f2bthere

Since the above posting, I have taken a series of pictures of rooms in my home (we have been in lockdown!), using both the 23mm Fuji lens and the 17mm Laowa lens.  Both delivered excellent results, but I really got the best shots with the Laowa lens, as the angle of view is so much wider.  I will now definitely use the Laowa lens without any reservations or concerns, both for interiors and for outdoor shots (when they become possible, again!)

Trevor (back in lockdown after a short relaxation by the government)

Review of Laowa 17mm & Fuji 23mm GF lenses

First, the Fuji 23mm f/4 GF lens for the GFX cameras is excellent in all respects.  There is very slight vignetting at maximum aperture, but that is to be expected with such a wide-angle lens.

The 17mm Laowa lens is not in the same league.  No EXIF data on aperture transmitted to the camera, and there is significant vignetting at f/4 and f/5.6, with some vignetting even at f/11 – visible in test pictures of a brick wall, but not obvious in normal photography.  The resolution is good throughout and there is no linear distortion (e.g., barrel or pin-cushion), which is extremely important.

Contrast and saturation are lower with the Laowa 17mm lens than with the Fuji 23mm lens, but these can easily be corrected in Photoshop.

With my test pictures of the brick wall, I found that the following Photoshop settings produced an image from the 17mm Laowa lens with characteristics that were very similar to those of the Fuji 23mm GF lens.
Brightness & Contrast: Brightness: (unchanged) Contrast + 13
Colour balance: Midtones: +10 (more red, less cyan), 0 (Magenta/Green unchanged), -12 (more yellow, less blue)
Hue/Saturation: Master: Hue 0 (unchanged), Saturation +38
Vignetting (at f/11): Filter > Lens Correction > Custom > Vignette: +30 (lighten) Midpoint + 19

This may sound like a lot of correction, but it could be set up as an action in Photoshop, and it was only really necessary with my test pictures of the brick wall.  With normal pictures, a minor colour correction would produce an image that was a good colour match to images from the 23mm Fuji lens.

There is a total absence of chromatic aberrations with both lenses, and both of them produce images that have a similar degree of sharpness, with further sharpening not normally necessary.

The key fact is that the 17mm Laowa lens has an angle of view that is much, much wider than the 23mm Fujinon lens, and it corresponds more closely to the way I see scenes in landscapes and cityscapes.

Comparisons with so-called 35mm “full format” (36mm × 24mm) is complicated by the fact that the ratios of “35mm” and Fuji GFX images are different (3:2 vs 4:3).  In fact, if we reduce the height of the GFX image to achieve a 3:2 ratio, (approximately 44mm × 29mm), a large amount of the vignetting with the Laowa 17mm image disappears.

However, the angle of view for the 17mm Laowa is given as 113º, while the angle of view for the 23mm Fujinon is given as 99.9º.  This places the Laowa just slightly wider than the Voigtländer 15mm Super Wide Heliar (110º) on 36×24 format, and slightly narrower than the Voigtländer 12mm Ultra Wide Heliar (121º) on the same format.

The 99.9º of the 23mm Fujinon is significantly narrower than the 15mm Super Wide Heliar.

Both Laowa and Fuji give “full frame equivalent” focal lengths, though these are slightly complicated by the difference in format ratios.

Laowa states that its 17mm GF lens is equivalent to 13.5mm in full frame format, while Fuji states that its 23mm GF lens is equivalent to 18mm in full frame format.  This is of course extremely wide, compared with the wide angle lenses that were available in the film era, when 20mm was generally the widest, and it was not available in all mounts.

Which lens is “better”?  Technically, the Fujinon, but only the Laowa can give those ultra-wide vistas for landscapes/seascapes/cityscapes, and its technical deficiencies are easily corrected in post-production.  No amount of post-production can give a wider image than that which is given by the 23mm Fujinon (and stitching images taken with wide-angle lenses is extremely difficult without specialist software), so for me, for certain shots, the 17mm Laowa will be the lens of choice.

hi. Here is an exmple of a self portrait with my gfx 50r & nikon 19 mm f4 & f8  with fotodiox adapter. 5 mm shift applyed and  two speedlight used. Tripod mounted.

I doubt there’s a 35mm fisheye with the image circle needed to cover the GFX sensor. I wish someone would make an enlarging lens adapter, like a reverse SpeedBooster, even if it would rob a stop of light. UPDATE: Laowa makes one: https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-magic-format-converter-mfc/ but with no electronic connection to the camera, the EF version I’d need has no aperture control (The Nikon version has it, though)
Laowa also recently introduced GFX dedicated 17mm f4 (~13mm on GFX) - not a fisheye, no AF but 115 degrees angle of view. (Not shilling for Laowa - never even tried any of their lenses)
Here’s another idea: a SpeedBooster for GFX so you could use older *real medium format lenses without cropping. Mmmm... the Hasselblad 30mm f3,5 on a GFX… https://www.flickr.com/photos/dorkstar/5933520512/in/photolist-a3gYzT-a6X3k5-a3jQVN (A skate photo I made with a 503CW and the H-blad fisheye)  

A veces complicamos nuestras vidas, y quizás la solución sea más sencilla.
Cámara: Fujiflim GFX 50S
Adaptador: Techart.
Lente: ojo de pez SAMYANG 8 mm f / 3.5 UMC CS II - para Canon (269,00 €)
Sin ángulo de parasol 180ºx180º
3 imágenes cada 120º tiene esa parabólica 360º de una resolución de más de 13,000x6,000 píxeles con una superposición En cada imagen del 30%.
Fuji no reconoce la lente, por lo que no corta 35 mm. En Sigma 8mm si lo haces.
Al final, con un factor de corrección, obtendremos algunas fotos como si estuviéramos tubing una lente de 7.80 mm.
 

 
La lente no tiene una calidad de fuji, pero satisface una necesidad.
Enfoque manual, pero si disparas con un diaframa f8, todo está enfocado.
If you pay attention. You will see the hairs on my head, when I am located behind the camera, I do not know how they do it ....
Saludos
Juan

Hello,
 
New to the forum, just joined.
 
I’ve been shooting people on the street for about a year now and using the GFX50S with the 110 mm f2 most of the time. I also have the 32-64mm but I don’t use it quite as much. I find it to be about the same weight as my aD800, grip and 24-70mm.
 
Below is a link to some of my images on Flickr.
 
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmbHX1XA
 
Shoot me an email if you want to chat.
 
Thank you
Sal Patalano
Nashua NH.

If the program is able to use the camera engine to process the files into 16-bit TIFF files, I will be ecstatic!
 
Fuji does seem to know best how to process their own files for optimum results. The only issue so far is that if you want to do significant post processing, you will want access to 16bit data.
 
If Fuji supports this, it will be a huge step forward. Imagine getting the benefits of Fuji's understanding of images (very deep from decades producing lenses, cameras and film even before there was digital), combined with the well-developed film simulations while still maintaining the full bit-depth captured by the camera.