Digital Medium Format Thread

[SFTPhotography]

The Great Heardsman - with the 645z, 28-45 and Lee 0.6 soft edged ND filter

_IMG0827 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_IMG0844 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_IMG0851 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_IMG0854 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_IMG0875 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_IMG0905 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

 

[SFTPhotography]

So today I've been playing with GFX100s RAW files sent on from @LongLensPhotography who hired one.

The extra 50mp over the 645z is nice - I thought it would have more detail actually given the jump in MP's - it is there but not to the extent I would have expected. I don't feel short on pixels with the 645z.

Pluses.

I couldn't see PDAF banding or stripping. I was expecting to be able to see it. This is an non issue. Same will apply to the Sony A7RiV. I've made noise about this in the past. Totally ignore me, non issue - use with confidence.

No sensor dirt and I could see at least two lens changes with his time with it. None at all. These are very well sealed indeed and vastly superior to any other camera system I've seen in this regard. My Nikons all sucked dirt in, even the 645z the odd one get through the sealed 28-45 and the others are in the dust sucker category.

Colours and dynamic range. In practice just as good as my 645z. These are nice clean files entirely worthy of a body costing £5500.

The 23mm lens was sharp everywhere and will offer a wider field of view over the widest lens in my set up. That lens is good and worthy of its relatively modest price tag.

Downers. 32-64 is a piece of s***. Dreadful at 50mm in the sides - actually unusable and worse than some budget full frame lenses. I would say this is a really lowsy lens. Not remotely in the same league as the 28-45 from Pentax - not remotely in the same price bracket and it shows. You are better with a lens that costs £5000 that actually is perfect rather than one that costs £2200 which is utterly hopeless. It was not even in the same league as my old Nikon 16-35 which I would rank as pretty lousy. I've now seen two sets of sample images to know that this lens is a pile of complete and total crap. I imagine this how crappy lenses like 17-40 L performs. It is a pile of junk made for crap amateurs who have all the gear and no idea.

Hot pixels - there seemed to be a massive number of them in a 60 sec exposure - certainly in the 100's. Even on a 1/25th sec exposure I spotted several. This is a rental camera so it could be shagged from poor use or a feature of having the sensor always on if you are using the EVF - a bit like using live view on a DSLR constantly.

I've yet to see 45-100 sample images and 100-200 sample images but thoughts would be just to buy the expensive primes on this system.

I won't be defecting anytime soon and never ever if Pentax make a 100mp version of the 645z.

 

[gman]

I take it you don't like the 32-64 then lol

 

[SFTPhotography]

I take it you don't like the 32-64 then lol

It's a steaming smelly dog turd of a lens. Given what it costs £ for £ it is the absolutely worse piece of glass ever made.

Words cannot describe what an absolutely detestable piece of s*** that it is.

 

[Topsy]

So today I've been playing with GFX100s RAW files sent on from @LongLensPhotography who hired one.

Downers. 32-64 is a piece of s***. Dreadful at 50mm in the sides - actually unusable and worse than some budget full frame lenses. I would say this is a really lowsy lens. Not remotely in the same league as the 28-45 from Pentax - not remotely in the same price bracket and it shows. You are better with a lens that costs £5000 that actually is perfect rather than one that costs £2200 which is utterly hopeless. It was not even in the same league as my old Nikon 16-35 which I would rank as pretty lousy. I've now seen two sets of sample images to know that this lens is a pile of complete and total crap. I imagine this how crappy lenses like 17-40 L performs. It is a pile of junk made for crap amateurs who have all the gear and no idea.

I'll be one of those crap amateurs that have all the gear and no idea then as I think my 32-64 is an excellent lens that has given me some of my best shots ever. But then what would I know as a crap amateur.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I'll be one of those crap amateurs that have all the gear and no idea then as I think my 32-64 is an excellent lens that has given me some of my best shots ever. But then what would I know as a crap amateur.

Sorry - I've seen two sets of images taken with a GFX50s and a GFX100s so I know a dud when I see one. And this is a dud of the highest order. Unless I'm the only one out there to have been unlucky to have been hit with two bad copies but given the relative rarity of the system I would forgive one bad image as a bad copy - but not two taken on two separate cameras with two different lenses. And how many out there have even seen two. Not many. I have.

Both exhibited severe softening and smearing in the sides - and at 50mm one was so bad you couldn't even crop out a square without visible smearing. This is really poor quality budget lens performance and someone buying into a system of this price must surely be able to see it. It is honestly like vaseline has been rubbed down the sides of each one.

If you take the time to check your pictures at 100% (and who in the actual f*** doesn't do this) it will be blindingly obvious what this issue is. Unless you have a good copy but if someone cannot see this or know what to look for when assessing a lens- then I file them under the crappy amateur catagory.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

GFX100s

GFX 100 or the beast. Not the 100S. They have same sensor but to be just clear.

I totally share the view that 32-64mm lens is very mediocre. Nice and sharp bang in the middle but then gets progressively softer until it is unusable at the edges at pretty much all the settings. f/6 or f/11 or f/16 nothing helped. I can only compare it with the 17-40L that I had long ago and absolutely hated it.

It could be a bad or banged copy for all I know. Just like the thousands of hot pixels all over the sensor. This is not an over-exaggeration but rather a major understatement. f you choose to overlook that shadow recovery is amazing vs 5Ds, but highlight recovery is about same. So you get away with 1 exposure instead of 2 or 3...

Camera handling is terrible if you come from Canon ecosystem. It looks and feels like 1DX in hand (which is good), but buttons, menus and adjustments are a real downer for someone fresh to the system; and it is not very intuitive. Couldn't even figure out how to do exposure compensation and it was easier to stick it into manual mode instead.

EVF is a weird weird thing. It looked detailed enough but lots of very noticeable flickering in daytime with the sun at your back. At night it is noisy and horrible while 5Ds still allows you to compose with comfort and ease.

I'll be one of those crap amateurs that have all the gear and no idea then as I think my 32-64 is an excellent lens that has given me some of my best shots ever. But then what would I know as a crap amateur.

Maybe stick a sample RAW file link and we can compare?

 

[Topsy]

If you take the time to check your pictures at 100% (and who in the actual f*** doesn't do this) it will be blindingly obvious what this issue is. Unless you have a good copy but if someone cannot see this or know what to look for when assessing a lens- then I file them under the crappy amateur catagory.

That'll be me then, best you unfollow me as you'd not be interested in anything I produce.

 

[Topsy]

Maybe stick a sample RAW file link and we can compare?

Wouldn't be any point as I am clearly not in your collective leagues, in any event the RAW files are too big to post here.

 

[SFTPhotography]

That'll be me then.

Honestly - you should. How do you check for small blemishes like bird streaks, sensor spots etc? How do you check for issues with focus, vibrations, un intented motion blur (read small grasses moving etc)

You might not like a word of what I've said, and that is fine, but if you had me for a 121 workshop I would totally have you doing that. It is the only way.

If you are comfortable to send a RAW to me, you are most welcome to at info at SFTphotography dot co dot uk and I will assess your lens and file for you. You can use we transfer as a method to do this. Upload it - input your email address, mine and I will be able to download it and check it.

 

[Topsy]

Honestly - you should. How do you check for small blemishes like bird streaks, sensor spots etc? How do you check for issues with focus, vibrations, un intented motion blur (read small grasses moving etc)

You might not like a word of what I've said, and that is fine, but if you had me for a 121 workshop I would totally have you doing that. It is the only way.

If you are comfortable to send a RAW to me, you are most welcome to at info at SFTphotography dot co dot uk and I will assess your lens and file for you. You can use we transfer as a method to do this. Upload it - input your email address, mine and I will be able to download it and check it.

I think you misunderstood the "That'll be me then" I meant the crappy amateur not that I don't inspect my files at 100%.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Wouldn't be any point as I am clearly not in your collective leagues, in any event the RAW files are too big to post here.

That is nothing to do with either you or me, I already made my opinion about this and so have you. But I'm sure lots of people are interested if this lens is a good buy so if you claim to have a really good copy this is the time to back it up.

I think it is sensible to want good sharpness when you decided to invest crazy money into top of the range 100MP system. Missed focus knocks you back to 20 or even less than 10MP range very quickly.

P.s wetransfer or any good old cloud is what you use for large files

 

[SFTPhotography]

GFX 100 or the beast. Not the 100S. They have same sensor but to be just clear.

I totally share the view that 32-64mm lens is very mediocre. Nice and sharp bang in the middle but then gets progressively softer until it is unusable at the edges at pretty much all the settings. f/6 or f/11 or f/16 nothing helped. I can only compare it with the 17-40L that I had long ago and absolutely hated it.

It could be a bad or banged copy for all I know. Just like the thousands of hot pixels all over the sensor. This is not an over-exaggeration but rather a major understatement. f you choose to overlook that shadow recovery is amazing vs 5Ds, but highlight recovery is about same. So you get away with 1 exposure instead of 2 or 3...

Camera handling is terrible if you come from Canon ecosystem. It looks and feels like 1DX in hand (which is good), but buttons, menus and adjustments are a real downer for someone fresh to the system; and it is not very intuitive. Couldn't even figure out how to do exposure compensation and it was easier to stick it into manual mode instead.

EVF is a weird weird thing. It looked detailed enough but lots of very noticeable flickering in daytime with the sun at your back. At night it is noisy and horrible while 5Ds still allows you to compose with comfort and ease.



Maybe stick a sample RAW file link and we can compare?

I've seen another...I suspect it's just a poor poor lens. Horrible actually. Really dreadful. I reviewed again the one at 50mm. Utterly hopeless and only fit for the bin.

The GFX100's at £5500 is probably the one to get, not sure what the more expensive body actually has in its favour. The 23 was nice though, very very nice. I do tend to shoot with the sun behind me as you know so not sure I'd get on so well with the EVF.

I'll be keeping the Pentax.

 

[Topsy]

That is nothing to do with either you or me, I already made my opinion about this and so have you. But I'm sure lots of people are interested if this lens is a good buy so if you claim to have a really good copy this is the time to back it up.

I think it is sensible to want good sharpness when you decided to invest crazy money into top of the range 100MP system. Missed focus knocks you back to 20 or even less than 10MP range very quickly.

P.s wetransfer or any good old cloud is what you use for large files

I think it is clear that no one will be interested in my opinion compared to you Pros so I'll just count myself a lucky crappy amateur who is happy with inferior quality kit.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I think it is clear that no one will be interested in my opinion compared to you Pros so I'll just count myself a lucky crappy amateur who is happy with inferior quality kit.

I'd be curious about the picture just in case I've been unlucky to see two bad copies in action. It won't hurt to see a third so I can either modify my opinion or stand by it.

The offer stands. Wetransfer to info at SFTphotography dot co dot uk

If your's turns out to be good - I'll post a further post to retract my inital comments.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I think it is clear that no one will be interested in my opinion compared to you Pros so I'll just count myself a lucky crappy amateur who is happy with inferior quality kit.

You already stated your opinion. Now we just ask for the file. Can be any rubbish as long as it has details corner to corner and no shake.

The GFX100's at £5500 is probably the one to get, not sure what the more expensive body actually has in its favour. The 23 was nice though, very very nice. I do tend to shoot with the sun behind me as you know so not sure I'd get on so well with the EVF.

It is a strange one to be honest. The S is essentially nearly the same with slightly better button layout and some will like the size more. The IBIS is supposed to be much improved. But they put in a very small battery (half of the non-S) and a much worse low res EVF. It is a tough one until you see the price diff.

The non-S is a dual grip camera so primarily this would be great for portrait or studio shooters. It is essentially like big pro Canon or Nikon bodies.

Rumors claim 50S mkII maybe out soon. That would be my first preference if I decided to go Fuji MF. I don't see the big need to get 100MP when 50 does the job with less headache about lens sharpens or GPU and storage overload.

I'll be keeping the Pentax.

The Pentax files I've seen from you are pretty much all I would be looking for to be honest. Plenty of details like 5ds with the best lens but way more room for shadow recovery; and I'm sure a nice big real viewfinder.

 

[SFTPhotography]

It is a strange one to be honest. The S is essentially nearly the same with slightly better button layout and some will like the size more. The IBIS is supposed to be much improved. But they put in a very small battery (half of the non-S) and a much worse low res EVF. It is a tough one until you see the price diff.

The non-S is a dual grip camera so primarily this would be great for portrait or studio shooters. It is essentially like big pro Canon or Nikon bodies.

Two solutions. More batteries and an L bracket. Does the non S actually have two tripod mounts like the 645z - I don't believe it does but an L bracket will get you there.

Rumors claim 50S mkII maybe out soon. That would be my first preference if I decided to go Fuji MF. I don't see the big need to get 100MP when 50 does the job with less headache about lens sharpens or GPU and storage overload.

I think I'd get the 100mp 100s. The extra detail isn't massive but it is there nevertheless and unless there is a £3000 plus difference between the two you might as well if both are on offer. RAM, GPU's and storage are cheap and can come later. Trust me, losing 50mp won't fix that steaming pile of dog s*** of a lens. Right now at Wex the difference is £5500 vs £3800 for 100s vs 50s. If you can take the 50r you can go down to £3200.

The Pentax files I've seen from you are pretty much all I would be looking for to be honest. Plenty of details like 5ds with the best lens but way more room for shadow recovery; and I'm sure a nice big real viewfinder.

And that's what we come down to - as an actual camera it is an utter joy to be with, to shoot with, to work with. Menus are logical, layout and build are epic and the whole thing just stinks of being built by photographers for photographers, not IT geeks for instagram influencers.

I think you'd find £ for £ a new 645z body and going used on the lenses 28-45, 45-85 and 80-160 a cheap and effective way of getting into a landscape system and keeping your Canon and 100-400 L a really great way to take pictures.

Today has made me really glad I chose what I chose.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Does the non S actually have two tripod mounts like the 645z - I don't believe it does but an L bracket will get you there.

No, it is just a chunky double body with one hole at the bottom. So your tripod plate essentially renders the bottom grip useless. That's one thing I also didn't like on 1D cameras.

You will need a hell of an L bracket. Probably custom made from proper steel. I wouldn't trust any of the Aliexpress generics for such an expensive and heavy kit.

I think I'd get the 100mp 100s. The extra detail isn't massive but it is there nevertheless and unless there is a £3000 plus difference between the two you might as well if both are on offer. RAM, GPU's and storage are cheap and can come later. Trust me, losing 50mp won't fix that steaming pile of dog s*** of a lens.

Likely a £2K difference. That could be significant enough, particularly if this gets better viewfinder, battery, higher fps and all else.

I wouldn't expect that lens to be perfect at 50MP but it looks less obnoxious once files are resized at small f-stops. F/6 is is hopeless. They could instead make a cheaper and lighter f/8 lens for what it appears to be.
But there will probably be other lenses that are much more marginal. It just depends on individual circumstances.

 

[TimHughes]

I’m very happy with my 32-64 fwiw.

The review on imaging resource has a different opinion too. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/gf-32-64mm-f4-r-lm-wr/review/

 

[Topsy]

I'd be curious about the picture just in case I've been unlucky to see two bad copies in action. It won't hurt to see a third so I can either modify my opinion or stand by it.

The offer stands. Wetransfer to info at SFTphotography dot co dot uk

If your's turns out to be good - I'll post a further post to retract my inital comments.

You already stated your opinion. Now we just ask for the file. Can be any rubbish as long as it has details corner to corner and no shake.

There are any number of sample shots on the internet you can choose from multiple sources if you want you don't need one of my crappy amateur images I probably messed them up myself.

I can't help thinking that there seems to be a common denominator in your argument that the 32-64 is dog s***, you seem to have been provided with 2 examples, one at least from your co-protagonist in this argument, and from those 2 files you have determined that all the rest of us who are happy with ours and our many shots taken with them are just white noise to be ignored, presumably because we are all crappy amateurs.

I'd not be so bold as to diss a lens after 2 examples.

Thank you for your kind offer of a 121, presumably that will be free in the spirit of getting to the bottom of this debate? I'll respectfully decline anyway but thanks again for the offer.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I’m very happy with my 32-64 fwiw.

The review on imaging resource has a different opinion too. https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/gf-32-64mm-f4-r-lm-wr/review/

On a postive note, I am glad you are happy with it.

The 23mm though

 

[Topsy]

On a postive note, I am glad you are happy with it.

The 23mm though

I have that also.

 

[SFTPhotography]

There are any number of sample shots on the internet you can chose from multiple sources if you want you don't need one of my crappy amateur images I probably messed them up myself.

I never said you messed them up or that your shots were crappy.

All I know is what I've seen. What I've seen is not good and actually downright awful.

I'd not be so bold as to diss a lens after 2 examples.

Why not? After how many different samples should I see. I've asked you for a 3rd so I could modify my view.

Thank you for your kind offer of a 121, presumably that will be free in the spirit of getting to the bottom of this debate? I'll respectfully decline anyway but thanks again for the offer.

No problem and no charge.

I have that also.

Good. It looks much more like it.

 

[Topsy]

I never said you messed them up or that your shots were crappy.

No you didn't, you just said;

"If you take the time to check your pictures at 100% (and who in the actual f*** doesn't do this) it will be blindingly obvious what this issue is. Unless you have a good copy but if someone cannot see this or know what to look for when assessing a lens- then I file them under the crappy amateur catagory."

Which means to me that you put me into the crappy amateur category (true I don't earn money from photography anymore so technically you are right in the "amateur" part) and by that I have presumed that my photos sit there as well.

Like I said you have seen 2 examples but there are many more examples on the internet that you could use to do a fuller comparison before telling all of us "crappy amateurs" that we are bought into a dog s*** system.

FWIW I think your stuff with the Pentax is excellent and have commented so many times but I can't sit by and have disrespect thrown at me because I don't use one. As a Professional Photographer we non-pros look up to your opinions but in this case I think you have let yourself down in the way you have railled against the Fuji on the basis of 2 examples.

 

[SFTPhotography]

No you didn't, you just said;

"If you take the time to check your pictures at 100% (and who in the actual f*** doesn't do this) it will be blindingly obvious what this issue is. Unless you have a good copy but if someone cannot see this or know what to look for when assessing a lens- then I file them under the crappy amateur catagory."

Which means to me that you put me into the crappy amateur category (true I don't earn money from photography anymore so technically you are right in the "amateur" part) and by that I have presumed that my photos sit there as well.

Like I said you have seen 2 examples but there are many more examples on the internet that you could use to do a fuller comparison before telling all of us "crappy amateurs" that we are bought into a dog s*** system.

FWIW I think your stuff with the Pentax is excellent and have commented so many times but I can't sit by and have disrespect thrown at me because I don't use one. As a Professional Photographer we non-pros look up to your opinions but in this case I think you have let yourself down in the way you have railled against the Fuji on the basis of 2 examples.

I railed against the lens - not the entire system...

Maybe your copy is good and that's why I asked for a copy from you so that I could retract my comments as I could see they've bothered you. I've yet to receive this.

The reason behind my wording is that because I've seen two like this and none that are not. My gut is that is just how they are. Furthermore I suspect Fuji are selling this subpar lens to people who won't notice the defect because they don't actually know how or they just do not care. You get some like that. I hope I am wrong. I'd like to be proven wrong actually.

...And those that do will just be upsold a more expensive prime later down the line if they see it's dud. Perhaps I am being cynical but it's like that awful 4 clyinder engine in a BMW - most are better and I think they make it that way so you trade it in for the superior 6 clyinder car.

 

[Topsy]

I railed against the lens - not the entire system...

Maybe your copy is good and that's why I asked for a copy from you so that I could retract my comments as I could see they've bothered you. I've yet to receive this.

The reason behind my wording is that because I've seen two like this and none that are not. My gut is that is just how they are. Furthermore I suspect Fuji are selling this subpar lens to people who won't notice the defect because they don't actually know how or they just do not care. You get some like that. I hope I am wrong. I'd like to be proven wrong actually.

Like I said there are loads on the internet shot by Pros, you can sample as many as you like you don't need one of mine.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Like I said there are loads on the internet shot by Pros, you can sample as many as you like you don't need one of mine.

Ok, we can leave this there.

And please accept my apologies for the wording of the post. I was not my intention to disrespect you or to cause upset. I am sorry if I have.

Edit - I've just sampled the link from @TimHughes - the shot looks good as far as the lens goes - but the comments in the review mention the lens deteriorates further up the focal lengths you go - which was what I saw with the copy @LongLensPhotography sent me, iffy at 32mm, absolutely terrible at 50mm.

So - going with what I saw I am sorry for the form of words used but maintain the belief this is not the lens to put on this camera system.

 

[TimHughes]

PS so far this year, pics with my 32-64 have won me a decent competition and for music artwork.

 

[gman]

[snip]

Maybe stick a sample RAW file link and we can compare?

I would be more interested in seeing the full resolution samples from the two 32-64 lenses which Steve has utterly and without equivocation been horrified by?

 

[Topsy]

I would be more interested in seeing the full resolution samples from the two 32-64 lenses which Steve has utterly and without equivocation been horrified by?

Now you mention it............

 

[SFTPhotography]

I would be more interested in seeing the full resolution samples from the two 32-64 lenses which Steve has utterly and without equivocation been horrified by?

PM me your email adress.

Now you mention it............

You too.

I will have them with you via wetransfer shortly.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Here is the horror.

Image 4 of 32.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Top right corner. Piece of utter s***.

Image 20 of 32. Bottom right corner. Utter steaming dog s***e performance.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Click on the loupe.

Now for anyone that asks I am willing to provide images taken from my 28-45 via we transfer to demonstrate the utter superiority of my lens.

 

[gman]

Here is the horror.

Image 4 of 32.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Top right corner. Piece of utter s***.

Image 20 of 32. Bottom right corner. Utter steaming dog s***e performance.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

lol

But yes, I can certainly see it. If you start zoomed in on the big blue sign in the middle, then start scrolling towards the bottom right you can see the rubble getting progressively worse. Even to rule out DoF, if you start zoomed at the middle of the bottom and look at the rebar sticking out, the scroll to the right you can see it as well.

EDIT: is it really bad enough to warrant atomising the lens?

 

[Topsy]

Here is the horror.

Image 4 of 32.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Top right corner. Piece of utter s***.

Image 20 of 32. Bottom right corner. Utter steaming dog s***e performance.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Click on the loupe.

Now for anyone that asks I am willing to provide images taken from my 28-45 via we transfer to demonstrate the utter superiority of my lens.

Please do.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Here is the horror.

Image 4 of 32.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Top right corner. Piece of utter s***.

Image 20 of 32. Bottom right corner. Utter steaming dog s***e performance.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Click on the loupe.

Now for anyone that asks I am willing to provide images taken from my 28-45 via we transfer to demonstrate the utter superiority of my lens.

In that first image you linked, top right corner seems especially soft - the lens is wide open, so that might explain a little, but the other corners don't seem so bad. Second image isn't impressive.

 

[SFTPhotography]

EDIT: is it really bad enough to warrant atomising the lens?

If you ask me. 100% Yes. I've ditched better performing lenses for this issue.

 

[gman]

PM me your email adress.

Would a link on here not be better so that others can benefit from a comparison between the 32-64 and the 28-45? Can't beat a good showdown!

 

[SFTPhotography]

In that first image you linked, top right corner seems especially soft - the lens is wide open, so that might explain a little, but the other corners don't seem so bad. Second image isn't impressive.

Image 8 of 32. Stopped down.

Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery

View Fujifilm GF 32-64mm F4 R LM WR sample gallery from DPReview.

www.dpreview.com

Far right most trees - look at the middle distance.

Do I really need to go on.

Neither wide open, both deeply poor.

Image 20 of 32. Bottom right corner. Utter steaming dog s***e performance.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Would a link on here not be better so that others can benefit from a comparison between the 32-64 and the 28-45? Can't beat a good showdown!

Don't say I am not good to you.

20210613-DSCF4927.RAF and 4 more files

5 files sent via WeTransfer, the simplest way to send your files around the world

wetransfer.com

 

[Topsy]

In that first image you linked, top right corner seems especially soft - the lens is wide open, so that might explain a little, but the other corners don't seem so bad. Second image isn't impressive.

I looked at the RAW File in the link and downloaded it. Wide open isn't the best aperture to judge a lens by from any manufacturer but I openned it in LR and simply applied my normal preset to it and I think the result is better than the original jpg in the review. Unfortunately I've had to downsize it to post it.