• 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 / a7RIV / GFX 100 w/ Fuji 45/2.8 vs a7RIV w/ Sigma 35/1.2

GFX 100 w/ Fuji 45/2.8 vs a7RIV w/ Sigma 35/1.2

November 18, 2019 JimK 2 Comments

I got a request to test the Fujifilm 45 mm f/2.8 on a GFX 100. I’m throwing the a7RIV with the excellent Sigma ART 35 mm f/1.2 E-mount lens into the mix for a comparison. I thought I’d do a visual test this time, and I’ve been finding images of a Siemens Star to be more informative than by foliage shots, so that’s what I used for this test.

Here’s the overall scene with the the GFX 100 and the 45:

 

Using AF-S with a small spot size, I made three exposures with each camera at f-stops whose full-frame equivalent is f/2, f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6. I used RRS Versa heavy duty legs and the Arca Swiss C-1. I ran the aperture sequence the the Siemens Star in the center, and in one corner. I had previously checked to see if the lenses were appreciably better in one corner than another, and found that they were not. Then I developed the images in Lightroom with the following settings:

  • WB to the gray background on the low-contrast Siemens Star
  • Sharpening: Amount 20, radius 1, detail 0. This is substantially less sharpening than the Lightroom default.
  • Lens profiles off (this doesn’t necessarily turn off all lens corrections)
  • Adobe Color Profile

I picked the best of the three images at each setting. When I developed the images, I found that most of the corner shots with the a7RIV and the Sigma 35 were misfocused. I went back and ran the corner shots for that camera using manual focusing. That turned out to be interesting: because of differences in sagittal and meridional performance, at wider apertures, twisting the focusing ring caused the part of the star lit up by focus peaking to rotate back and forth.

Now for some crops, normalized to image height, which makes the a7RIV get a bit more magnification than the GFX 100. Average enlargement is about 200%.

In the center:

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/2.8, center

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/2, center

The GFX 100 clearly has more resolution, as evidenced where the spokes turn gray. Both lenses offer excellent contrast.

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/4, center

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/2.8, center

There is a slight improvement for the Fuji, and a larger improvement for the Sigma.

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/5.6, center

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/4, center

 

Hard to fault either of those.

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/8, center

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/5.6, center

Now we’re losing sharpness in both cases.

Let’s look at the corner shots:

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/2.8, corner

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/2 , corner

There is less corner falloff with the Sigma, and a bit more contrast. The Sigma looks sharper to me, but the difference in the sensor resolution makes that hard to prove. Even though I’ve tested it before, I can’t get over just how good the Sigma lens is.

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/4, corner

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/2.8, corner

Both lenses have sharpened up quite a bit.

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/5.6, corner

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/4, corner

And the last set:

GFX 100, Fuji 45/2.8, f/8 , corner

 

a7RIV, Sigma 35/1.2 f/5.6 , corner

The Sigma is excellent here. The Fuji is fine; remember it has a bigger sensor to cover, even though the pitch is the same.

These are both impressive lenses. The Fujifilm combination weighs only 115 grams more than the Sigma/Sony pair, so the Sigma is impressive in its sheer bulk, too.

 

a7RIV, GFX 100

← Image quality effects of format size — example 2 Sigma 35 mm f/1.2 lens on Sony a7RIV →

Trackbacks

  1. Sigma 35 mm f/1.2 lens on Sony a7RIV says:
    November 20, 2019 at 1:31 pm

    […] this post, I compared the Sigma 35 mm f/1.2 lens on the Sony a7RIV with the Fujifilm 45 mm f/2.8 lens on the […]

    Reply
  2. Fuji 45 mm f/2.8 on GFX 100 says:
    November 20, 2019 at 1:55 pm

    […] this post, I compared the Sigma 35 mm f/1.2 lens on the Sony a7RIV with the Fujifilm 45 mm f/2.8 lens on the […]

    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

  • 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
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.