• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 50S / Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2 on Fujifilm GFX 50S

Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2 on Fujifilm GFX 50S

April 26, 2017 JimK 3 Comments

This is the 50th in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here.

I am another 35 mm lens to try on the GFX. It’s a Zeiss Distagon ZF.2. 

All images were refocused at each aperture, with three exposures ofr each image. All the exposures at the same apreture ended up looking the same; this was a very easy scene to focus, thanks to a fortuitous combination of subject detail, lens resolving power, and the low peaking setting at maximum magnification which I used to focus. The focsuing ring was a little sensitive to movement, but it wan’t too bad. Then a made a series focused wide open. It looked the same, so that’s what I will show you. Daylight white balance selected in Lightroom, and Exposure to taste with a bit more in the crops; all other Lr settings at default.  

Looking at coverage:

f/2

A fair amount of corner falloff.

f/2.8

A little better.

f/4

1:1 is certainly usable, and 4:5 probably is.

f/5.6

Still improving.

f/8

Almost there.

Now I’m going to show you some very tight crops; here’s how to use them. The dimensions of the GFX sensor are 8256×6192 pixels. If we make a full-frame print from the GFX on a printer with 360 pixels per inch native driver-level resolution, like the Epson inkjet printers, we’ll end up with a 23×17 inch (58×44 cm) print. The 318×246 pixel crop you’re looking at will end up 0.8333×0.6833 inches (2.12×1.74 cm). Let’s imagine that you or your viewers are critical, and will look at the 22×17 inch print from about 18 inches (conventional wisdom is that the distance would be a little greater than that, or 28 inches (the diagonal), but you did buy a high-resolution camera for a reason, didn’t you?).

The next step is dependent on your monitor pitch, which you may or may not know. Turns out, you don’t have to know it. Just take the 253% crops and view then at 1:1. How high are they? Get out your ruler and measure, or just guess. Let’s say they are 6 inches high. 6 inches is about 7 times 0.8333, so in order to view the crops the way they’d look from 18 inches on the print is to view them from 7 times as far away, or 10.5 feet.

Everything here scales proportionately. If the image on your screen is bigger than 6 inches, increase your viewing distance by the ratio of your image height to 6 inches. If you think your viewers are going to almost get their nose to that print and look at it from six inches, divide that 10.5 feet by 3, and look at the image on the monitor from three and a half feet away.

On a 30 inch 4K display, a 1:1 presentation of these crops will be about 4 inches, so to simulate the effect of viewing the print from 18 inches, you’ll want to back up to about seven feet. A couple of feet for a 6 inch print viewing distance. On a 17 inch laptop 4K display, a 1:1 presentation of these crops will be about 2 inches, so to simulate the effect of viewing the print from 18 inches, you’ll want to back up to about three and a half feet. A foot for a 6 inch print viewing distance. 

In the upper center, at the focus point.

f/2

Pretty respectable for wide open.

f/2.8

Very good.

f/4

Looks like we aren’t going to se a lot of difference in the center.

f/5.6

 

f/8

Diffraction enters the picture.

The HC 35 in the center at f/5.6, for comparison:

On the upper right, about the distance off-axis as the corner at 1:1:

f/2

Not bad for wide open.

f/2.8

A bit better.

f/4

Crisping up nicely now.

f/5.6

About the same.

f/8

Good.

Now for the tough one: the upper left corner:

f/2

Pretty bad.

f/2.8

Not much better.

f/4

Not great.

f/5.6

OK.

f/8

Pretty good.

Another lens that needs f/5.6 or f/8 for 4:5 aspect ratio crops.

For comparison, here’s the HC 35 at f/8 in the corner:

With that as the standard for comparison, the Zeiss 35 doesn’t look so promising. Well, it was a thought.

GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Zeiss 15/2.8 ZF.2 on Fujifilm GFX 50S a9 drops to 12-bit precision in continuous mode? →

Comments

  1. Daniel Kennedy says

    November 1, 2024 at 1:48 pm

    Hi Jim,

    Is there any reason to think that the milvus 35/2 would perform any differently?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 1, 2024 at 2:32 pm

      I think it would probably be about the same, but I wouldn’t know for sure without testing. I have not tested any of the Milvus lenses.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fujifilm GFX 50S Roundup | Fuji Addict says:
    April 28, 2017 at 11:24 am

    […] The Last Word – Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2 […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.