DPReview TV: Fujifilm GF 30mm F3.5 review

I wanted to check if I'm biased, so I started counting: 25 out of 40 images in this album are high dynamic range with a dark foreground in front of either bright dappled light or bright sky, often looking right into the sun. Compared to 6 out of 70 images in the Canon R6 gallery, which is vastly dominated by sun-from-side or sun-in-back images (as of today, I know images get added over time). I'm all for pushing gear to the limit on a test site but you really really really need to standardize your galleries in order to avoid giving a false impression of the gear you review and protect your reputation from accusations of bias.

Jul 26, 2020*permalink

DBHC

This is a lens test not a camera test. But yes I agree on the camera side, but their reviews does help here since they are standardized.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Shooting into the sun > 50% of the time still creates the impression that colors tend to be washed out and flare is a common problem, even in a lens test. Just look through the comments to confirm. I'm not seeing the same ratio of challenging images across the board in other galleries, and correspondingly the forums under those galleries don't discuss flare nearly as much. As in any market, perception is reality.

Jul 27, 2020permalink

Barry Benowitz

If your serious about buying the camera and lens it’s a great idea to do your research, you know when you see a real pro photographers mind blowing images and you realize they were captured on a camera lens combo you had just read a review that said the combo was terrible.

Humm...... https://blog.kasson.com/

Jul 26, 2020permalink

I'm honestly trying but failing to figure out what you are trying to say.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Can I see myself evering buy a GFX camera or this lens? Probably not, barring the passing of a long-lost wealthy relative with a generous will.

Will I click on every Chris & Jordan video regardless? Of course!

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Jeff_0000

Hey Chris and Jordan, can you review the Nikkor 24-200 for us please?

Thank you!

Jul 26, 2020permalink

DBHC

Try Fred Miranda. It's a great bunch over there.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Barry Goyette

I wish there had been some discussion of distortion. Hard to tell from the posted images, but we know the 32-64 suffers from uncorrectable “mustache” distortions at the wide end... as an owner of that lens, my only interest in the 30mm would be if those distortions were well controlled. Lens reviews that don’t talk about distortion are incomplete. How bout including that metric in your reviews from now on, guys?

Jul 25, 2020permalink

CTMRIGuy

I just love Chris and Jordan’s video reviews. Great chemistry and humour. Well done.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Fizcairn

Just to say that the 32-64 mm zoom is a better choice ! My point of view

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Happy Dad

Not only is the GFX100 possibly the best stills camera today, but it shoots great video as we saw.

The real problem with DPRTV is they are so good and entertaining, they get you to watch videos about stuff you'd never buy.
😀

Jul 25, 2020permalink

They put the seed of future upgrades in your head! Thus is the insidious Amazon/Canadian agenda of DPReviewTV. ;)

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Hahaha you may not be too wrong. As someone who enjoys the craft, it's a constant struggle to tell myself that I'm way more limited by my ability than my gear. Recently tried to take a macro shot of a flower in a vase with a perfectly good setup and to my chagrin learned that my building is constantly moving from someone's washing machine or from traffic nearby, so I have to freeze the tiny motions of the flower on its stalk by using flash if I want sharp images. Nothing to do with my gear, everything to do with my lack of knowledge...

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Let's say it's the best camera you can actually buy*,**
* (if you're a dentist)
** (rather than rent like other digital MF systems > $30k)

Jul 26, 2020permalink

NatuRaOx2

On guy posted this whole system just doesn’t have that “Medium Format Feel or Look “ . I think it does but to a lesser degree and that’s probably because it is a smallish medium format sensor? Maybe?
From what I’ve seen the photos that is , I get a feel of “normalcy “ and it’s an almost normal feel . Medium format photos usually give me that feeling that things are of normal proportion , a feeling of comfort maybe. I don’t quite get that feeling with this particular lens . I feel a little stretch from this 30mm .
I think the whole larger format look and feel is being able to go wider and not have as much of the distortion that a wider lens creates. But on the same note I think the “new” super corrected and super flat , sharp across the fov takes away the 3d pop feel . This is even with the new ff lenses, we are loosing the natural feeling or organic feeling. We will get used to this and the younger people already look , see , and feel, this and it is normal to them .

Jul 25, 2020permalink

I think you would be challenged to prove that there is a large format look. You're doing nothing more than repeating fanciful BS terms with "3D pop" and "organic" and "natural".

Jul 25, 2020permalink

NatuRaOx2

Stevo23 yes in a way I am for sure repeating that . I guess what I’m saying is I do not get that feeling from this lens and camera combo . The new 50mm f/3.5 has that feel a little more for me . Overall I don’t get that as you say BS from this system. I do love the system and if I could afford it I’d buy into this GFX 100 and the lenses

Jul 25, 2020permalink

fPrime

I can shoot better 3D Pop with my full frame camera (and even certain APS-C cameras) than the Fuji GFX crop medium format cameras generally can.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Lessiter

NatuRaOx2 you describe well how I feel about "real" MF. I've also been trying to figure out what it is and put words to it. There is I think an element of better photographers using MF, I've seen files pp'd to death where they start looking like apsc. So I don't think you can expect the results from random test shots.

MF can create a naturally soft and airy look barely achievable on smaller formats. Short tele lenses on smaller formats can get close but with tighter crop so the view feels less generous. Perhaps thats why you like the 50? My guess is that its mostly to do with the tolerances, optics and manufacture of the lenses. It you look at smaller and smaller sensors the images get more and more "crunched up". It can even be detected in ff apsc comparisons.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

@Natura - yea, well whatever. I love the system too, but am under no illusions as to a "MF look". If one can demonstrate it, I'm all eyes.

@Lessiter - Prove it. What is "crunched up"? Demonstrate it.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

havanna60

@fprime Do you mean with f0.95 50mm or f1.2 35/50/85mm lenses?

Jul 26, 2020permalink

fPrime

@Miki - With a Canon or Nikon full frame I can easily beat the GFX on 3D Pop using a 35/1.4 or 35/1.2. With a Fuji S5 Pro crop camera I can usually beat the GFX for pop with as little as an f/2.8 lens.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

havanna60

Hmm, so this lens practically from FoV and DoF perspective is the same as a 24mm f2.8 I used to have a $1300 Zeiss Batis 25mm f2 but I was about to get an even faster one a $1400 24f1.4 GM
A GFX 50s is $5500 an A7riv is $3500. So for the price of a gfx 50s I could buy an a7riv with 24GM and I’d get two stops shallower DOF, which is undeniably the most important characteristic of medium format look. I used to have an RZ67 for years I have experience with what I felt when I looked down in the chimney of the mamiya.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

@mike nemeth - what lenses in Gfx have that equivalent f stop?

Jul 26, 2020permalink

You have to distinguish geometric distortion (stretching in rectilinear wide angles) from lens characteristics (barrel/pincushion/mustache distortion and field curvature) if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

FujifilmXT3

I disagree. I traded my Nikon D850 for a GFX-50R and single 50mm f3.5 lens. I'm much happier with it despite what seems like a limited lens. Files are superior to the D850 and the lens kills Nikkor G lenses

Jul 27, 2020permalink

@fujixt3 - well that’s it then.

Jul 27, 2020permalink

It is a fine lens, and its sharp. But... the thing with the whole GFX system is that it lacks that 'Medium Format' feel. It is just not there in any of these images and it is missing in every single image I have seen from the GFX so far. The only lens that comes close is the 110mm f2.0.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

Well legendary medium format lenses would be

-Contax Zeiss 80mm F2
-Hasselblad 100mm F2.2
-Pentax 105mm F2.4
-Mamiya 80mm f1.9

In GFX equivalent terms those lenses would be
F1.6
F1.7
F1.6
F1.5

So, in other words, the Fuji glass is simply not fast enough

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Daft Punk

I disagree.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

LookintotheMirrorlessoften

The classic standard lens for Hasselblad is the 80mm f2.8 and all pictures taken with it look ”medium format”. My Fuji 35mm 1.4 roughly gives the same field of view and depth of field but do not look ”medium format” at all.

It is not only about isolating the subject that creates that look.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

I agree it’s not the equivalent dof and so on, it’s also about the dedication the buyer feels...

Jul 25, 2020permalink

@Foskito
Then tell me how that "medium format look" differs

Jul 25, 2020permalink

You are saying that only super fast lenses give the medium format look, I gave you an example of one of the classic lenses for Hasselblad and it is f2.8, which is a legend. Again, same field of view and shallow DoF as my Fuji 35mm f1.4.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

@Foskito
But explain to me what that "MF look" is that is so different.

Obviously there are some things contributing like aspect ratio and high resolution. But those can be achieved in many systems now. What else makes up that MF look you think you cannot replicate?

Jul 25, 2020permalink

FujifilmXT3

Nonsense. Do you own a GFX? I doubt it

Jul 25, 2020permalink

I am not saying super fast lenses would give that feeling.

The problem with the GFX imho is twofold:
Sensor size of the GFX is not distinctive enough from FF.
It is only slightly larger as FF and therewith FOV and DOF is only 2/3rd stop different. This is why the perceived difference between these two sensor formats is negligble.

This together with the current line-up of slow lenses makes this camera feel boring in its image output and makes the images not look any different from FF.

If you have ever shot true medium format 4x5 or 5x7 you know that an f3.5 looks much different on those cameras than an F3.5 used on the GFX.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

I find it funny that people believe that 2/3 stop difference is negligible, but add 1/3 more stop and those same people think full frame is a lot better than APSC.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

DarnGood - FYI that difference is also not that big, but the funny part is though that the step from APS-C towards FF is indeed larger than it is from FF to Mini Medium Format GFX. Another fact is that you can get faster lenses for these cameras than you can get for APS-C. And if we are talking Fujifilm X-Series f2 or f1.4 is still relatively slow if one takes equivalence into account.

Now only if Fujifilm used a true medium format sensor size, that would have made a difference. But Fujifilm went cheap and wanted to make sure that they could charge a premium for the lowest cost 'large' format sensor they could get.

The entry level GFX is still 3x higher priced as an entry level FF camera these days, while that entry level FF camera even has more features and faster AF. Also the GFX lenses are pretty high priced compared to equivalent 35mm lenses.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

DarnGoodPhotos

Yep. Thats the rationalization I'm talking about. LOL

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Daft Punk

Weird that FF owners get so antsy about the GFX because its sensor is "only" 70% larger than theirs. They convince themselves they can't see any difference , as much out of a fear their purchase decisions are not validated as much as anything else.

And yet they so often declare their superiority over sensors smaller than theirs.

Bottom line - GFX ( and Hasselblad X1D ) sensor can in circumstances that matter to some people, produce a more pleasing file. Thats it.

People either appreciate the difference or they don't.

As for me, I prefer MF film anyway so I have no horse in this race.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Or its the other way around and some GFX owners have buyers regret. You seem to be easily stepped on your toes when people tell you the difference in perception is negligible.

No wonder, because you pay three times the price for a camera that doesn't make any difference in IQ. - Oh wait of course GFX owners see the difference ;) But I'll bet you can't tell the difference in a blind test though. The funny part is you know it too, but will always tell me you can.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

@Daft Punk
The problem is not the sensor. As said above its the lenses that are missing

Jul 25, 2020permalink

TomCodyPleasedToMeetYa

Whenever I see a photo book that has stunning medium and large format lenses they are never shot at 1.8 and never have bokeh. The MF look to me is usually large DOF with staggering fine detail and IQ that in print form is immersive.

If you want 1.8 and faster and boheh, FF is fine.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

"Weird that FF owners get so antsy about the GFX because its sensor is "only" 70% larger than theirs. They convince themselves they can't see any difference... And yet they so often declare their superiority over sensors smaller than theirs."

That statement is 100% correct.

In my last travel, I took the M9 with a (borrowed) $4500 28mm f2 ASPH, along with my Fuji X-T3 plus its fast primes. I carefully process the files with Capture One and I need to check the EXIF data to see which camera took each picture, I love the look from all.

Most cameras paired with good lenses deliver great results, it is more about enjoying the gear, that's why my Sony A7Rii is eating dust somewhere in the house. I don't buy the sensor size superiority.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

Impulses

Things like the more we square AR (specially for shots in portrait) and a more deliberate approach can play a role... I'm hardly an expert since I've mostly shot smaller formats, but once you get up there in res/MPs it seems you need pretty good glass and discipline... I'm not sure everyone shooting higher res FF bodies is getting the most out of them...

All that being said, I don't see what's wrong with any system having lens options that allow it to further scale up/down rather than just fitting one mold or a narrow(er) performance envelope that some users think the system should stick to.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Impulses, exactly...

I could get an R body with a slow zoom for the same money I paid for my new Fuji X-T3 plus the kit zoom and 5 fast primes, all-metal, with aperture rings, and excellent glass. I know if I want to see a real "upgrade" in IQ, I need to invest not only in the camera but also in those stunning L-lenses, which each one goes for like $2500. A full-frame camera with mediocre lenses offers zero advantage vs an high-end APS with good glass.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Lou Cohen

What baloney!

Jul 26, 2020permalink

DBHC

The images from the GFX100 are better compared with an FF body like an A7RIV but the GFX50R does not have that superiority.

MF look ? Is there a MF look? It's just the focal lenght and f-stop that gives the look and the rendering if the lens and camera.

Anyway the GFX100 is easily beaten by real MF like a Phase One but it's also a completely different world.

I am a bit in love with the GFX100 but can't afford it and will for practical reason never get one. The body and lenses are simply to large. I much prefer the small Sony A7 and A9 cameras. They also have a plethora of lenses available.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

I wouldn't say a Phase One "easily beats" the GFX100.

Phase One cameras are not portable and are confined pretty much to studio work. Take them outside and the GFX will shine. (Besides, the Phase One 150MP costs like 55 grand)

Agree that the 50R offers little superiority -if any- to a high-res full-frame camera, in my case APS and FF cameras are good enough for any need I might have. But...

I would LOVE to have a Hasselblad 907X. What a beauty.

Jul 27, 2020permalink

Manzur Fahim

@DBHC The images from GFX100 are better compared to the files from A7R IV, although they share the same sensor with same size pixel pitch, just a smaller sensor. But I still prefer the 50S files over the A7R IV files. The files are sharper, tonal gradation is better, the overall clean and detailed look, that I do not get from the A7R IV files. GFX 50S/R doesn't even compete with A7R IV in terms of feature. A7R IV is amazing, but when it comes to the files, 50S/R is still better. If you process the files in PS or LR, you will see how much you can push them before degrading the image quality.

GFX 100 actually can be quite tough to beat, because PhaseOne glasses are so old and can't resolve the details the sensor captures. Also PhaseOne is like 50K+ where GFX100 is below 10K.

Jul 27, 2020permalink

FujifilmXT3

You don't own one do you ?

Jul 28, 2020permalink

Foskito - "Weird that GFX owners get so antsy about the Phase One. They convince themselves they can't see any difference... And yet they so often declare their superiority over the Phase One."

GFX can't compete to a sensor with a size of 52,4x40mm. Which is true medium format.

Nor can the GFX actually compete against 35mm when it comes down to performance if you take it outside.

GFX sensor size is a jack of all trades, but master of none.

Jul 28, 2020*permalink

Jones,

Yes, the Phase One sensor is massive, "true medium format" well... MF starts at 6x4.5, maybe is semantics, but is the biggest digital sensor for commercial use.

The Phase One can't compete against the GFX when it comes down to performance if you take it outside. The point is that all cameras have a place and can be useful for what they are intended for.

Jul 28, 2020permalink

LOL

Jul 28, 2020permalink

Mortal Lion

I'll stick to my Lydith

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Greg VdB

Nobody asked you to swap your wife for a lens.

Oh wait... that *is* a lens. Nevermind.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

99tollap

I don't really understand why you'd make a video about this lens, given how tiny the target audience must be. Reviews of (relatively) affordable lenses for affordable systems would be far more impactful and greatly appreciated. Personally, a review of the Nikon 24-200 would be great.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

fpessolano

Because they also deserve some fun reviewing high end gear an don’t just consumer stuff

Jul 25, 2020permalink

cardamom

@OOtollap: Isnt this selfishness of highest degree? Dpreview is a business that covers all aspect of photography regardless of market share or your individual preference. Not everyone shoots Nikon or Canon......There are other brands that caters for the market that you take no part of. Imagine one complaining about Nikon's reviews on here, howe would you feel? Vindicated? I bet!

Jul 25, 2020permalink

certo666

It's not that much more expensive than current full frame systems tbh. If this were a car-review website, I'd get rather bored of reading about Toyotas all the time when one can dream of an Aston Martin or Lamborghini!

That being said, I agree with the other commenters saying that this lens just doesn't have the "medium format look"

Jul 25, 2020permalink

They just did a video on the $9000 Leica M10R body, the target of that camera is maybe even tinier.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

KjellRS

Maybe you can get into the system cheaper but I'd say $10k for a GFX 100 is quite a different league than the $3-4k high-end FF. Pair the Sony a7r IV with the $1400 24mm f/1.4 GM and you got a very worthy 60 MP image with shallower depth of field for less than half of the body alone. But it's a bit like trying to measure the value of a formula one car, you could do the same lap half a minute slower for half the price. But that's not the point.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Reviewing "halo" camera systems is in some ways more interesting for a video, because so few of us are likely to buy into medium format or Leica - or even handle them in stores.

DPReviewTV is also a great way to create content for the site while journalists cannot travel, trade shows are cancelled, etc. You just need two guys to borrow a camera from the local camera store...

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Impulses

Yeah, you should ask for your money back!

In all seriousness, Chris and Jordan seem to work at a pretty fast clip (certainly faster than the pace DPR has set for the more in depth written reviews), I don't see what the big deal is, they go thru loads of gear. A week or so ago they had a pretty good review of a Tamron superzoom that's about as mass market as it gets (for this shrinking market that's turning into a niche anyway), this week it's some MF unobtanium, you don't have to watch them all.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

I like mega yacht reviews videos, I am not buying any but they are fun to watch.

In the case of cameras, I also like reviews of high-end stuff (most of the time those remind me how capable my mid-grade gear is).

So why not?

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Foskito: Just wait for the Leica co-branded special edition mega-yacht.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Brent, that will come with brassing included... I just saw the Lamborghini yacht lol

Jul 26, 2020permalink

LookintotheMirrorlessoften

I would appreciate videos about how hard or easy it is with different bodies to switch back-and-forth between auto ISO aperture priority for natural light and full manual for flash photography, or between eye AF and single point AF, and similar real-world usability topics that actually impact my ability to capture a moment.

Jul 26, 2020permalink

Andrey K

This lens is likely designed to resolve well over 400mp. At some point every modern optic would be diffraction limited. This lens might be already there.

Jul 25, 2020permalink

it isn’t even sharp wide open

Jul 25, 2020permalink

Andrey - No it is not. Fujifilm themselves have said resolving power is not over 150MP for any of their GFX lenses.

Jul 25, 2020*permalink

Manzur Fahim

@Jones Indiana We don't actually know the resolving power of the new lenses. At first Fuji did say that all lenses will be able to resolve 100MP, but then newer lenses came out, and some were resolving more details for example the 250mm. So we do not really know how much the newer lenses resolves.

Jul 27, 2020permalink

A lens that is large, expensive, and with a slow aperture both in real and equivalent terms? ...

Well, that's probably worth it if the money was invested into a superb optical design, AF-drives etc.... But then why is the magnification so poor?
One of the main advantages of short flange distance designs is amazing flexibility regarding close focus. Especially once you start using some of the modern AF technologies, like dual focus groups. So why is Fuji not emphasizing that on MF? They themself showed with the 16mm F1.4 in APS_C land what is possible regarding close focus

Jul 25, 2020permalink

NexUser

Fujifilm designed the 16mm f1.4 so I'm sure they know why this MF lens is as big and heavy as it is :)

Jul 25, 2020permalink