Where's the 35-70? Super sharp, super light weight and super cheap! With a FF equivalent range of 28 - 55, nicely complements the 20 - 35 (16 - 28 FF equivalent).
Hi Matt. I just saw a Fujifilm GFX seminar at my local store, and handled the GFX100S ll and the Fujinon GF100 f/4 Macro. I did rough comparison test of that system v. my Nikon Z8 with NIkkor Z 50 f/1.8, and of course the Fuji System had much more detail and sharpness in the same image. Was wondering what you think is the sharpest GF lens, if not the GF100 f/4 Macro, and would you recommend the GF 45 f/2.8 as well? Thanks!
The sad truth is you need four zooms, not a trinity, to cover the range of 20-200mm in the GFX system and not have any gaps in focal lengths. And that still just gets you to 158mm of full frame reach equivalent. Best choice is probably to drop the 32-64, and go with 20-35, 45-100, and 100-200.
I'm shopping for a fixed aperture mid range zoom. I have the 35-70 but don't like the feel with the way it collapses. I already have the 20-35mm. I'm not going to buy both the 32-64 & 45-100 so the question becomes smaller/lighter no FL gap with the 32-64mm or bigger/heavier with a much larger FL range, but with a gap... Not an easy choice. This is also trick because the 45-100mm comes very close to just long enough to not fit in my backpack the "deep" way w/o pushing into my back. The one thing I have to ask, is the filter size complaint. I've converted completely to panel filters with drop in round polarizers and NDs. The nice thing here is I have an adapter ring on every lens then use a lenscoat neoprene lens cap over the ring. This means I don't have to worry about front element sizes. Buy an adapter ring with the lens and that's it, all my lenses are ready to have the filter holder snapped on instantly. I then have CP/ND and GNDs to suit. The only negative it it's a bit bulky on the front of the lens (and "ugly") but for me I'll take the ease of use any day.
I really agree with you about the filter size. I shot Pentax 645 and 67 for a long time and Pentax was extremely consistent about filter sizes. In fact, I’d say fujifilm biggest weakness is the erratic filter sizes. I shoot 20-35, 35-70 and canon 100-400 on GFX. As well as canon 85mm f1.8. This set up allows for wildlife, portrait and landscape. I dislike the 35-70’s lack of aperture ring but it is do LIGHT! Likewise the 85mm f1.8 needs to be shot mostly square format but it is also light. I love thé 45-100 and the 32-64. Both dazzling lenses and like the 100-200 but want to minimized weight and just want more teach than the 100-200. The canon 100-400 does vignette a bit but it is fast and sharp and is a quasi macro lens as it focuses to 36 inches. Sorry this is so long but thought your viewers might be interested in another take. Looking forward to seeing your Iceland pics.
Selfishly, I'd like to see you test the 20-35 against the 23mm prime so I can determine whether the prime offers enough advantage to retain it in preference to the zoom.
I have made a New Year resolution to stretch my horizons and have taken advantage of some great year end sales and purchased a Fujifilm GXF 100S and the GF 20-35mm f/4 and GF 45-100mm f/4 zooms and hope to get the 45mm f2.8 in the near future. I had looked at the GF 100-200mm f/5.6, but I am a little concerned about the f5.6 aperture, to me it seems only natural that it also be a f4 aperture. It’s a big step for me, but I have a friend that has one and the images he is getting absolutely blew me away. He even uses the GFX 100S to photograph college basketball, for which he is an official photographer for. I am still keeping my Nikon Z9 and various lenses, but will be taking advantage of the extra resolution and DR of the bigger sensor for my landscape, street, and night photography especially. Nikon has been good to me over the years, but I feel it’s time to spread my wings and try the medium format world. I enjoy your reviews Matt, and wish you all the best in 2023!
I own most GF primes - and I love the vast majority of them. The zoom that's begun to turn my head is the 20-35 as my existing 23mm feels more limited. The only fuji zoom I do have is the 32-64 - I have a love/hate relationship with it and agree it's a focal length that is becoming more redundant - BUT if you're doing travel shots - I'll place a friendly bet that this spends the most time on your camera body. Nice video.
I get the filter size issue, I don’t want multiple sizes of the same filter. How I got around that is to buy the step down adapter along with the appropriate sized lens cap, then I just leave the adapter on. Might lose ability to use the lens hood but that hasn’t been an issue for me.
If I had the money, I'd buy the GFX 100s but, not sure what lenses I would buy, but needing 3 lenses to do what 1 or 2 lenses covers on Full frame or APSC is a negative, but considering what I shoot, I could probably get the 80mm F/1.7 and call it a day. although maybe add the 20-35 too. But is all wishful thinking as out of my price range right now :)
Have you shot with the 51MP version of this camera? I was told that people thought the larger pixel sizes on the sensor gave a more softer and cleaner image.. What are you thoughts on the two different sensors?
I have the kit lens (35-70mm) but having issues with focus (seems quite a few of these were defective) plus hate not having an aperture ring. So debating whether to get the 32-64mm or the 45-100mm to replace it. I have the 100-200mm and like that zoom a lot, but not sure I want to carry around those two beasts....
Agree with the other comments, there's really no need for 32-64 and 45-100. Too much overlap. I'd pick one and sub the other for the 100-200 to go with the 20-35
Is there a reason you are not taking the 100S as oppose to the 100, just like you, despite the vertical grip I really dislike that camera, did you request a loner 100S from Fuji
16-80 compared to 14-200 is not quite in the same ball park..I think I'm going to get the 100-200 but even that is only 158mm FF Does anyone know if you can adapt the Nikon F mount 80-400??
Bad joke, why all focus ? - this is useless, i need wide lens 20-35/4 - i hate zoom, but 25/4 is total crap with not working AF , next is 34/2.8 - yep i hate everyting with F more that 1.x - wide is OK, i use on wide f4-8 and 80/1.7 - best lens from fujifilm. First i buy 45/2.8 becuase i need something like 35mm - by most used lens (on FF sigma art 35/1.4 - 90% of foto ) - i buy it with MEH - but now i know, that is better that look on first view - still if fuji cretae 6x/1.x - i don;t need it, but somethig like 35-40mm - PRIME not zoom with f1.4 - ok 1.7 becuase fuji - i buy it and don't care if it cost about 2k euro/USD
The 100-200 is key part of my kit. It can also double as a portrait lens. I think the 20-35 is a game changer for the system.
I would drop the 32-64mm and add the 100-200mm for the official "Trinity". The 45-100mm is really the replacement for the 32-64mm IMO.
+1 … and I would consider the GF 1.4x TC which brings the 100-200 from 160ish mm-e to 220ish mm-e.
@@framue Sure. Might as well add the 18mm extension tube too to we've got macros covered as well, ha.
exactly
I love the 100-200mm, its soooo sharp and not heavy, amazing portrait lens
Can it be used full manual.
🙋🏾♂️ 20-35, 45-100 and 110 💪🏾💪🏾
Where's the 35-70? Super sharp, super light weight and super cheap! With a FF equivalent range of 28 - 55, nicely complements the 20 - 35 (16 - 28 FF equivalent).
just bought it as my main lens, how is the focus speed?
@@henryk6979 I only use it for landscapes ...
Surprised you didn't get the gf100=200mm as part of the trinity.
The gf32-64 kinda seems almost redundant now with the 20-35 and the 45-100..
For my purposes on this trip, this kit works better 👍🏼
Hi Matt. I just saw a Fujifilm GFX seminar at my local store, and handled the GFX100S ll and the Fujinon GF100 f/4 Macro. I did rough comparison test of that system v. my Nikon Z8 with NIkkor Z 50 f/1.8, and of course the Fuji System had much more detail and sharpness in the same image. Was wondering what you think is the sharpest GF lens, if not the GF100 f/4 Macro, and would you recommend the GF 45 f/2.8 as well? Thanks!
20-35, 45-100, 100-200 plus 110 for portrait! Waiting for my 100-200 to arrive. 😊
The sad truth is you need four zooms, not a trinity, to cover the range of 20-200mm in the GFX system and not have any gaps in focal lengths. And that still just gets you to 158mm of full frame reach equivalent. Best choice is probably to drop the 32-64, and go with 20-35, 45-100, and 100-200.
Question please...How does the GF45 f/2.8 compare to the GF45-100 in terms of sharpness? Thanks!
I'm shopping for a fixed aperture mid range zoom. I have the 35-70 but don't like the feel with the way it collapses. I already have the 20-35mm. I'm not going to buy both the 32-64 & 45-100 so the question becomes smaller/lighter no FL gap with the 32-64mm or bigger/heavier with a much larger FL range, but with a gap... Not an easy choice. This is also trick because the 45-100mm comes very close to just long enough to not fit in my backpack the "deep" way w/o pushing into my back.
The one thing I have to ask, is the filter size complaint. I've converted completely to panel filters with drop in round polarizers and NDs. The nice thing here is I have an adapter ring on every lens then use a lenscoat neoprene lens cap over the ring. This means I don't have to worry about front element sizes. Buy an adapter ring with the lens and that's it, all my lenses are ready to have the filter holder snapped on instantly. I then have CP/ND and GNDs to suit. The only negative it it's a bit bulky on the front of the lens (and "ugly") but for me I'll take the ease of use any day.
I really agree with you about the filter size. I shot Pentax 645 and 67 for a long time and Pentax was extremely consistent about filter sizes. In fact, I’d say fujifilm biggest weakness is the erratic filter sizes. I shoot 20-35, 35-70 and canon 100-400 on GFX. As well as canon 85mm f1.8. This set up allows for wildlife, portrait and landscape. I dislike the 35-70’s lack of aperture ring but it is do LIGHT! Likewise the 85mm f1.8 needs to be shot mostly square format but it is also light.
I love thé 45-100 and the 32-64. Both dazzling lenses and like the 100-200 but want to minimized weight and just want more teach than the 100-200.
The canon 100-400 does vignette a bit but it is fast and sharp and is a quasi macro lens as it focuses to 36 inches.
Sorry this is so long but thought your viewers might be interested in another take.
Looking forward to seeing your Iceland pics.
Selfishly, I'd like to see you test the 20-35 against the 23mm prime so I can determine whether the prime offers enough advantage to retain it in preference to the zoom.
I have made a New Year resolution to stretch my horizons and have taken advantage of some great year end sales and purchased a Fujifilm GXF 100S and the GF 20-35mm f/4 and GF 45-100mm f/4 zooms and hope to get the 45mm f2.8 in the near future. I had looked at the GF 100-200mm f/5.6, but I am a little concerned about the f5.6 aperture, to me it seems only natural that it also be a f4 aperture. It’s a big step for me, but I have a friend that has one and the images he is getting absolutely blew me away. He even uses the GFX 100S to photograph college basketball, for which he is an official photographer for. I am still keeping my Nikon Z9 and various lenses, but will be taking advantage of the extra resolution and DR of the bigger sensor for my landscape, street, and night photography especially. Nikon has been good to me over the years, but I feel it’s time to spread my wings and try the medium format world. I enjoy your reviews Matt, and wish you all the best in 2023!
I own most GF primes - and I love the vast majority of them. The zoom that's begun to turn my head is the 20-35 as my existing 23mm feels more limited. The only fuji zoom I do have is the 32-64 - I have a love/hate relationship with it and agree it's a focal length that is becoming more redundant - BUT if you're doing travel shots - I'll place a friendly bet that this spends the most time on your camera body. Nice video.
I get the filter size issue, I don’t want multiple sizes of the same filter. How I got around that is to buy the step down adapter along with the appropriate sized lens cap, then I just leave the adapter on. Might lose ability to use the lens hood but that hasn’t been an issue for me.
I believe it was the Mamyia RZ that had lenses with a 77mm filter thread.. Not sure about the zoom
I own the 50r and 100s. I use the 30, 45, 50, and 100-200. I’m waiting on my 20-35…
If I had the money, I'd buy the GFX 100s but, not sure what lenses I would buy, but needing 3 lenses to do what 1 or 2 lenses covers on Full frame or APSC is a negative, but considering what I shoot, I could probably get the 80mm F/1.7 and call it a day. although maybe add the 20-35 too.
But is all wishful thinking as out of my price range right now :)
Why didn’t you choose the 100s instead? Seems like it would be a better option weight and comfort wise
The 100 is what fujifilm could loan me
@@mattgranger 👍 got it, make sense. Enjoy the trip, I can’t wait to see the images
Have you shot with the 51MP version of this camera? I was told that people thought the larger pixel sizes on the sensor gave a more softer and cleaner image.. What are you thoughts on the two different sensors?
The 51mp is lovely. It’s showing it’s age though.
I have the kit lens (35-70mm) but having issues with focus (seems quite a few of these were defective) plus hate not having an aperture ring. So debating whether to get the 32-64mm or the 45-100mm to replace it. I have the 100-200mm and like that zoom a lot, but not sure I want to carry around those two beasts....
I hear you. Sadly big sensor = big lenses! And there are some QC issues with GFX it seems.
Agree with the other comments, there's really no need for 32-64 and 45-100. Too much overlap. I'd pick one and sub the other for the 100-200 to go with the 20-35
I've 20-35, 35-70 and 80 now. Later will buy the 100-200.
Metal and made in Japan? That might explain the prices more.
For me it's 45 2.8, 80 1.7, and 250 f/4
GFX 50R
Is there a reason you are not taking the 100S as oppose to the 100, just like you, despite the vertical grip I really dislike that camera, did you request a loner 100S from Fuji
16-80 compared to 14-200 is not quite in the same ball park..I think I'm going to get the 100-200 but even that is only 158mm FF
Does anyone know if you can adapt the Nikon F mount 80-400??
My dream…😮
Bad joke, why all focus ? - this is useless, i need wide lens 20-35/4 - i hate zoom, but 25/4 is total crap with not working AF , next is 34/2.8 - yep i hate everyting with F more that 1.x - wide is OK, i use on wide f4-8 and 80/1.7 - best lens from fujifilm.
First i buy 45/2.8 becuase i need something like 35mm - by most used lens (on FF sigma art 35/1.4 - 90% of foto ) - i buy it with MEH - but now i know, that is better that look on first view - still if fuji cretae 6x/1.x - i don;t need it, but somethig like 35-40mm - PRIME not zoom with f1.4 - ok 1.7 becuase fuji - i buy it and don't care if it cost about 2k euro/USD
Unbelievable to me to make a video about photography and lenses without any images that demonstrate the lenses.
they really are lighter then they look.
misleading
How is it misleading?