Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fuji GF 100-200mm 5.6 - any users here?

A

anyone

Well-known member
Hi there,
for my lightweight travel/ hiking kit, I added the GF35-70mm and am really happy with the weight/ optical performance ratio on the GFX100s. Now I'm thinking about the longer end. The GF 100-200 seems to follow a similar design philosophy in terms of slow, but more or less lightweight and is therefore interesting. Are here any users of this lens who use it regularly for travel/ hiking? What are your experiences? Are you happy about the image quality?

In terms of specs, it adds 1.050g to the load, which is about the same as my EF200mm 2.8 L II that I use now (765g) with the required adapter.

The lens seems to be a fair bit cheaper in the US than in Europe which is a pity, but most likely the prices will level at some point.

Thank you for your insights!
 
A

anyone

Well-known member
Thank you for your fast responses. Even though I read/ watched some reviews, it's always good to hear from fellow members that you are happy with the lens. After all, it's important to see from which baseline people compare. Here we tend to compare to tech cam lenses (= best of the best), so if you guys are happy with it, the probability is high that I'll like it too. It sounds like it would be a good addition to the kit.

I do like my longer V lenses a lot, but I must admit that the Fuji lenses are really good. I haven't had a chance to try their longer lenses yet, but in the range of 35-70, the GF zoom is at least as good as the V lenses with a fraction of the weight. Probably it's the same with the longer lenses. After selling a little bit of gear that I use rarely, I'll buy the 100-200mm.
 
Last edited:
rdeloe

rdeloe

Well-known member
I've read complaints that it's not as good at the long end, but then I see sample pictures and I wonder what people are expecting. These samples look great.
 
dchew

dchew

Well-known member
rdeloe said:
I've read complaints that it's not as good at the long end, but then I see sample pictures and I wonder what people are expecting. These samples look great.
Click to expand...
I think that critique is correct. If you plan to shoot wide open at the long end a lot, then the 250 is by far the better option. I think stopped down a little it is just fine. Sample of one 🙄
Dave
 
G

gurtch

Well-known member
I do seascape/landscape stuff. I like the 100-200mm but I do not use it as much as I do the wider GF lenses, such as the 32-64, as I usually am including big skies and foreground. The first image here was taken with the 32-64mm lens at 64mm (1/160 at f14). The second image was taken with the 100-200mm lens at 177mm 1/400 f11 ISO 800 for comparison. The third image of the ocean was with the 100-200 at 100mm f11, 1/160. Knowing your excellent work and appreciation of fine optics, I think you will like it.
best regards
Dave in NJ
 

Attachments

G

gurtch

Well-known member
rdeloe said:
That qualifier is important. I have heard tales of this "wide open" that people speak of, but I am unfamiliar with the concept of shooting at it. ;)
Click to expand...
I agree....for the kind of stuff I do I need depth of field, and never (well almost never) shoot wide open. I am an f11-f16 guy, diffraction be damned.
Dave
 
V

vjbelle

Well-known member
I'm sticking with my newly acquired (used) Pentax lenses (645 150mm, 645 200mm) that are sharp edge to edge at f5.6 and very light. Even wide open these lenses are sharp to the edges but one to one and a half stops down and these lenses really snap together. Maybe not as sharp as a modern lens design such as a 110 or 250 which I own but very competitive.

Victor B.
 
rdeloe

rdeloe

Well-known member
vjbelle said:
I'm sticking with my newly acquired (used) Pentax lenses (645 150mm, 645 200mm) that are sharp edge to edge at f5.6 and very light. Even wide open these lenses are sharp to the edges but one to one and a half stops down and these lenses really snap together. Maybe not as sharp as a modern lens design such as a 110 or 250 which I own but very competitive.

Victor B.
Click to expand...
The 150mm A Pentax 645 is a really good lens. The combination of size, weigh, cost and performance is really good. I had a 200mm FA and thought it was very good too.

Currently I'm using the 150mm Mamiya G and the 210mm Mamiya N lenses, but if they fell into a bog and were lost, I could easily be happy with the Pentax lenses. They were not messing around when they made their professional medium format lenses.
 
A

anyone

Well-known member
I agree on the 150mm 3.5. It's good, but a little more reach would be nice sometimes. The 67 Pentax 200mm does the trick, but it is rather bulky and requires an adapter - hence the Fuji lens. If I want to shift, the Pentax lenses are my go-to options.
 
rdeloe

rdeloe

Well-known member
The 200mm Pentax 67 is an interesting example of a lens that shifts very poorly on my Fotodiox adapter. I can't even get the full amount of shift allowed by the adapter (12mm) before mechanical vignetting. The best it does is around 8mm. It's just a weird combination of the design of the lens and the design of the adapter. Other than that, it's a nice lens (albeit a big and heavy lens). It also pairs nicely with 1.4x teleconverter.
 
drevil

drevil

Well-known member
Staff member
rdeloe said:
I've read complaints that it's not as good at the long end, but then I see sample pictures and I wonder what people are expecting. These samples look great.
Click to expand...
i was able to try the lens one winter evening in a beijing park from a fellow photographer, i just used it at the long end and at infinity, and i wasnt too thrilled either.
 
MGrayson

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I suspect sample variation on the 100-200.

Roger Cicala knows the truth of it, so I may be wrong. But I've always found that what you pay for is QC, not IQ. I had to return 3 out of 4 Sony lenses when I started in the A7 system (and got out as a result). I've never had a bad SK, Leica, or Hasselblad lens (well, I'm not thrilled with my HC 150/3.2, but that may be the design).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top