I appreciated that you showed more images at the end of the video. It really help to get a better idea of its performance in different contexts. Thanks
Have you considered an X-Pro1 or X-Pro2 (or X-E3, X-T2) combined with a Mitakon 35mm f0.95? I feel it produces very similar results at a fraction of the price.. these older Fujifilm cameras (X-Trans I, II and III) with the Mitakon are massive fun and full of character.. people love the output of that Mitakon as per my experience.
@@micopero not really. I can't get myself to go apsc. I got my wife one but it's not for me. I shot medium format in my early years and miss it. Something special about larger formats. I can't justify film prices anymore though.
As a portrait lens this is compelling. The corners are fine for portraiture and the low contrast is nice for softening the facial features. This is a fun option
I would have loved to see a full-length portrait wide-open. I think this is where this lens could shine on medium format, invoking the look of 19th century photography.
if you ever get a chance you have to check out the mitakon 65 1.4! its got quite the cult following with GFX shooters! Its about the equiv. of a 51mm 1.1, its a little soft wide open but gives you an almost identical look to the famous 105 2.4 on the pentax 67 system!
Mitakon always disappoints with its contrast. I wish Fuji bought a license from them and made an autofocus lens with better coatings. People would pay thousands.
Great review as always, Christopher! If you look at e.g. your image at 7:25 with the nice creamy bokeh background, could you achieve this same look (or something indistinguishable) using an 85mm f/1.2 lens on a Full Frame body while achieving (far) better sharpness? Does upgrading to GFX from Full Frame make sense for somebody who mostly cares about bokeh (a.k.a. a "bokeh enthusiast")?
I think the only reason to upgrade from full frame to the gfx is a bump in: Megapixels Dynamic range Color science Otherwise, full frame is just much more practical, i think anyways.
@@ethannarrow5209 I agree. I've been eyeing the GFX since it came out. But FF has a much better lens selection. While I believe a GFX body would be marginally better for maximum bokeh (mostly via adopted Manual Focus lenses), the extra expense is simply not worth it for a body I would only be able to use for manual photography vs. a versatile FF body that I can use for a lot more use cases. Maybe once prices come down.
@@ethannarrow5209 If you like Fuji JPEGs then Fuji-X APS-C would be fine too, as if you are shooting JPEG you are not benefiting from the better dynamic range of larger sensors anyway.
I owned one for GFX 50, I’m going again for a Hasselblad X1D. I think you are right about its shortcomings but bang for buck I think it shines. Thank you for the video.
Unrelated to this lens but I'm eagerly waiting on a review of the new viltrox 56mm f1.7. At $139, I'm very jealous of the options new photographers have. My main camera is a sony a7riii but I have a backup, fun fujifilm x-t2.
Mr. Frost, thanks for all your reviews they are very PRO and actually very near to the realm of a lens performance indeed. Please.... review the Astrohori 75mm F4 ( F2.8 at the point on the aperture scale). There are some mixed opinions about this lens. God bless you and your family.
I think more credit should be given to the low-contrast look (high spherical aberration) wide open, of all aberrations that is the most pleasing for portraits. The main issue with SA is that it makes obtaining perfect focus manually a pain.
I personally don't really care about the falloff to the corners nearly as much as just having the sharpness in the middle 1/3rd of the image so if I want I can crop in or do other things with it especially on such a high res sensor
1:06 except that it's ridiculously easy to get a depth of field as thin or thinner than this lens can provide wide open. You can get close to the same depth of field with a 135/4 lens on full frame, never mind a 200/4 or a 200/2.8. The key point is the depth of field at a certain focal length/angle of view. But if you're just after the most bokeh, don't bother with aperture, the focal length has a much stronger impact.
I have to imagine that this lens would do a lot better on a lower resolution camera. Like the R7 that's a stress test for a lens. Yes, stopping it down helps but you don't buy a lens like this just to stop it down. But at the price if you're buying it as an f/2.8 lens then it could be seen as a real bargain! So good news for Fuji owners.
It getting me to wonder. Why is your copy of this lens unsharp? Yes, the lens don't like focusing closer then 2 meters. Keep objects at least two meters away. In this case it will be very sharp. Even wide open
@@quangpham4372 The difficulty with focussing this lens is because of the spherical aberration (which makes the focal plane difficult to perceive). If it had more contrast wide open then it would be easier to focus.
GFX isn't even really that big comparatively. At 43.8x32.9mm it is a far cry from actual medium format film, usually starting around 60x45mm and going up to 60x70mm in popular formats and even beyond that for lesser used formats like the 60x90mm. 645 sitting at 2700mm², 6x7 sitting at 4200mm² and Fuji GFX only at 1441mm². Still significantly bigger than the 864mm² of full frame, but ultimately way closer to that than any medium format film. And just for fun, 6x9 would be 5400mm². That translates to an image circle of 43mm needed for full frame and 55mm for GFX and 6x7 already sits at 89mm. Has nothing to do with the video, but hey, now you know, even tho you never asked lol
First, film is very different technology. Digital changed in a big way what is possible with smaller formats. Secondly, actual Negative-Size was smaller than you claim. 645 was 55x42,5mm. 6x7 was 55x70mm on the Pentax 6x7, which is a huge camera by today’s standards. If they could make affordable digital sensors measuring 55x70mm, I would be first in line to get that camera. But I guess it’s too expensive to make or there is not enough demand. Actually it’s too bad, it would be awesome.
If you want a fun lens for specific needs, something that doesn't earn you money but seems interesting enough to be used from time to time. Or a FL that you don't usually use or need, so of course you won't invest too much in that. If I choose to afford myself an expensive camera that doesn't mean that I'll be throwing money away on every single piece of gear along the way. That's why I can afford that camera in the first place. It's not the same as buying cheap spare parts for your pricey car. With this you don't risk damage or loss of value. Oh, and if you know an alternative for this lens, let us know. It's the cheapest, but at the same time the most expensive lens of its kind; because it's the only lens of its kind.
@@skazhenyj All very good points, but I do think the Mitakon 65 is a much superior choice for what you're describing - unless you strongly prefer the longer focal length.
@@el_fucko”Strongly prefer the focal length”… Oh why yes, of course, the most important decision of getting one lens over another 🙄 65mm vs 90mm is huge
Because they want to have fun? A big selling point of Fuji’s are their film recipes and having an imperfect manual lens like this adds more to the photo. You’d actually be saving money compared to buying a decent MF film camera for 95% of the result
I would never buy a lens that can't communicate with the camera body. It's very lazy of TT to not include that. I've bought only Voigtländer lenses for my Sony a7R III, and they all have electrical contacts.
I appreciated that you showed more images at the end of the video. It really help to get a better idea of its performance in different contexts. Thanks
I need a gfx in my life
Have you considered an X-Pro1 or X-Pro2 (or X-E3, X-T2) combined with a Mitakon 35mm f0.95? I feel it produces very similar results at a fraction of the price.. these older Fujifilm cameras (X-Trans I, II and III) with the Mitakon are massive fun and full of character.. people love the output of that Mitakon as per my experience.
@@micopero not really. I can't get myself to go apsc. I got my wife one but it's not for me. I shot medium format in my early years and miss it. Something special about larger formats. I can't justify film prices anymore though.
@@nicedward7544 prices really dropped down recently, I bought my gfx 50s in mint condition for 1200eur
@@nicedward754450MP S bodies are like $1100-1300. The Rs and 50Sii are closer to $1800-2000, but very approachable. And worth it.
As a portrait lens this is compelling. The corners are fine for portraiture and the low contrast is nice for softening the facial features. This is a fun option
Why have 100mp just to soften it back up? Genuine question, I just don't understand.
Think about how this is the full frame equivalent to F1.0 at 72mm! 🤯
I would have loved to see a full-length portrait wide-open. I think this is where this lens could shine on medium format, invoking the look of 19th century photography.
if you ever get a chance you have to check out the mitakon 65 1.4! its got quite the cult following with GFX shooters! Its about the equiv. of a 51mm 1.1, its a little soft wide open but gives you an almost identical look to the famous 105 2.4 on the pentax 67 system!
Mitakon always disappoints with its contrast. I wish Fuji bought a license from them and made an autofocus lens with better coatings. People would pay thousands.
Would love to see your test plus extension tube.
its still a ff lens in the end，mitakon 65 1.4 design for 4433 at the beginning， results much better
to be fair it's also 550$ which is unheard of on medium format.
@@LindonSlaght Both the GF 50 and the GF 35-70 have been discounted to 500$ in the past.
@@el_fucko I stand corrected then
Great review as always, Christopher! If you look at e.g. your image at 7:25 with the nice creamy bokeh background, could you achieve this same look (or something indistinguishable) using an 85mm f/1.2 lens on a Full Frame body while achieving (far) better sharpness? Does upgrading to GFX from Full Frame make sense for somebody who mostly cares about bokeh (a.k.a. a "bokeh enthusiast")?
I think the only reason to upgrade from full frame to the gfx is a bump in:
Megapixels
Dynamic range
Color science
Otherwise, full frame is just much more practical, i think anyways.
@@ethannarrow5209 The other two reasons I agree with, but colour science is nonsense.
@@ethannarrow5209 I agree. I've been eyeing the GFX since it came out. But FF has a much better lens selection. While I believe a GFX body would be marginally better for maximum bokeh (mostly via adopted Manual Focus lenses), the extra expense is simply not worth it for a body I would only be able to use for manual photography vs. a versatile FF body that I can use for a lot more use cases. Maybe once prices come down.
@@Bayonet1809 well color science is of course very subjective. Fuji color science is my favorite. But that is just me.
@@ethannarrow5209 If you like Fuji JPEGs then Fuji-X APS-C would be fine too, as if you are shooting JPEG you are not benefiting from the better dynamic range of larger sensors anyway.
I owned one for GFX 50, I’m going again for a Hasselblad X1D. I think you are right about its shortcomings but bang for buck I think it shines. Thank you for the video.
Unrelated to this lens but I'm eagerly waiting on a review of the new viltrox 56mm f1.7. At $139, I'm very jealous of the options new photographers have.
My main camera is a sony a7riii but I have a backup, fun fujifilm x-t2.
In technical perspective, it's 2.8 lens only for the center, but I really understand why they released it from r&d side.
Mr. Frost, thanks for all your reviews they are very PRO and actually very near to the realm of a lens performance indeed. Please.... review the Astrohori 75mm F4 ( F2.8 at the point on the aperture scale). There are some mixed opinions about this lens. God bless you and your family.
I would like to see a review of the xf 90mm f2 lens.
Agreed, one of the only lenses fully resolving 40MP sensors
I was looking for this one!
I think more credit should be given to the low-contrast look (high spherical aberration) wide open, of all aberrations that is the most pleasing for portraits. The main issue with SA is that it makes obtaining perfect focus manually a pain.
doesnt spherical aberration come with focus shift when stopping down?
focus shift is hell in portrait work
@@sunlbx Yes, but this is an all manual lens, so you would be focusing at the taking aperture, so focus shift would not be an issue.
@@Bayonet1809 oh yeah, no option to control the aperture electronically.
no electrical contacts on the lens whatsoever.
Great work! Much love from USA
I think GFX50r with this would be amazing - a proper digi X-Pan
I have a gfx 50s MKII, but omg those lens prices.
Awesome video as always
I personally don't really care about the falloff to the corners nearly as much as just having the sharpness in the middle 1/3rd of the image so if I want I can crop in or do other things with it especially on such a high res sensor
Nisi 250mm mirror reflex lens please!!!
1:06 except that it's ridiculously easy to get a depth of field as thin or thinner than this lens can provide wide open.
You can get close to the same depth of field with a 135/4 lens on full frame, never mind a 200/4 or a 200/2.8.
The key point is the depth of field at a certain focal length/angle of view. But if you're just after the most bokeh, don't bother with aperture, the focal length has a much stronger impact.
Your maths is off, one would need a 135/1.8 not 135/4.
I have to imagine that this lens would do a lot better on a lower resolution camera. Like the R7 that's a stress test for a lens. Yes, stopping it down helps but you don't buy a lens like this just to stop it down. But at the price if you're buying it as an f/2.8 lens then it could be seen as a real bargain! So good news for Fuji owners.
No mention of the brutal vignette, that never goes away.
47mm F0.8 DOF equivalent on APSC :) magic
Or a 500mm f/8 on 8x10.
Thanks for sharing.
3:47 This is where we can close the review.
It's a f2.8 lens at best.
Carl-Zeiss 15 MM f2.8 ZE
It getting me to wonder. Why is your copy of this lens unsharp? Yes, the lens don't like focusing closer then 2 meters. Keep objects at least two meters away. In this case it will be very sharp. Even wide open
It’s a god damn brick. Mamiya 80mm f/2.8 is so much lighter.
"I think it's aesthetic design is actually pretty cool!" (LEICA CAMERA STARES INTENTLY)
It is Heavy. it is a mistake they removed tripod mount from those
Canon EF 85/1.2L is much better and have Autofocus
Does it cover gfx sensor? Also that has a lot of CA
@@ClockBestEvent YES. on youtube is film adapted lenses on gfx canon ef 85mm 1.2
@@ClockBestEvent or film GFX 100s + 85mm f1.2
FoV/DoF equivalent of 71mm f/1 on full frame? It must be a bokeh monster.
And probably impossible to get the focus right
@@quangpham4372 The difficulty with focussing this lens is because of the spherical aberration (which makes the focal plane difficult to perceive). If it had more contrast wide open then it would be easier to focus.
GFX isn't even really that big comparatively. At 43.8x32.9mm it is a far cry from actual medium format film, usually starting around 60x45mm and going up to 60x70mm in popular formats and even beyond that for lesser used formats like the 60x90mm. 645 sitting at 2700mm², 6x7 sitting at 4200mm² and Fuji GFX only at 1441mm². Still significantly bigger than the 864mm² of full frame, but ultimately way closer to that than any medium format film. And just for fun, 6x9 would be 5400mm². That translates to an image circle of 43mm needed for full frame and 55mm for GFX and 6x7 already sits at 89mm.
Has nothing to do with the video, but hey, now you know, even tho you never asked lol
First, film is very different technology. Digital changed in a big way what is possible with smaller formats. Secondly, actual Negative-Size was smaller than you claim. 645 was 55x42,5mm. 6x7 was 55x70mm on the Pentax 6x7, which is a huge camera by today’s standards. If they could make affordable digital sensors measuring 55x70mm, I would be first in line to get that camera. But I guess it’s too expensive to make or there is not enough demand. Actually it’s too bad, it would be awesome.
Chaow for now 😂
Dont understand why someone would pay £7k for a camera and cheap out on the lenses
If you want a fun lens for specific needs, something that doesn't earn you money but seems interesting enough to be used from time to time. Or a FL that you don't usually use or need, so of course you won't invest too much in that. If I choose to afford myself an expensive camera that doesn't mean that I'll be throwing money away on every single piece of gear along the way. That's why I can afford that camera in the first place. It's not the same as buying cheap spare parts for your pricey car. With this you don't risk damage or loss of value. Oh, and if you know an alternative for this lens, let us know. It's the cheapest, but at the same time the most expensive lens of its kind; because it's the only lens of its kind.
What is the expensive alternative for this lens mister?
@@skazhenyj All very good points, but I do think the Mitakon 65 is a much superior choice for what you're describing - unless you strongly prefer the longer focal length.
@@el_fucko”Strongly prefer the focal length”… Oh why yes, of course, the most important decision of getting one lens over another 🙄 65mm vs 90mm is huge
Because they want to have fun? A big selling point of Fuji’s are their film recipes and having an imperfect manual lens like this adds more to the photo. You’d actually be saving money compared to buying a decent MF film camera for 95% of the result
I would never buy a lens that can't communicate with the camera body. It's very lazy of TT to not include that.
I've bought only Voigtländer lenses for my Sony a7R III, and they all have electrical contacts.