv.) range.
For example, for some the 23, 32-64 and 110 mm lenses may be all they need.
Or the 32-64 and 100-200. And so on and so on.
Those who want a standard zoom will pick either the 32-64 or the 45-100 and add a prime or two according to their preferences.

11 months agopermalink

Dr_J

I guess it all depends on what you actually need. I find GFX lens lineup quite appealing because all I would need is 23/4, 63/2.8 and either 80/1.7 or 110/2.
In fact, I could argue that Sony or Canon "need" a 20mm f/4 compact prime to match GF23/4 or XF14/2.8 from Fuji.

11 months agopermalink

FujifilmXT3

Hardly. I'd pick the 23, 50, and 100-200
Sounds like you are a tire kicker and not a GFX owner

11 months ago*permalink

@Dr_J
Sony needs a 20mm?
Cheap and small - Samyang 18mm F2.8
Cheap and macro - Tamron 20mm F2.8
Cheap and bright -Tokina 20mm F2.0
Really bright -Sigma Art 20mm F1.4
Premium lightweight -Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8
Best 20mm made - Sony 20mm F1.8

All except the Sigma are smaller and lighter than the Fuji 23mm (which is pretty massive). All are brighter and some like the Batis and Sony are absolutely amazing optically. There is really no lack of options here

PS: Even most UWA zooms are lighter than the 23mm F4 prime. That includes the:
-Tamron 17-28 F2.8
-Sigma Art 14-24 F2.8
-Sony GM 16-35 F2.8
-All the F4 zooms and even the extreme Sony 12-24 F2.8 GM is only 2g heavier than the Fuji (847 vs 845) and only slightly larger

11 months ago*permalink

I wonder if they could make a reasonably priced, good quality 28-75mm f4 lens for that 645 medium format sensor. Hmmm . . . I think that'd go well with the 100-200, and still offer a pretty wide-angle option, while providing a reasonable portrait focal length too. For the really wide stuff there's the 23mm, right?

I agree though that there is no really wide lens, like a 14mm equivalent. Maybe they're planning to make a 16mm f4 lens for that purpose, but they want to get it right. So far they're doing pretty well. I'd like to see a 180mm or 200mm f4 macro (because it would make a great portrait lens, and sometimes you just need more distance from tiny critters), and I think it would make sense for them to make something a little longer than the 250 . . . like maybe a 400mm f5.6. I think such a lens could sell for nearly twice what the 250 sells for, and it would still seem pretty cheap, compared to the really big prime lenses from Nikon and Canon, which cost around ten grand.

11 months agopermalink

Francis. I don’t thing you’re factoring in lens design for the large sensor, your 24-105 equivalent for example would be huge, expensive optically compromised and impractical. Remember canon can’t even make a decent 24-105 L in full frame despite several versions, must be impossible for medium format

11 months agopermalink

Francis, Fuji has made some amazing progress with making MF more mainstream and usable as a travel system and for general purpose walk around shooting. The strengths are well known and the weaknesses are getting fewer. But less DOF, inability to go really long and fast, size, weight and cost are disadvantages at times. But the strengths. Oh Man ... the strengths are real and nothing else comes close....

11 months agopermalink

Would anyone tolerate this zoom range on any other sensor size? Pictures look great, it's just a really sad focal range. It won't be the "do-it-all" lens that a standard zoom on other formats can be.

11 months agopermalink

SRHEdD

I happily shot a Nikon 35-70/2.8 for years. I rather like this range for portraits on my GFX50R, and really look forward to adding IBIS for my 63mm. The 100-200 shoots well too and I will probably add their 1.4x to use in a pinch. The GFX50R has been everything I've expected it to be and more, and happy to see the evolution of the line. The idea of a 24-105 seems nice, but it would be so expensive.

11 months agopermalink

Many people happily shot 35-70s when those were new cutting edge zoom ranges. In 2021, should we be as happy about it as we would have been in 1978? At $2200?

11 months ago*permalink

To be fair the Canon 28-70 created quite the rage

11 months agopermalink

28-70 is at least some wide angle rather than no wide angle.

11 months agopermalink

Well, since it's like a wide to portrait lens, I beg to differ. Since when was a 35-75mm lens not an "all-around" zoom lens? That's about what this lens is equivalent to, right?

11 months agopermalink

35mm is not wide.

11 months agopermalink

SRHEdD

I didn't use a 35-70 because it was cutting-edge, I used it because it suited my purposes, as does the 45-100.

11 months agopermalink

M Jesper

FYI, this lens weighs only half a Noct !

11 months agopermalink

M Jesper

Well yes, if mom's out of oranges i will add those too. Gotta have oranges.

11 months agopermalink

blåland

Best zoom ever made?
Looks really good.

11 months agopermalink

354essar

Like the "crossing off the days" sample!

11 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

The color and detail are just insane. The GFX100s should perform the same.
There is nothing in the FF world that comes close (even bright sunlight FF can't match the DR and resolution). If you want the best IQ and detail, this would be a great lens and camera combo.

11 months ago*permalink

I mean that is pretty obvious, the Sony sensor in this camera is a direct brother to the A7R IV sensor. Same technology, same pixel size, same readout structure etc... it just adds 40 Million extra pixels. So you get obviously more resolution, DR, and IQ

Lens wise this zoom does indeed seem very solid. A bit restricted focal length wise but modern short range zooms really have come a long way in quality

11 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

"it just adds 40 Million extra pixels."

That's rather misleading. You should say the A7Riv adds 36 million pixels to the A7iii sensor. That would be closer to the truth.

The GFX100 also has a larger sensor to gather more light. That is how you get greater dynamic range while also having more resolution.

11 months agopermalink

@Ric 360
I see how it can be misleading. I came to it from a different angle. Sony has a full set of sensors that all use the same basic "pixel", process and technology. They just scale that to different sizes.
So the Sony 26MP APS-C sensor (X-T4), 60MP FF sensor (A7R IV) and 100MP MF sensor (GFX100) are basically the same sensor just cut into different sizes

Obviously, the size difference makes the quality differnce

11 months ago*permalink

io_bg

... But this doesn't matter much. Because the larger sensor will always have the IQ advantage, all else equal.

11 months agopermalink

@io_bg
"... But this doesn't matter much. Because the larger sensor will always have the IQ advantage, all else equal."

The important thing here is "all else equal."

With the very old 50MP MF sensor you could always argue that modern BSI FF sensors with new tech come close or maybe surpass the performance. But with the GFX100 it is exactly the same technology level for the first time. It is the same sensor just bigger

11 months agopermalink

Larger sensors have advantages, but this is only a tiny bit bigger than FF.

11 months agopermalink

fabio riccardi

I don't mean to be a killjoy here, but the way OOF highlights are rendered at f/4 is far from spectacular, especially at the longer end.

11 months agopermalink

Mr Bolton

70 percent bigger isn't "only a tiny bit bigger."

11 months agopermalink

70% bigger is definitely "only a tiny bit" when talking about sensor area. The difference between APS-C and FF is twice that.

11 months ago*permalink