@@KevinDeal Thanks for your kind words, Kevin. I really find your work quite compelling! I used 2 lenses at the Rodin, the 45 for 1 image and the 63 for the rest.
I recently got my GFX 100s + GF 63mm f/2.8. I find it versatile, image quality is up to my expectation, autofocus is good enough, and the whole camera can fit in my 1990s old camera bag that my Dad gave me. I also find the external autofocusing really cute. I enjoy the system every minute.
Yep, I love my 63mm. It's my go-to for the majority of subjects in my at home photo project about a health condition. For my tastes it's tight enough to isolate subjects without too much background clutter. I use the 45mm occasionally and the 100-200 less often again (but very glad to have it). My hot tip for the 63 and 45mm's is the Fotodiox 11mm 'macro' extension tube, it makes photographing close ups a dream. I use this much more than the native GF macro tubes. The 63mm's 'focus breathing' can take some getting used to, especially for close up subjects, but as I'm rarely in a rush it's something I can live with.
I use the 80 and the 45, these pretty much cover everything I want to shoot, mainly portraits, bands and abstract. The 80 frustrates the hell out of me with its missed focus ( I use the 50s2 ) but when I nail a shot its sooo beautiful and worth it, I have considered the 63 for a while though.
Thank you for the video. I owned that lens for a more than two years. My problems with this lens was always depth of field: for the same price you get full frame 50 mm lenses with an aperture of 1.4. The depth of field of the 63/2.8 is at most comparable to a 50mm/2.2 ... nowadays I own an 65mm/1.4 for portraits an the 35-70mm for the rest ...
That's true, but you would also be objectively purchasing a 50mm full frame lens that wasn't designed to work with a medium format camera, which presents its own quirks. So you're trading depth of field of other artifacts. While just a hair wider, if that were my goal, I'd just do the 55 1.7 native Fuji GF lens. But, that's not my goal, which is why I don't own it. I personally find the 2.8 depth of field of the 63 to isolate well enough in most situations.
If I need so much depth of field, I probably have enough space to put a longer focal length like the revered 80mm f1.9 Mamiya sekor c lens and take a couple steps back
@@KevinDeal had the 100S on loan with this and a few other lenses. i want to get the 100S II to compliment my A1. the image quality i got out of the Fuji was so good that it is hard to compare the two systems. during testing i found to my surprise that this lens gave me more than i expected.
Good video, I have the 63mm and like it. How do you nail your flesh tones so well with the GFX? I find myself battling a slight blue to magenta cast in highlights, even with custom and accurate white balance.
I'm not sure if I'm doing anything special. I tend to use Classic Chrome, Nostalgic Negative and Classic Negative as my base. Then I just adjust my white balance to taste. I use the 100S, so not sure if you have te exact model. Thank you for the kind words!
@@KevinDeal thank you Kevin, I’m using the GFX100 and GFX1OO II. My background is in photo lab processing and studio portraits so I’m probably overly sensitive to color correction.
@@outwestjim yeah. I'd love to say I'm doing some crazy process but the skin tones out of my GFX100S are usually really close to what I want, so I don't do too much in post. No secret to reveal, really.
That's one way to view it. Another is that they are going make a small GFX camera, so the demand to get smaller is already there and not every needs to shoot at f 1.7.
@ well, I am looking at this more from the perspective of already owning the 55. But if I had to decide today, I'd be paying 800 extra for the 1.7 aperture. To me it's worth it, particularly for low light.
Do you have the Fuji GF63mm 2.8? Are you still enjoying it? Did you trade it in for something else?
I own 9 GF lenses and the GF63mm f/2.8 is one of my faves. Very sharp, great contrast and lovely colours. I have used it for VOGUE, ELLE, etc...
Thanks for stopping by Benjamin! I've seen your GFX work. It's gorgeous. Loved the set you shot in the Rodin Museum.
@@KevinDeal Thanks for your kind words, Kevin. I really find your work quite compelling! I used 2 lenses at the Rodin, the 45 for 1 image and the 63 for the rest.
I recently got my GFX 100s + GF 63mm f/2.8. I find it versatile, image quality is up to my expectation, autofocus is good enough, and the whole camera can fit in my 1990s old camera bag that my Dad gave me. I also find the external autofocusing really cute. I enjoy the system every minute.
It’s a rock solid system.
I've been using one camera and one lens for over a year. Gfx 50s and the Gf 63mm. It's completely underrated. I use the 63mm for everything. Love it!
Totally agree!
@@KevinDealreally enjoying your channel. Well done!
@@ianmoloney3880 thank you. I always love getting feedback!
Yep, I love my 63mm. It's my go-to for the majority of subjects in my at home photo project about a health condition. For my tastes it's tight enough to isolate subjects without too much background clutter. I use the 45mm occasionally and the 100-200 less often again (but very glad to have it). My hot tip for the 63 and 45mm's is the Fotodiox 11mm 'macro' extension tube, it makes photographing close ups a dream. I use this much more than the native GF macro tubes. The 63mm's 'focus breathing' can take some getting used to, especially for close up subjects, but as I'm rarely in a rush it's something I can live with.
(takes notes about that Fotodiox extension tube)
Thanks for the pointer there. I need to investigate this further.
I use the 80 and the 45, these pretty much cover everything I want to shoot, mainly portraits, bands and abstract. The 80 frustrates the hell out of me with its missed focus ( I use the 50s2 ) but when I nail a shot its sooo beautiful and worth it, I have considered the 63 for a while though.
It's a fantastic lens. Focal length preference is always super subjective, but this lens is amazing if you like 63mm.
I just got the new 100sii and that was the lens I wanted for it. I’m so far loving it
It’s a killer lens. Great value too.
The same. I just received My Gf 100sII And i am looking this lens
Thank you for the video. I owned that lens for a more than two years. My problems with this lens was always depth of field: for the same price you get full frame 50 mm lenses with an aperture of 1.4. The depth of field of the 63/2.8 is at most comparable to a 50mm/2.2 ... nowadays I own an 65mm/1.4 for portraits an the 35-70mm for the rest ...
That's true, but you would also be objectively purchasing a 50mm full frame lens that wasn't designed to work with a medium format camera, which presents its own quirks. So you're trading depth of field of other artifacts. While just a hair wider, if that were my goal, I'd just do the 55 1.7 native Fuji GF lens. But, that's not my goal, which is why I don't own it.
I personally find the 2.8 depth of field of the 63 to isolate well enough in most situations.
If I need so much depth of field, I probably have enough space to put a longer focal length like the revered 80mm f1.9 Mamiya sekor c lens and take a couple steps back
i loved this lens,
Why the past tense? Did you get rid of it?
@@KevinDeal had the 100S on loan with this and a few other lenses. i want to get the 100S II to compliment my A1. the image quality i got out of the Fuji was so good that it is hard to compare the two systems. during testing i found to my surprise that this lens gave me more than i expected.
@@RobJorg definitely. It's a small lens with surprisingly good results.
Good video, I have the 63mm and like it. How do you nail your flesh tones so well with the GFX? I find myself battling a slight blue to magenta cast in highlights, even with custom and accurate white balance.
I'm not sure if I'm doing anything special. I tend to use Classic Chrome, Nostalgic Negative and Classic Negative as my base. Then I just adjust my white balance to taste.
I use the 100S, so not sure if you have te exact model.
Thank you for the kind words!
@@KevinDeal thank you Kevin, I’m using the GFX100 and GFX1OO II. My background is in photo lab processing and studio portraits so I’m probably overly sensitive to color correction.
@@outwestjim yeah. I'd love to say I'm doing some crazy process but the skin tones out of my GFX100S are usually really close to what I want, so I don't do too much in post. No secret to reveal, really.
I prefer the low contrasty color rendering of GF63 than GF80's high contrast.
The 80 definitely bites down harder on the contrast.
It seems like a fine lens but I don't see a good reason why I'd pick this over the 55
It’s smaller. It’s lighter. It’s $800 less.
For some, those would be three good reasons.
@@KevinDeal fair, but if size/weight was that much of as issue to me i wouldn't be using a gfx
That's one way to view it. Another is that they are going make a small GFX camera, so the demand to get smaller is already there and not every needs to shoot at f 1.7.
@@ChrisThe1 Is the $800 more not a problem either?
@ well, I am looking at this more from the perspective of already owning the 55. But if I had to decide today, I'd be paying 800 extra for the 1.7 aperture. To me it's worth it, particularly for low light.