[texandrews]

So, some points of order about lenses. First, reports about the Fuji lenses are uniformly good, and Jim Kasson's testing has shown the ones he tested to be excellent. I rather trust his judgements on matters such as these. But one fact is that we don't have a Roger Ciala group of testing on this (he has access to better equipment and resources than Jim) or comparison testing with other lenses, medium format or FF.

Second, the speculation about Pentax lenses not being up to the task of resolving higher resolutions is, AFAIC, pure speculation at this point. There's no rigorous testing on these lenses at all that I have ever seen, and I have looked again and again. There are some user tests, but nothing on the order Jim is doing and nothing even remotely close to what Ciala does. We don't in fact even know how they compare to the Fuji's, because there have been no side x side comparisons that I have ever seen---so if someone has any of those tests or comparisons lets please bring them into the light of day and quit hiding them! (one user, however, has claimed that the 28-45 "spanks" the roughly equiv. Fuji...Is that true? How do we know?)

[biz-engineer]

Cheapest GF50 exceeds resolution of each single shot frame I have ever taken with a single shot FF camera. D850 & 500/4 on tripod does not the pure resolving power.Buy your gfx before throwing such stuff.

GF50 is a prime. I wrote about the 32-64.

So, some points of order about lenses. First, reports about the Fuji lenses are uniformly good, and Jim Kasson's testing has shown the ones he tested to be excellent.

It's easy to go to his blog and see for ourselves the 100% crop center and corners from his GF lens tests. "Fuji lenses are uniformly good" is rather subjective. I compare 100% crops from my Pentax lenses to 100% crops from the GFX and have my own judgement. I'd prefer to make my own comparisons, versus taking the words about GF lenses from Fuji owners and fans. The 100% crops talk for themselves, that's why I'm now very carefully when I read the opinions of Fuji owners.

[texandrews]

GF50 is a prime. I wrote about the 32-64.


It's easy to go to his blog and see for ourselves the 100% crop center and corners from his GF lens tests. "Fuji lenses are uniformly good" is rather subjective. I compare 100% crops from my Pentax lenses to 100% crops from the GFX and have my own judgement. I'd prefer to make my own comparisons, versus taking the words about GF lenses from Fuji owners and fans. The 100% crops talk for themselves, that's why I'm now very carefully when I read the opinions of Fuji owners.

Looks like you missed the rest of what I said....

[repaap]

So, some points of order about lenses. First, reports about the Fuji lenses are uniformly good, and Jim Kasson's testing has shown the ones he tested to be excellent. I rather trust his judgements on matters such as these. But one fact is that we don't have a Roger Ciala group of testing on this (he has access to better equipment and resources than Jim) or comparison testing with other lenses, medium format or FF.

Second, the speculation about Pentax lenses not being up to the task of resolving higher resolutions is, AFAIC, pure speculation at this point. There's no rigorous testing on these lenses at all that I have ever seen, and I have looked again and again. There are some user tests, but nothing on the order Jim is doing and nothing even remotely close to what Ciala does. We don't in fact even know how they compare to the Fuji's, because there have been no side x side comparisons that I have ever seen---so if someone has any of those tests or comparisons lets please bring them into the light of day and quit hiding them! (one user, however, has claimed that the 28-45 "spanks" the roughly equiv. Fuji...Is that true? How do we know?)

This is the thing. Those who want to sell, do that. In this case Fuji. I sertainly do not think that Pentax will be any worse than anything else in this class. Even if they would go for bigger sensor 150. But also with 100 mp 44X33. Sure. Fuji has some very handsome lenses like 23, 80, 110(I really don’t like bokeh from this one, as well as I don’t like 45(which would be one most affordable ones))other than that. What is there more?

If one want narrow Dof? FF 35 mm, if one want better video? Same, or even smaller format.

SR. Yes. But Pentax next model can do it if they want to. As well as they can do 4 K movie. If they want to.

Smaller size. Well. Is that really what need to be had. I’m sure that next 645 will follow size and operation and all to remain as same/similar.

A lot of GFX users do adapt lenses from smaller format. Say it is okay and you get great result. Looking at old 645 lenses. Other than that super smooth bokeh, they should be fine. As some reviewers have said, side by side comparison. There is not so much difference. Legacy lenses have screwdrive AF and no WR. One thing brought up was AF problems. This should be easy to overcome and I suppose there are new winds blowing now.

What 645 needs is that updated camera and 80-160 redone and 25(and 75,120,150 and 150-300) but those lenses are very well regarded already. Oldies but goodies

[biz-engineer]

Looks like you missed the rest of what I said....

I didn't read the second part. I guess the Pentax 28-45 is better and more expensive. At least, 28-45 is a more useful FL range on MF than 32-64 is.
We have to decode brand language: Fuji define their GFX cameras as "large format", so I'm not surprise to read that their lenses would be ALL super extremely excellent

[texandrews]

I didn't read the second part. I guess the Pentax 28-45 is better and more expensive. At least, 28-45 is a more useful FL range on MF than 32-64 is.
We have to decode brand language: Fuji define their GFX cameras as "large format", so I'm not surprise to read that their lenses would be ALL super extremely excellent

I still don't think we really know. Until we have some rigorous bench testing (with controlled field test shots as well) on all of the medium format lenses we are all just guessing. Some guesses may be already close to the mark, but....we just don't know at this point.

[repaap]

One thing is that even if there would be difference between Fuji and Pentax lenses. I really doubt that it would be something which would matter in realworld photos. Both are very good. Some of the primes even superb.

Are those things going to result a bad photo? In that way measurabating does ruin the fact that great photo is being done by great photographer. Now a days gear will be more than fine. Most definitely. More important is overall look and the fact that photographer is happy with it. That is it. And ofcourse the client. Even now with 645Z amount of details are amazing.

[biz-engineer]

Are those things going to result a bad photo?

A good photo can be taken with a compact camera or a smartphone. The reason to spend so much money into a medium format system is essentially for superior resolving power.

Now a days gear will be more than fine.

I interpret this comment like "I never print larger than A4 or A3, so for me the quality of digital cameras is excellent".
Whether digital camera are insufficient, good, very good or excellent is relative to the goal in terms of the final product.
Most people are saying that digital cameras are good enough, the same people seldom print, eventually with a home printer (A3+ max).
What happens if I order a print the size of a pool table? How good enough are digital cameras now? How good is the lens now?

[repaap]

A good photo can be taken with a compact camera or a smartphone. The reason to spend so much money into a medium format system is essentially for superior resolving power.


I interpret this comment like "I never print larger than A4 or A3, so for me the quality of digital cameras is excellent".
Whether digital camera are insufficient, good, very good or excellent is relative to the goal in terms of the final product.
Most people are saying that digital cameras are good enough, the same people seldom print, eventually with a home printer (A3+ max).
What happens if I order a print the size of a pool table? How good enough are digital cameras now? How good is the lens now?

Well you can intrepent my comment the way you want. no problem with that.

I suppose since we are in 'next 645 thread' I ment 645 Z, perhaps even 645 D, but also Fujifilm GFX 50 series and 100 series. not to go further, but could also be Hassy.


I do think that if you take any of those cameras and use lenses intended to use with those, you should be fine even to print pooltable size and look it relatively close up. I suppose it has been MJkoski who actually do own GFX50s and shoot with it who brought that camera and image quality on the table(could be pooltable or a kitchen sink, or sofa table or dining table).


I'm not printing so big or so often, but sometimes yes, for my own pleasure and even bigger.


Oh and btw. I have not thrown away the idea of buying 645 Z one day.

[whwang]

I happen to have both 645z and GFX (50R). I tried to test all my lenses and store the results on Flickr:
Lenses on 44mm x 33mm Sensors | Flickr

I am an astrophotographer, so I use stars for testing. Stars are ultimate tests of sharpness across the field, and are sensitive to astigmatism, chromatic aberration, etc. They cannot be used to judge distortion and bokeh. The tests are strictly for sharpness.

Of course I can't own all possible lenses. So this is biased to what I have. Based on results from the lenses I have, Fuji wins by miles.

(After looking at my flickr page again, I realize I did not test my Fuji 45mm. However, I had taken a few pictures with it. It's just as good.)

[repaap]

I happen to have both 645z and GFX (50R). I tried to test all my lenses and store the results on Flickr:
Lenses on 44mm x 33mm Sensors | Flickr

I am an astrophotographer, so I use stars for testing. Stars are ultimate tests of sharpness across the field, and are sensitive to astigmatism, chromatic aberration, etc. They cannot be used to judge distortion and bokeh. The tests are strictly for sharpness.

Of course I can't own all possible lenses. So this is biased to what I have. Based on results from the lenses I have, Fuji wins by miles.

(After looking at my flickr page again, I realize I did not test my Fuji 45mm. However, I had taken a few pictures with it. It's just as good.)

I had a look of your flickr page. It is interesting. I'd say that 110/2 is clearly the sharpest. it was a bit hard to tell other than that because pictures are in those boxes. Could it be that boxes are different part of pictures and also from different images. Made with the same lens.

Also you had Mamiya lenses, but they were on your GFX.

Asto is challenge for lenses. And most of those things won't show up in daytime photos. As we know it. But you could see quite clearly what some of other reviews have brought up. (I ws quite surprised of 105/2.4 performance actually)

[biz-engineer]

Based on results from the lenses I have, Fuji wins by miles.

It's the generalization that I dislike. Some GF lenses are very good, others not so much, there are a couple of lemon in the GF lineup, like the 32-64 and the 100-200. Basically, the 28-105 FF kits beat the 32-64 and the high-end 70-200 f2.8 full frame beat the 100-200. The GF 100-200 f5.6 is equivalent to a Tamron 70-210 f4 that costs 5 times less.

[whwang]

It's the generalization that I dislike.

I did not intend to comment on any lenses that I don't have.

[biz-engineer]

I did not intend to comment on any lenses that I don't have.

I think I should do the same. Although I prefer to compare lenses before I would buy them. One of the thing I've noticed , while looking at many lenses, they all are sharp in the center and softer away from the center, even the very best ones. It looks like optics are such that flat lens performance would require proportionally very large elements or using lens machinery especially sized for processing larger lens elements. I can't prove it, but I guess the same machines are used for making lens elements for apsc , full frame or medium format lenses. As a result, the smaller formats benefit from getting the most accurate part of the lens making process, and the large format lens gets the borders of what the machine can do?

[barondla]

I did not intend to comment on any lenses that I don't have.

I've always thought star tests were one of the ultimate tests of lenses. Recently I read something here that has me confused. The earliest Pentax 6x7 lens is only a 4 element design and only decently sharp. It is rated much lower than the newer 200. However, 2 different reviews talk about how amazing the 4 element is for shooting the stars. One even discusses how the lens doesn't clip a color channel like most do. So here it seems a so so lens does well for astrophotography. I wouldn't have thought that possible.

Have you used this lens? Have you encountered the color channel clipping with other lenses?

Here's the link: S-M-C Takumar 6x7 / Super Takumar 6x7 200mm F4 Reviews - 67 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database.

Thanks,
barondla