How The Fuji GF110mm f/2 Changed My Photography

[@KevinDeal]

Do you own the Fuji GF110mm f/2? Is it still a big part of your photography seven years into its existence? Did you get the 80mm 1.7 instead? Tell me about it.

[@johnspijkers7368]

I use it on my GFX 100II and it is a killercombo for portraits. The combination is big and heavy (with the battery grip attached), but that is not an issue when shooting from a tripod. The best lens I have ever owned.

[@KevinDeal]

It's a killer lens, Thanks for watching!

[@I-LightMedia]

Paired with the GFX100s the lens is ideal for life-size prints when a realistic feel is desired. When posed correctly the sharpness renders the person so realistic that everything down to the hairs and bumps on their skin is exact. I have had each subject stand next to the image and they were astounded at the detail. I had to edit teeth on a few to make them aesthetically appealing or to remove food particles. The 100 mp resolution does not miss a thing. Owned this lens for about 3 years.

[@KevinDeal]

Yes. It sees EVERYTHING. lol

[@ernanigarcia3530]

Hello from Brazil. This lens is in my wish list. I have a GFX50Sii and a GF 35-70mm lens.

[@KevinDeal]

Greetings! I hope you fulfill your dream some day!

[@steve-4045]

Way back when I was shooting film in my SLR, zoom lenses were large, heavy, expensive, and not very good. I accumulated a range of prime lenses. I found that when I traveled and wanted to limit the number of lenses to carry, the three lenses I took were 28mm, 85mm, and 200mm. I rarely missed the other lenses. So if I bought a prime lens for my 100S, the 110 f/2 might make the most sense. The alternative for me would be the 30mm tilt-shift. With unlimited funds I would buy both. In reality, I use an adapted Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 macro, obviously for macro shots, but occasionally as a short telephoto. I don’t recall any vignetting issues, but they could be dealt with easily enough, so if there are some, they didn’t bother me, and I don’t remember them. So while I’d like to have and would use the GF 110mm, I can’t really justify the cost for now. Maybe if I shot a lot of portraits, then I’d feel greater need for it.

[@KevinDeal]

Is you like the results of your adapted lenses, that's all that matters.

[@steve-4045]

@@KevinDeal Kevin, do you have any relatives or had any ancestors in western North Carolina or maybe eastern Tennessee? The reason I ask is that after a concert, I talked with composer Scott Deal, who lived in California at the time. He commented that he had never encountered any other people with that last name outside his immediate family, but understood the name was not uncommon in this area. I told him that one of my great-grandmothers had Deal as her maiden name. Maybe it was “Diehl” in Germany, where so many of my ancestors came from.

[@steve-4045]

@@KevinDeal I don’t much care for portraits shot with the Canon macro. To me they look too “clinical.” If I shot a lot of portraits, I would definitely add the GF 110mm to my arsenal. As it is, about all my people pictures are what I’d consider street photography, and I shoot them with the 35-70mm zoom.

[@KevinDeal]

@@steve-4045 I agree.

[@KevinDeal]

@@steve-4045 My family is mainly from Michigan. Deal, England is right by the cliffs of Dover. I was born in South Carolina but my family is not from there. My dad was stationed there in the Air Force, so it was purely coincidental that i was born there.

[@StarLightDotPhotos]

Also, your photos are 100000x better than anything I've ever taken with my GFX 50s!

[@KevinDeal]

Thanks!

[@outwestjim]

Great video Kevin! I also really like the 110mm and use it more often than the 80mm. In viewing the photos you shared, I'm impressed by the overall color balance of with flesh tones. Can I ask how you achieve such a pleasing rendition?

[@KevinDeal]

Thank you for the kind words. My secret isn't necessarily in post production as much as it is at the camera. Every shot I take of a person, I expose for their skin. Thankfully, I don't usually end up having to throw a lot of information out in the process because I have a GFX100S. I feel like getting the lighting right is probably my biggest mechanism for getting it where I want it. When I don't get skin tones right I often find I didn't expose or light it correctly. In the studio, modifier types can also help make skin more pleasing, depending what I'm going for. Softbox vs beauty dish etc.

[@outwestjim]

@@KevinDeal Thank you for the quick response! What I've noticed is a slight blue to magenta cast on the highlight portion of skin tones, seems more pronounced on my GFX100 as compared to the GFX100-II. Exposures are typically right on, I use a Sekonic L-858D-U light meter. I found using a custom white balance with an expodisc helped. Your color is so good, I was thinking may you might have some additional insight. Again, great work you're doing, thank you for sharing it!

[@KevinDeal]

@@outwestjim no problem. I do usually have to adjust my WB a lot in post. I tend to just shoot to what my lights are at in the studio and then use AWB outside. I then adjust in Capture One. So for my WB I DO some post work for sure. My GFX100S WB has always been wonky.

[@marcusbeasley3212]

One day I will get this lens. I have the 20-35, 55 and 80 1.7's. I feel like the 80 is a much more versatile lens than the 110, but I'm pretty sure for headshot work the 110 would be better because at closer distances you get a little bit of distortion on the subject, but it's still a great image.

[@KevinDeal]

I'm eyeing that 20-35.

[@marcusbeasley3212]

@@KevinDeal I have been using that lens a lot. If you do environmental portraits in the 16-28mm range it's almost a no brainer. I mainly got it to get 24mm in GFX, but ended up using it way more than I was expecting to.

[@KevinDeal]

@@marcusbeasley3212 I do my environmental portraits mainly with my 45mm 2.8. I do own the 35-70, which is a fantastic lens, but it's not as good as the nicer lenses. I just bought a Canon R5MKII this week, so my money is tapped out, but the 20-35 is on my radar to purchase.

[@marcusbeasley3212]

@@KevinDeal For what you use the 45 for I just use the 55 1.7 for. I just move back and forth, go, "what's 9mm" and shrug my shoulders 🤣

[@KevinDeal]

@@marcusbeasley3212 makes sense. I don't need the extra depth of field, which is why I haven't done the 55 yet. Maybe one day. But the 45 is my favorite lens, so it could be a while.

[@ScottBasu]

Have you done a side-by-side A/B comparison of your 50MP GFX + 100 f/2 vs. the 45MP R5 + RF 85 f/1.2 or RF 85 f/2? I'm curious to know what the differences in terms of image quality are, especially as you say the 100 f/2 is possibly the pinnacle of Fuji's MFT lenses, while the RF 85 f/1.2 is considered by many to be Canon's best ever. And the lowly RF 85 f/2 I mention because that happens to be the one I have, and love.

[@KevinDeal]

My GFX is not 50MP. I have the 100MP version. So I have not done that comparison. I have looked at thousands of files taken on both my GFX100S + GF110 f2 and my R5 + RF85 1.2. Both lenses are basically flawless. I would say the GF110 has a more clinical look and the RF85 has a more character look. Hard to put into words, but I love them both. I think the sensors / color science are where the differences in image quality reveals itself. Once gain, I have the 100MP version of the GFX, but the sensor is what has the advantage over Canon. The RF85 1.2 has a little more bokeh and liquidation. But not a lot more.

[@ScottBasu]

@@KevinDeal thanks for your insights and the clarification. How about data quality? (RAW file processing). How would you compare these two duos in terms of highlight recovery and shadow boosting? And then, another is DR & banding - I assume (!) the GFX has a silent electronic shutter mode; do you encounter any hits to DR or any banding artifacts in high DR scenes in Silent GFX operation?

[@KevinDeal]

@@ScottBasu GFX destroys the R5 in shadow recovery and highlight recovery. That's the main reason to purchase it. I did a review of the 100S on this channel and I showed a file I accidentally underexposed by 5 stops. The GFX recovered and looked pretty darn good. I just took delivery of the R5MKII today and I fully intend to see if there are any improvements in dynamic range.

[@ScottBasu]

@@KevinDeal oh boy, congrats!! I hope you're super happy about it as I see others gleefully taking their first steps with theirs. Early whispers are that the mk2 might take a slight DR hit compared to the mk1, but I'm not sure the full situation has been looked at thoroughly by reviewers yet. For ex. we know that the L, H, and H+ came with some degree of AF variability in the R7 in particular, and it's common for certain other camera mfg's out there to quote different resolution specs for different shooting modes. Canon does not break things out in their spec sheet like that, so I think there may be a chance that H+ might come with some slight hit to DR that lessens in H and L modes, for example.

[@KevinDeal]

@@ScottBasu I will be sure to test out that DR.

[@Mocha_122]

I considered picking up this lens for my GFX but I already have lens like the Plena for my Nikon

[@KevinDeal]

Must be a great lens

[@StarLightDotPhotos]

I've never even looked at this lens. I rented the Mitikon 65mm but it was so heavy I ended up not buying one.

[@KevinDeal]

The Mitakon 65 is definitely a heavy lens. So is the 110.

[@just_eirik]

You briefly mentioned 45mm at the end of the video. Have you tried the 55 1.7? I’m only asking because I’m wondering if you still prefer the 45 and why? I don’t have either, but I kinda want one of them. (I know you didn’t actually mention Fuji’s 45, I’m making an assumption there.)

[@KevinDeal]

I feel like the 45mm is shallow enough for me. Because it’s a story telling lens I don’t need it to liquify the background so much. I tried the 55. Fantastic lens but outside of bokeh didn’t offer me much more. So I stick with the lighter 45mm. I do discuss this all in my 45mm 2.8 review.

[@just_eirik]

@@KevinDeal Oh, I’m gonna go watch that, thank you!

[@cameraprepper7938]

The Fuji GF 110mm 2.0 is too big and heavy, it only need to cover a diagonal of 55mm ! Back in the good old days I had the excellent Zeiss Planar 110mm 2.0 T* for the Hasselblad 6x6cm (actual 55x55mm) with a diagonal of 78mm ! The Hasselblad Zeiss Planar 110mm 2.0 T* only weighs 750g ! The Fuji GF 110mm 2.0 weighs 1010g !!! So Fuji REALLY needs to make new more compact and more light weight Lenses ! Fuji did VERY well with the new 500mm 5.6 !

[@KevinDeal]

It is a heavy beast and I agree with you about the 500. I went to a Fuji camera event in my town last weekend and they had the 500 there. I walked over to it expecting it to be a beast in terms of weight. I was pleasantly surprised by the weight of it.

[@cameraprepper7938]

@@KevinDeal Fuji GF 250mm 4.0 is more heavy than the 500mm 5.6 ! I do hope that Fuji continues that compact and light weight line !

[@KevinDeal]

@@cameraprepper7938 the camera handles low light so well, the darker aperture isn't that big of a deal.

[@cameraprepper7938]

@@KevinDeal Fuji need to remake ALL their Lenses in much more light weight versions !

[@KevinDeal]

@@cameraprepper7938 I wonder if they are capable of it. I guess only time will tell

[@CRIMSONCITADeL]

I have this sucker as my only lens for the gfx system. took it to cairo on vacation and got some great shots as well as heavy anxiety about all the dust lol. this one stays at f4

[@KevinDeal]

I can only imagine how many amazing pictures you got in Cairo with it.