• 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 100 / Fuji 45-100/4, 32-64/4 on GFX 100

Fuji 45-100/4, 32-64/4 on GFX 100

February 21, 2020 JimK 3 Comments

The Fujifilm 32-64/4 is a great lens. Up until a few days ago, I said it’s the second-best zoom I’ve ever tested, bested only  by the Nikon 180-400/4, which is playing in a different league in both focal length and price. Since there is so much overlap between the ranges of the 32-64 and the new 45-100, and because the 32-64 sets a high bar, it seems natural to test the new kid on the block against the old pro. This is an informal test. I’ll follow up with a Siemens Star test later.

The scene, at 45mm and f/4, with the 45-100/4:

45-100/4, at 45mm, center, f/4

I had to reshoot the series to get this right, because the light changed during the first set. The tree in the center is 96 meters from the camera.

Here’s the test protocol:

  • The heaviest RRS legs
  • Arca Swiss C1 head
  • ISO 100
  • Shutter 1/640, electronic
  • 2-second self-timer
  • f/4, f/5.6, f/8
  • AF-S, medium spot size
  • Focal length 45 and 64 mm
  • 3 sets of shots at each test condition
  • Developed in Lightroom
  • Picked best shot of each test condition
  • Exposure boost of one stop for the f/5.6 images, and two stops for the f/8 ones
  • Sharpening amount 20 radius 1, detail 0 (much less sharpening than the default)
  • Adobe Color profile

We’ll look at some tight crops.

If you’ve seen these here before, just jump to the images. If not, I need to spend some time telling you how to interpret them. They’re at roughly  250% magnification, enlarged to 700 pixels high on export from Lightroom. If you just want a rough idea of the differences, just look at the images as displayed in-line in the posts. However, if you wish to compare these images in detail, you should view these images by clicking on them to see the source files, then set your browser for 100% zooming. Even better, download them and make Photoshop stacks.

No matter what you do, these crops are all going to look horrible. I’m blowing them up so much so that they will represent the original file after JPEG’s discrete cosine transform has had its way with them. If you want to get a good idea of what the images would look like printed, get far away from your monitor. No, farther than that. Put a bunch of the images up on the screen and back up until the best one starts to look good. Then look at the others. There’s another reason why these images won’t look like the best thing the camera/lens combination can deliver. They’re demosaiced with Lightroom. Lightroom is not awful, but for a particular image, there are usually better raw processors. I use Lr because it’s a de facto standard, because I know it well, and because it’s got good tools for dealing with groups of images.

Here’s how to use these highly-magnified crops. The dimensions of the GFX 100 sensor is 11648×8736 pixels. If we make a full-frame print from the GFX 100 on a printer with 360 pixels per inch native driver-level resolution, like the Epson inkjet printers, we’ll end up with a 32.3×24.3 inch print.The crops are 399×309 since it is a higher-resolution sensor, or a bit over an inch by a bit under an inch on our 32×24 inch print.  Let’s imagine that you or your viewers are critical, and will look at the  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 250% 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 the crop height on the paper, 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.

Ok, here we go. In the center:

45-100/4, at 45mm, center, f/4

 

32-64/4, 45 mm, center, f/4

The 32-64 is a bit crisper.

45-100/4, at 45mm, center, f/5.6

 

32-64/4, 45 mm, center, f/5.6

Now it’s even closer.

45-100/4, at 45mm, center, f/8

 

32-64/4, 45 mm, center, f/8

There’s really not much difference in the center at 45 mm. The 32-64 wins by a nose. But 45 mm is the place where the 32-64 does the worst, so let’s look at 64 mm.

45-100/4, at 63 mm, center, f/4

 

32-64/4, 64 mm, center, f/4

Very close indeed.

45-100/4, at 63 mm, center, f/5.6

 

32-64/4, 64 mm, center, f/5.6

 

45-100/4, at 63 mm, center, f/8

 

45-100/4, at 63 mm, center, f/8

Very close.

In the upper right corner, which is a good corner for my copy of the 45-100:

45-100/4, at 45mm, corner, f/4

 

32-64/4, 45 mm, corner, f/4

 

Surprise! The 45-100 is the clear winner here.

45-100/4, at 45mm, corner, f/5.6

 

32-64/4, 45 mm, corner, f/5.6

The 45-100 is still papably better.

45-100/4, at 45mm, corner, f/8

 

32-64/4, 45 mm, corner, f/8

Now they’re about the same.

At 64mm, in the upper right corner:

45-100/4, at 63 mm, corner, f/4

 

32-64/4, 64 mm, corner, f/4

Again, the 45-100 is the winner, but not by nearly so much as at 45 mm.

 

45-100/4, at 63 mm, corner, f/5.6

 

32-64/4, 64 mm, corner, f/5.6

The new zoom excels.

45-100/4, at 63 mm, corner, f/8

 

32-64/4, 64 mm, corner, f/8

 

Now it’s a wash.

Color me impressed. I’m guessing the 45-100 has come filed curvature that softened the corners in yesterday’s screening test.

Testing note: there are some things about the GFX 100 that drive me up the wall, and the thumbwheel is near the top of that list. I can roll it to the right without triggering the focus magnifier, but turning it the other way is a big problem for me. I guess I could defeat the focus magnification, but I really like to invoke it with the wheel. The GFX 50S wheel was great. Why did Fuji have to mess with a good thing?

 

 

 

 

 

GFX 100, GFX 50S

← Fuji 45-100/4 on GFX 100 — screening Fuji 45-100/4, 100-200/5.6 on GFX 100 →

Comments

  1. Michele Barana says

    February 22, 2020 at 10:55 pm

    Hi Jim,

    many thanks for the info. I was very much looking forward to this comparison.

    Regarding the thumb wheel: I have the same exact feeling; last week I tried to mitigate it inverting the front and rear wheel function assignment (shutter speed on the front, ISO on the back, aperture on the lens). Hope this helps.

    Michele

    Reply
    • JimK says

      February 23, 2020 at 7:13 am

      That sounds like a good idea. I’ll give it a try.

      Thanks!

      Reply
      • Alan says

        February 26, 2020 at 8:15 pm

        I had the same exact problem with the thumb wheel. Believe it or not, I used some hand moisturizer (on my hands, not the camera) and it took care of the problem. When your skin is too dry, it somehow cannot generate enough friction.

        I suspect this is because Japan is much more moist environment than California.

        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 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
  • Ivo de Man 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.