Fujifilm GF 55mm f/1.7R WR First Impressions | Must BUY!

In this video, we go over my first impressions of the new Fujifilm GF 55mm f/1.7R WR.
My Presets - www.barrerastu...
Instagram - @Barreraphoto
Image Samples - www.dropbox.co...
#fujifilm #gfx #gfx100ii

[@angryrabbitproductions1690]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with your findings. The 55mm f1.7 is a wonderful lens. I’ve been enjoying it on the Fujifilm GFX100 II since launch. That said, I do feel Fujifilm needs to update their lens lineup, now that they have chosen to fully embrace large format video.

[@Dkouki97]

In love with my copy. I instantly connected with mine as well

[@NickDelDuca]

I saw some info stating that fuji used a different kind of glass for a couple elements on the 55 1.7 vs the 80 that help resist purple fringing. The only downside to that is they have lower light transmittance in the blue and purple wavelengths so you will see slightly less saturation in those colors. Sounds like this is a good trade off for the much better CA performance of the 55.

[@pierpi8820]

I followed the video with interest, but there is something I don't understand. The photos taken with the Fuji 55/1.7 should be much sharper than those taken with the Sigma, but this is not the case, and yet the Fuji, in addition to the larger sensor, also has a very strong resolution, especially in the center. Is it KZbin that does not allow you to see the real values? Thanks

[@phelix920]

👍🏾👏🏾📸Beautiful images

[@kevingreiner5772]

Ugh I can’t decide between this or the 32-64mm as a landscape and street photographer

[@mahdimanesh4221]

Get the zoom first - it is amazing. Especially if you need those wider shots for landscape.

[@Jawad.1]

Just a suggestion: Please do comparison images side-by-side, not one after the other. Thanks❤!

[@DanielKennedyaeos]

Slight correction - compression is due to subject distance, not focal length. So if you frame this lens and a 44mm on full frame the same, the perspectives will be identical. There will not be any higher degree of compression.

[@Pentax67]

Don’t forget when you shoot with let’s say 55mm 1.7 you keep the characteristics of 55mm but wider field of view. There will be some differences. 44mm will be a 44mm with its characteristics.

[@DanielKennedyaeos]

@@Pentax67 no, that's not how it works. Which characteristics of a 55mm on 33*44 vs a 44mm on 24*36 are you referring to?

[@DavidMiller-xw7jc]

Thanks, great video, really appreciate it. Others have said the auto focus is disappointing, what are your thoughts? I’m a bit unsure as it not my preferred focal length anyway really don’t want to drop over £2k for something with sub-optimal autofocus, even considering the better lenses are slow on this system.

[@ABarrera]

The 55mm is better than the 80mm imo. But the reality is the GFX is still a slow system regardless of the lens.

[@Vvvrrrmmm]

What about compared to that 110 ?

[@tankivulture148]

Actually, not that it changes much but the equivalent DOF of the 1.7 is similar to a 1.4 lens, but the difference is probably too negligible for the vast majority of people to notice

[@Pentax67]

1.2 The real crop factor is 0.725 of you take into account 4:3 aspect ratio. (Read it again)

[@tankivulture148]

@@Pentax67 Crop Factor is calculated taking into account the diagonal of the sensor, which is roughly 55mm, meaning that compared to a full frame camera (43.2mm) you get something like x0.7854545455, this would mean that f1.7 is actually equivalent to f1.335. Obviously it's a bit different because full frame sensors aren't always 36x24 and Medium Format Super Full Frame sensors are more often than not are 43.8x32.9mm in size. My 1.4 calculation comes from the idea that the long side is the dominant side in a photo that's 97% of the time the one you look at when composing. What do I mean? Crop factor is flawed if you consider sensors with a different aspect ratio, so the crop factor should be calculated on each side of the sensor. So if you made this calculation you would see that with a SFF sensor you have a ~0.82x on the long side and ~0.73x on the short side and since the long side is the dominant one you can expect an equivalent DOF (again, if you consider the long side) of ~f1.39 at f1.7 on the GFX. Having said that, if you also considered the short side you would have an equivalent of f1.24ish, but to be honest, is not that noticeable that it makes a difference. I stand for the long side of the sensor/film since that's how you compose the vast majority of the time.

[@bartbeckers]

Hi Alex! In the examples between the Sony and Fuji you showed, I almost couldn't see a difference between the two systems. They look both amazing! So why would I get into the (much larger) GFX system other than a step up in the mega pixels? Looking forward to your video to see what you think about it :-).

[@ABarrera]

That will be my next video, and based on your current feelings you have no reason to. Medium Format has its benefits but for most photographers it’s overkill.

[@angryrabbitproductions1690]

Medium format has the same bokeh as the full frame but can achieve it with a wider field of view.

[@stephanzobeley9443]

Compression is a myth that will not die...

[@runcmd1419]

Compression exists, it just doesn’t directly come from the lens.

[@stephanzobeley9443]

@@runcmd1419 from what then? If you’d care to explain?

[@runcmd1419]

@@stephanzobeley9443 it is a function of relative distance and things just looking bigher because they are closer. Lets say you have two identical books stood upright, beside each other, but one is 20cm further back. At 10m, the the distances are 1000cm and 1020cm from the sensor, and the back book will look 2% smaller in the frame. At 5m the distance to sensor is 500 to 520, so the back book will look 4% smaller. 1m, 100 to 120, about 83% the scale. At 20cm its 20cm to 40, so the back book will look half the size of the front one. The ratio of size will be maintained whether or not you widen your fov with shorter lenses to maintain framing/magnification on the front book, or keep using the same focal length as you move in. Now imagine the front book is titled, nose, and the back book is titled ear. This is what happens with peoples faces. When people say wide lenses have more distortion, they mean if the subject is framed or magnified the same amount by each lens. A 300mm looks flat while a 30mm headshot looks dynamic. If you back away with the 30mm the face will flatten out as it gets smaller in the frame. Barrel distortion is a property of a lens that bends straight lines, hence brick wall tests. Two distorition free lenses of different focal lengths, and allowing for the same reproduction ratio. would be able to take identical pictures of a sheet of graph paper laid perfectly flat. Wide lenses tend to have more barrel distortion than telephotos have barrel or pincushion distortion.

[@runcmd1419]

This is a similar lens to a 42/45mm on full frame, not a 50mm.

[@Pentax67]

39.8mm with 0.725 crop factor (if you take aspect ratio into account). And 43.45mm with 0.79 crop factor

[@DonaldHawk]

I realize 1.7 is not going to be light but still a little more than I want to carry around