From the various samples I have seen, busy bokeh happens wide open when there is a significant distance between subject and a very busy background with small objects (be it leaves or light sources). Otherwise, it is very peasing with enough graduality in it. Less harsh than others.
Fpessolano wrote:
From the various samples I have seen, busy bokeh happens wide open when there is a significant distance between subject and a very busy background with small objects (be it leaves or light sources). Otherwise, it is very peasing with enough graduality in it. Less harsh than others.
Also only at relatively large distance from camera to subject, which is not they way most people shoot (I do, though). Most lenses with similar angle of view are worse in that respect.
I'm a bit surprised that no one is complaining about the worst problem with GFX AF: that the camera very often chooses to focus on the farthest object within the focusing area, instead of the closest. That's much, much worse than any noise or AF being slow.
Optically there was nothing unexpected in the review. Of course the Sigma vignettes more. Enough for it to be unacceptable to me.
Makten wrote:
I'm a bit surprised that no one is complaining about the worst problem with GFX AF: that the camera very often chooses to focus on the farthest object within the focusing area, instead of the closest. That's much, much worse than any noise or AF being slow.
Optically there was nothing unexpected in the review. Of course the Sigma vignettes more. Enough for it to be unacceptable to me.
It looks for the area of greatest contrast “within” the focus box. Focus box size becomes critical in some situations.
Rand47 wrote:
It looks for the area of greatest contrast “within” the focus box. Focus box size becomes critical in some situations.
Rand
No other camera with contrast AF that I have owned or tried does this and of course it's possible to choose between peaks depending on distance. It's just bad software implementation.
Makten wrote:
No other camera with contrast AF that I have owned or tried does this and of course it's possible to choose between peaks depending on distance. It's just bad software implementation.
Yeah, I photographed that fence (picture above in this thread) with many cameras, including many Olympus and older m43 Panasonics. It only focused wrong way with GFX. When I have a chance I will reshoot with this new information, see if I can improve on it.
If it focuses on the highest contrast, there will be no way to focus properly on less contrasty subject that is narrower than focus point. Not super big deal, but something to keep in mind.
Manual focus really sucks with "fly by wire" lenses. The movement is not continuous, but rather it "jumps" in small increments.
Edit: Not to mention the problem with a focusing ring that covers almost the entire lens and that has very little damping. Even if you nail focus, it's very difficult to just hold the lens without unintentionally moving focus.
bobby350z wrote:
Even with the linear focussing option?
Yeah, that only makes a difference when you start turning the ring faster.
Sorry I don't use manual focus much. I was just suggesting that when AF fails, MF is a usually an option.
Of course. It's just a pity that Fuji couldn't implement a decent way for AF to work sofware-wise, because every other camera manufacturer don't have this problem.
I suppose it's not a problem with the 100 models either, thanks to phase detection.
I like the stopped down look. I am thinking of the 55mm f1.7 but then would have let my Canon 50mm f2.8 TSE go. For my landscape/cityscape needs, I prefer the TSE. 55mm f1.7 will be only for environmental people shoots. Maybe I just sit tight this yr unless some nice sales come up during thanksgiving time.
Hum… I had high hopes for this lens but I am disappointed, especially when compared with the best offers from Nikon and Sony. It does feel clearly that Fuji lacks in lens design abilities and possibly manufacturing technology.
I currently work with 100s and 100II mostly for landscape but was hoping to do more people work with the system thanks to the faster AF of the 100II. Considering the results with the 55mm f1.7 I am now considering selling the 100II that has no additional value for landscape.
bernardl wrote:
Hum… I had high hopes for this lens but I am disappointed, especially when compared with the best offers from Nikon and Sony. It does feel clearly that Fuji lacks in lens design abilities and possibly manufacturing technology.
I currently work with 100s and 100II mostly for landscape but was hoping to do more people work with the system thanks to the faster AF of the 100II. Considering the results with the 55mm f1.7 I am now considering selling the 100II that has no additional value for landscape.
Still on the fence.
Cheers,
Bernard
What are you disappointed with? I'm very happy with mine and I don't know of any equivalent lens from Nikon or Sony.
It's just a pity that Fuji couldn't implement a decent way for AF to work sofware-wise, because every other camera manufacturer don't have this problem. 
