When I first started doing E-bike reviews, I was interested more because of my son, who was too young to drive and needed transportation. But in 2024 my son got a car and I began to take over the eBike he had been riding. I discovered that I loved taking long rides with a camera in tow. I like using the eBike for distance rides, as the combo of pedaling with some electric assist allows me to travel farther faster (I can maintain a ridiculous speed) while the fat tires allow me to go on different terrains than my road bike will allow. I can access new and further photo destinations while also getting some exercise. But I have some reservations about my existing ride.
The brakes aren’t great, and I’ve had to spend some serious money because of needing to replace the brake pads (now three times) and then have the whole system professionally recalibrated because the pads were not positioned properly.
The battery isn’t quite sufficient. Even with just using pedal assist and being conservative, I can only get about 30 miles (50 kilometres) before the battery completely checks out.
The Windone E2 is a mini-moto style e-bike with a 500W nominal motor and a 624Wh battery. It looks cool…but how good is it, and who is it for? You can get my full findings in my video review below, or see my review notes in the article below.
Thanks to Windone for sending me a review sample. As always, this is a completely independent review. All thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
Top Speed (Pure E = 20 MPH | 32kph) | PAS = 28+MPH | 45 KPH
624Wh battery (48V 13Ah) (about 1.5 Ah larger than my current bike)
Range E = 28 miles (45k) | 46.6 miles (75k)
Rated to climb up to 20% grade
20 x 4” fat tires
RSX Hydraulic Brakes
Build Observations
About a 45 minutes assembly
A lot of included tools
Very high quality components
Riding Observations
This is NOT a comfortable bike to do hybrid pedal assist on
Feels more like a recumbent bike in terms of pedaling
Secondary problem – most likely regulatory changes have resulted in strict limiters. I saw a maximum of 32kph (20MPH) in pure E, and no more than 40KPH (25MPH) with pedal assist…mostly because if you pedal harder you get into dead pedal
Acceleration isn’t as quick as the Hiboy P7 I normally ride
Maintained about 25 khp (pedal assist) climbing a roughly 15% grade hill
Great suspension
Single tires (even fat tires) do NOT like deeper snow (a lot of fishtailing!)
The pedal position is weird for someone who is tall and has long legs like me (about 6’1” but have the legs of someone closer to 6’3”). Almost like a recumbent bike.
The handlebars could use the ability to adjust it up – not great ergonomics for a taller person.
No horn – the included bell seems very cheesy.
The motor is a little underpowered for accelerating (92lbs + 180 pound rider)
Top speed can only be achieved through pedal assist (though you can feel extra power kick in just by very light pedaling)
It’s hard to go fast on this. Max Level 4 before I’m spinning = 23MPH?
If you are looking for a hybrid experience where you do a lot of electric assisted peddling, the Windone E2 isn’t the bike for you. If you are looking for essentially a cheap electric dirtbike or a comfortable electric cruiser, then this is a great value. Unfortunately they seem to have made a change (regulatory?) that limits the top speed to pedal assist, which is not where this bike shines. It has a great aesthetic, good range, good power, and fantastic brakes and suspension. I’ve never done one of these reviews in winter (and probably never will again!) One of the best applications may be those looking for a trail bike where top speed is less important and the great brakes and suspension can be used to full advantage.
Keywords: WindOne E2 Review, Windone E2, E2 review, eBike Review, eBike, E-Bike, Motor, E2, Electric Bike, fat tire, test, review, 750W, commute, Dustin Abbott, Dustinabbott.net, #letthelightin, letthelightin, DA, #dustinabbott, 28MPH
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Godox V100 is in many ways an update to their first round head flash (the V1) that they released in 2019. This is a modernized and vastly improved flash unit that thoroughly impressed me. This is one the best value premium flashes I’ve ever seen at roughly $350, and well worth your consideration. You can get my full thoughts and demonstrations in my video review, or look at a summary of my findings in this article.
Thanks to Godox for sending me a review sample. As always, this is a completely independent review. All thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
This is the first on camera flash unit with a power output of 100Ws, which is truly impressive. We are now getting into the territory of Godox’s off camera AD series (the AD100), and to have all of the additional controls and options here (TTL, command unit, etc…) in addition to having the receiver capabilities of the AD series makes this an amazing value.
Lets start by looking at the long list of upgrades from the V1:
Upgrades from the V1
Improved airflow for cooling (motorized)
Improved modeling light – brighter and now have kelvin control
New bare bulb head (with modeling light)
Group color indicator – better visual indications (red light)
I’ve gotten a lot of use from the V1 flashes over the years, and the V100 is a really solid upgrade. Great power output, good battery life, and ever improving TTL performance. Godox flashes work great, and the V100 seems to work better than ever, with more thoughtful features, better usability, and more power. A LOT of flash for $349, and a better option than something like the AD100 series if you need on camera flash at times or TTL for a command unit.
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Godox AD200 Pro II is an update to Godox’s Popular AD200 Pro “pocket” flash that blends portability with relatively high power (200Ws output) that I reviewed in 2019. The new MK II version has a lot of key upgrades to make the flash more versatile and more easily controllable, and comes at the same price of $349 USD as the previous model. It is worth buying, or even upgrading to? That’s what I explore in the video review. You can also look at a summary of my findings in this article.
Thanks to Godox for sending me a review sample. As always, this is a completely independent review. All thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
The AD200 Pro II has the SHAPE of an on-camera flash, but will require a flash trigger to control – optimized for use with Godox’s new X3 triggers but will work with older triggers, too. I did two portrait sessions using Nikon for the first time with a Godox setup, utilizing the Nikon Z8 with the Nikkor Z 50mm F1.4 for one, and then the Z8 with the upcoming Laowa Tilt/Shift 55mm F2.8 Macro for another (an amazing lens, by the way!). I also tested the AD200 Pro II with an older X-ProS trigger and the Sony Alpha 1 along with the Sirui Aurora 85mm F1.4 lens. Here are some photos from these shoots:
The results were what I’ve come to expect from Godox. Good power, reliable triggering, and lighting that just generally works. But that was true of the AD200 Pro as well, so what has actually changed?
Upgrades from AD200 Pro
Improved airflow for cooling (motorized)
Improved modeling light – brighter and now have kelvin control
New bare bulb head (with modeling light)
Group color indicator – better visual indications (red light)
I’m still not sure I would call this a “pocket flash”, but the AD200 Pro II has a vastly improved interface and functionality. If you are already familiar with working with the existing AD200 Pro, I’m not sure an upgrade is warranted as this is still the same flash and output at heart…and your existing modifiers may not work. But this remains a great option if you are starting fresh, as it not only competes on output and price, but now the AD200 Pro II is also competitive with its feature list and handling as well.
Keywords: AD200 Pro II, AD 200, AD200, Pro, II, Godox, Pro II, Portrait, Macro, Woman, X3, Godox X3, Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Dustin Abbott, #DA, #letthelightin, #dustinabbott, Demonstration, Test, Photography, Solar Power, Portable, Camping, Hiking, Video Lights, Back up Power, Coupon Code, Discount, Coupon
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I’ve made it a habit to schedule tablet reviews around the time that I’m traveling, as it gives me a chance to leave my go-to tablet (an iPad Pro 11″) at home and see how the new device works as a replacement. I’ve recently done that with the Blackview Tab 18, a new 12″ Android 13 tablet. It probably bears more similarities to the Doogee T30 Pro that I reviewed in 2023 than to my Apple product, so I’ll draw some comparisons to the T30 Pro as a part of this review. Overall I came away impressed with some of the key details of this budget (under $300 USD) tablet that does most of the important things very well. Most importantly is the excellent performance of the screen and speakers, an area where the Blackview Tab 18 sets itself apart from some of the other budget tablets that I have reviewed. You can find out more in my thorough video review here.
Screen Performance
The Blackview Tab 18 sports an 12″ 2.4K (1200 x 2000 pixels) IPS panel that is nice and bright. Blackview touts an 86.6% screen-to-body ratio, meaning the bezel surrounding the screen is nice and thin.
The tablet measures 277mm (10.9″) x 173mm (right under 6.8″), making it larger than Doogee T30 Pro, which is 10” in height (254mm) x 6.5” in width (165mm). The T30 has an 85% screen-to-body size, so the Tab 18 also maximizes the screen size relative to the tablet a little better (86.6%). My iPad Pro 11” has a different screen ratio, with a height of 9.74” (247.6 mm) and width of 7.02” (178.5 mm). I like the dimensions of the Tab 18 better for media viewing, but prefer the iPad’s dimensions for general purpose use.
The depth of the Tab 18 is 7.9mm, making it very slightly thicker than the T30 Pro (7.6mm), but more noticeably thicker than my iPad Pro, which is just 5.9mm. The Tab 18 is also the heaviest of three tablets at 632g (T30 is 543g | iPad Pro 473g), though, to be fair, it is slightly larger than them as well. When you account for that, the Doogee and Blackview tablets are near identical in their size to weight ratio, though the iPad is clearly the winner in that regard. The iPad Pro is noticeably thinner than the Tab 18.
Obviously the minute difference between the Doogee T30 Pro and the Tab 18 wouldn’t be noticeable.
I do like the wider ratio for one other thing, however, and that is when putting two programs side by side in split view or in the optional PC mode that the tablet offers (basically the ability to have “windows” that can be resized to whatever dimensions you like). I also liked the the fact that the operating system will use local dimming to make the active window (in this case, my Word text document) brighter than the inactive window, helping you to remember which you are actively working in.
I used this while on my trip to prepare for a leadership mentoring class I’m teaching at the church I pastor.
On paper, the Doogee T30 Pro has a higher resolution (1600 x 2560), but I actually preferred the display on the Tab 18. While both screens have a rated 350 nits of peak brightness, the screen on the Tab 18 had a better viewing angle with less tendency to look dark if you were slightly off angle, making the tablet much better for sharing the view between two people (like when watching media).
I typically spend time every morning reading the news and studying my Bible app, and I find that the bottom or top of the screen (depending on the tilt) looks darker than the other due to the viewing angle on the Doogee T30 Pro, but the Tab 18 was closer to my iPad Pro in performance here and I immediately noticed the difference when I used it in my morning routine or watched something with my wife on it in the evening.
There is plenty of brightness for any viewing situation, and I found that I always had brightness at the 50% threshold or less, though as is common with tablet screens, the very reflective surface means that if you have a bright light source behind you (like a window), you will get a lot of reflections on the screen. Glossy screens look great in optimal conditions, but I often wonder if a more matte finish wouldn’t be more versatile. It is also a magnet for fingerprints and smudges, but that’s true of every tablet screen I’ve ever used.
One interesting option is the ability to engage reading mode. This turns the screen black and white and makes for an excellent reading tablet. You can see that the text is impressively crisp and the long perspective of the tablet in vertical mode (it is a 5:3 aspect ratio) makes for a nicely book-like experience.
I’m still partial to a dedicated e-reader because of the less reflective screen and near-eternal battery life, but if you want one device to do it all, here’s another score for the Tab 18. It also has TÜV SÜD blue light certification, meaning that the screen will be easier on the eyes and less disruptive to sleep cycles, which is a welcome feature.
On the more negative front, I have yet to find an Android tablet where the adaptive brightness works as well as on iPad. There is a sensor for it on the front of the screen, but I do find that it tends to result in a too-low brightness level. As with other Android tablets, I end up disabling it and just doing manual adjustments to brightness as need (which frankly doesn’t feel very often).
The Tab 18 really thrives as a media viewing device, as the screen is very crisp, has great color, and also has Widevine L1 Support.
What does that mean? Technically, Widevine L1 is the highest degree of DRM protection achievable in a media device, meaning that video decryption and processing take place entirely within the Trusted Execution Environment in the device.
Who cares about that, right?
But where that pays off for you is that Widevine L1-certified devices can play videos at the best resolution possible from streaming services, meaning that your movies and shows will look great. I found good color balance when viewing the screen critically.
The wide aspect ratio makes for a very effective portable media screen, and it is here where the Tab 18 makes the most of its 12″ screen. Side by side, it can’t match the detail of my 3x more expensive iPad, but I think that most people will be pleased with how this screen looks and performs.
Audio Performance
To this point, none of the Android tablets have come anywhere close to matching the excellent sound quality of my iPad Pro. It’s quad speakers are immersive, have a surprisingly full range of sound, and can achieve impressive volume without falling apart. The Blackview Tab 18 is the first inexpensive tablet that has come close to matching it. This is one area where the Doogee tablets have disappointed, with very tinny sound and an artificial amount of reverb designed to create presence where it is lacking.
None of that is true here. I wasn’t expecting much after my previous experiences, though I did have a minor bit of hope based on the fact that Harman had lent their name to the audio design here. They are a very serious audio company, and they have come through with an impressive performance here on both the hardware (quad speakers) and software (Harman AudioEFX 2.0) side. The Harman AudioEFX 2.0 comes with multiple sound enhancement modes and I did find that cycling through the audio options made a difference. Switching to Movie mode allowed for a little more volume and a slightly wider soundstage (Game mode was just a bit “wider”). Music mode feels a little less processed and doesn’t add unnecessary reverb. There is a Smart mode that will choose the appropriate audio mode, but I actually found that manually choosing the correct mode produced slightly better results.
The T30 Pro just sounds tinny next to the Blackview Tab 18, so I did more side by side comparisons with my iPad Pro. I listened to music and movie clips one after the other, and I was hard pressed to say which I preferred. At first I would have said “iPad”, but choosing the correct processing mode closed that gap. I think the iPad may have ever-so-slightly better bass, but it’s so close that I wasn’t 100% sure even side by side. The Tab 18 was very close to matching the presence and spatial separation of the iPad, which vastly exceeded my expectations.
I was equally impressed to find that the Tab 18 could match the peak volume level of the iPad for movies or music, which is impressive. Neither the Tab 18 or the iPad fell apart at peak volume, which shows that in both cases the manufacturers have done a good job of limiting the peak volume to what the hardware can handle. There’s enough sound here to fill most normal sized rooms
My only complaint is that Blackview has followed the current trend where they have eliminated the 3.5mm headphone jack, leaving you to rely on Bluetooth or a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter.
The audio performance is WAY better than any other budget tablet that I’ve reviewed or used.
Connectivity
Here we come to an area where Apple is, frankly, terrible, and where these Android based tablets shine. It’s astonishing that after all this time Apple is getting away with charging massive amounts for additional storage. An iPad Pro 11” like mine starts at $799 for a Wi-Fi only configuration and 128GB of internal storage. Want more storage? The price jumps to $899 to get to the 256GB internal media point, and $999 to get 512GB. Want wireless mobility? Add another $200 to those prices. Want to add more storage after the fact? Fuggedaboudit.
The Tab 18 comes with 256GB of internal storage, but you can easily expand that to as much as 1TB via microSD. It’s not hard to get a 1TB card for under $100, so there’s a very clear advantage for the Tab 18 over Apple products. That’s not to mention that it also has dual SIM, though they are limited to 4G/LTE rather than the 5G available on iPad. Note that the microSD for storage will occupy one of those slots, but you can otherwise run two different networks at the same time. Still, an equivalent iPad will cost you about $800 more. That’s probably the most compelling argument for the Tab 18 right there; it is a huge value.
Further connectivity comes via 4 different satellite positioning options, including GPS, GALILEO, BeiDo, and GLONASS. Wireless specs include 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, and hotspot, which is fast and stable, though I did find that it didn’t clock as fast of speeds as my iPad. Still fast enough to not really notice the difference.
Charging and communication comes via a USB-C port. You can attach other accessories like a mouse via the USB-C port or create a direct connection to a PC.
There’s one area where I prefer the Doogee T30 Pro, and that’s in the connection to the optional keyboard. The T30 has electronic contacts on the side (like my iPad), which allow for a direct connection that can transfer both power and data directly. With this kind of the connection the keyboard (like iPad) will run off the battery of the T30 Pro, meaning that the keyboard does not require a separate power source. It doesn’t have to be independently charged, so you will never go to use it and find that the keyboard battery is dead. This also eliminates any possibility of Bluetooth lag.
The keyboard for the Tab 18 connects via Bluetooth and has an independent battery (charges via USB-C). Keyboards like this use very little power, so thus far I have not had to recharge it. Bluetooth lag is fortunately very minimal, so that hasn’t been a serious issue. I do like the keyboard case, as it magneically locks into a good viewing and won’t fall over (an area where the included case is weak). You can even lift up the tablet and the keyboard will stay locked in the right place.
The keyboard can be had for just $39.99, so it represents a huge value compared to my $280 USD Magic Keyboard for my iPad. I’m actually thankful that this keyboard (unlike the Doogee) foregoes the touchpad, as I actually found that as my palms brushed it (while typing) it would move the curser around and mess me up. I actually covered it after a while because it could not be disabled. The Blackview keyboard does have variety of controls (volume, brightness, audio controls, etc…), and directional controls. It is not backlit like the Magic Keyboard, but it does have excellent typing action, reminding me a lot of the ribbon action of the Magic Keyboard. The keys are nicely responsive, the spacing is good, and it is comfortable to type on.
The kickstand integration on the Doogee keyboard was terrible, so the magnetic integration here is a breath of fresh air.
Blackview also sells an active, touch capacitive “pen”/stylus for about $46 (again, a fraction of the price of the Apple counterpart). It works in a similar fashion to the Apple “pencil” that I’ve used in the past, allowing you to draw, write, or interact with the screen in various apps. It is simple to charge via the USB-C port hidden on the side. It does magnetically dock to the side of the tablet, which is an improvement over the Doogee equivalent.
The Blackview Tab 18 allows you to build the full ecosystem of modern tablet use (keyboard, active pen) for less than $100 of additional money. The total for all three (including the tablet) was juts $365 USD…only slightly more than just the Magic Keyboard alone for my iPad!!
Processor Performance
The hardware side of things is pretty typical for an Android tablet of this class. It seems that most of them have pretty much the same specs. It comes bundled with Blackview’s own version Android 13 (called DokeOS_P 4.0), and it is overall snappy performer. It is running a MT8781 (Helio G99) OctaCore processor (2 Cortex-A76 and 6 Cortex-A55 processors) with the cores running at 2.2GHz and 2GHz respectively. It is a 6nm processor, pointing to solid efficiency and performance. Where the Tab 18 exceeds previous Android tablets I’ve tested is that there is the option for up to 24GB RAM (as in the Tab 18 I’m testing), with 12GB DDR4X natively + Up to 12GB Extended (virtual) RAM that can be set up in the dashboard. I obviously accustomed to working on and using what is one of the most powerful tablets currently available in my iPad, and I found that I didn’t notice any real slowdown that stood out to me. Apps open quickly, and using my normal apps feels virtually identical to my iPad Pro, though I do find some apps a little more glitchy on Android.
I’m not a big tablet gamer, but I did test a number of games, including Call of Duty, Oceanhorn, and Angry Birds 2. Call of Duty allowed me to run things at high resolution and without any lag issues. Colors were nice and bright on other games, and the screen touch was responsive for gaming input.
More importantly for me, I was able to run office and productivity apps without issue. Video streaming programs ran excellent. There seems to be plenty of power under the hood to do whatever I wanted to do here.
My one complaint here is that booting the Tab 18 up from fully powered down takes longer than what I would like.
Battery Life
One of the very best features here is the huge 8800mAh Battery (slightly bigger than on the T30). Battery life is great, and I found that in a few select instances where I was doing something I regularly do on my iPad, there was a bit more power remaining than I typically see afterward. Both the included cover and the keyboard covers are “smart”, so you can just close the cover to power down the screen.
Charging comes at a maximum of 33W (the T30 Pro maxes out at 18W), allowing you to fairly quickly replenish the battery (though, as is often the case, I was sent the wrong spec AC adapter for North America). Fortunately I have a lot of charging options already available, and I found that charging was fairly pain-free.
I was able to do everything I wanted in any particular day with power to spare.
Cameras and Videoconferencing
It’s a little ironic to me, but I found two things to be true about the Blackview approach to cameras. Doogee is very big on the marketing of their cameras both in the brand and the resolution. By contrast, Blackview makes less of a big deal about the cameras but actually delivers better results. The main (back) camera is a 16MP model supported by a small LED flash.
There is also an 8MP front camera. I found that the main camera did a fairly good job and didn’t have the oversharpened look so common to Android tablets.
As a professional photographer who owns a number of high end cameras, I’m certainly not going to be relying on the camera in a tablet for my photo needs, so I didn’t use it much. I can quickly see the limitations in this type of camera performance, but relative to other tablets, it was pretty decent.
I’m more concerned with the front camera and its performance for Zoom or other videoconference apps. Videoconferencing, fortunately, works very well. Unlike iPad, the front facing camera is located mid-screen, which works better for being able to make eye contact with whomever you are talking to. I’ve used Zoom, Google Meets, etc… and even some proprietary conferences with corporations, and all has worked well. I could hear and see them well, and vice versa, even when just using the standard mic and speakers built into the Tab 18.
Build and Design
The Tab 18 sports a very nice aluminum chassis with three color choices: Gray, Mint Green, and Ice Blue. I’ve got the tamest color choice (Grey), that has a nice, clean, modern design.
There’s a nice feeling bevel to the back design with a very light texture, though I still wouldn’t want to try to hang onto this without a case very much.
It comes with a glass screen protector installed (excellent!) along with a spare (also excellent!) It is one of the rare recent tablets/phones that I’ve reviewed that came with a bundled set of wired headphones (with a USB-C plug instead of a 3.5mm). The AC adapter along with a USB-C to C cord was also included. Rounding out the package is the smart cover (which keeps everything nice and slim and giving you easy “awake” features).
As alluded to earlier, I was less than impressed by the smart case’s ability stay upright. There is a single groove that you can tuck into in either direction (laptop style or folding it into a support at the back), but the slightest bump knocks it out of the groove and the tablet with collapse. I would have loved to see a magnetic implementation similar to the keyboard case instead. The accessory market for a tablet like this isn’t as robust as for Apple products, but fortunately it does come bundled with a lot of things one might want. There are a few alternate cases available already on Amazon, so I may try one of those out in the future.
Also included is the little tool to allow you to access the Nano-SIM slots or to install a micro-SD card. I didn’t test the mobile capacity of the tablet, as Canada is (unfortunately) quite primitive when it comes to reasonable mobile plans whether talking phones or tablets).
Security features include a fingerprint reader (which doubles as the power button) and face recognition. Both work quite well for this level of tablet, making getting into your device nice and quick.
Conclusion
I’ve reviewed a number of tablets at this point, and owned many others, and I can safely say that the Blackview Tab 18 is my favorite budget tablet to date. It really delivers in some key areas, including screen and sound performance, battery life, and a great size. And the price, of course, is fantastic. You get more screen area and more RAM than equivalent priced tablets, and it was the 12″ screen that made me say “yes” to doing this review when I’ve said “no” to many others. This is my first experience with Blackview, but I’m impressed enough that I hope it won’t be the last.
Purchase the Blackview Tab 18 from Blackview Store or from AliExpress: (use code E4KH6X for a $5 discount from March 28th – April 7th, 2024).
Keywords: Blackview, Tab 18, Blackview Tab 18, Blackview Tab 18 Review, Tab 18 review, Blackview Review, 12″, Doogee T30 Pro Review, Tablet, Dustin Abbott, Hands On, Productive, Media, Battery Live, Android, Android 13, iPad, iPad Pro, 11″, Let the Light In, Widevine L1, 33W, #letthelightin, #dustinabbott, #DA, #reviews, #Technology
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
There has been a LOT of interest in the Ford Maverick compact truck since its release, and, since I was one of the early recipients of the Maverick (I preordered within about ten days of the announcement), I’ve had the opportunity to really explore the vehicle in a lot of different ways since April of 2022. Since I also happen to be a professional reviewer, I’ve spent some time documenting my findings in a series of reviews. Here’s the most recent, which was a winter-oriented 25,000 mile update:
The 2022 Ford Maverick XLT Hybrid covered here is my own personal vehicle that I purchased in 2022. As always, this is a completely independent review. All thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own.
Keywords: Ford Maverick, Maverick, Ford, XLT, Lariat, Hybrid, Long Term Review, Review, Long Term, Mileage, Traction, Snow, Off-Road, #maverick, #ford, #fordmaverick2022, #dustinabbott, #letthelightin, #DA, 2022, 2022 Ford Maverick, 2022 Maverick Hybrid
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Those who are accustomed to smaller sensors are unlikely to be impressed with a maximum aperture of F1.7, but when you are talking larger medium format(ish) sensors like Fujifilm’s GFX line, this is a HUGE maximum aperture. This is only the second lens on the platform from Fuji with a maximum aperture this large, and in many ways it is an improvement on the 80mm F1.7 that I reviewed a few years ago. The new Fujinon GF 55mm F1.7 R WR is released alongside the very impressive Fujifilm GFX100 II flagship camera, and I had the opportunity to review them both at the same time (you can catch my review of the GFX100 II here). The new GF 55mm is an interesting focal length (roughly the full frame equivalent of 44mm), which provides a very flexible “normal” angle of view that I particularly enjoy. You can get my full thoughts on the lens in my video review below…or keep reading.
Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for providing me a review loaner of the GFX100 II and the new GF 55mm F1.7 WR. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.
I love this focal length for its versatility and very natural framing. It’s great for landscapes…
…for portraits…
…and, thanks to its reasonably close focus abilities and large aperture, the ability to beautifully blur out backgrounds in closer shots.
Here’s a quick rundown of some of the main new features of the GF 55mm:
Medium Format
44mm (Full-Frame Equivalent)
F1.7 aperture is the brightest on the system
DC Motor with GMR Sensor AF System
Rounded 11-Blade Diaphragm
2 x Aspherical, 2 x ED Elements
Weather-Sealed Design & Fluorine Coating
This is an excellent pairing for Fuji’s medium format bodies, providing great image quality, a solid build, and better autofocus than what we saw on the 80mm F1.7 lens. At $2300 USD, it isn’t cheap (the same price as the 80mm), but medium format in general is more about optical excellence than financial bargains. Despite the price I think this is one of the better options on the GFX platform…read on to find out why.
Fujinon GF 55mm F1.7 Build, Handling, and Features
The massive lens mount size of the GFX system really sets the tone for the girth of these GF lenses. The Fuji X-mount (APS-C) is 44mm is diameter; the GF mount is a whopping 76.5mm in diameter. The Canon full frame RF mount is 54mm in diameter by comparison, closer to the APS-C size than the massive medium format dimensions. The front opening of lenses changes according to the focal length and aperture combination, but the rear diameter at the mount is consistent. The GF 55mm F1.7 is nearly identical in size to the 80mm F1.7: 94.7mm (3.7″) in diameter and 99.3mm (3.9″) in length. The 55mm is ever-so-slightly lighter at 780g (1.7lb) compared to 795g for the 80mm. That results in a squat look where the lens is nearly as wide as it s long:
That’s obviously not a small or light lens, and, as such, is a departure from the two existing lenses closest in focal length in the 50mm F3.5 and 63mm F2.8. Both of those lenses have a considerably smaller maximum aperture and are smaller, lighter, less expensive lenses. Here’s a quick spec comparison across all four lenses.
The industry standard for focal lengths is the full frame/35mm standard, where the 55mm MF lens has a 44mm focal length equivalent. While F1.7 doesn’t sound very impressive as a maximum aperture if you’re accustomed to full frame or APS-C lenses, this is (according to Fuji) the “brightest” (widest aperture) lens available for medium format. Aperture is a somewhat tricky subject, as there is no simple “equivalency” like there is for focal length. An F2.8 aperture, for example, is a constant measurement of the physical opening of a lens’ iris whether on APS-C, full frame, or medium format. So, for light gathering purposes, an F2.8 aperture will produce the same exposure on all three systems.
So, that’s one answer. F1.7 on medium format is the same as F1.7 on full frame when it comes to how much light can pass through it.
But that’s not the whole picture, as depth of field varies radically depending on the sensor size. Medium format lenses often have relatively small maximum aperture sizes but yet can produce amazingly shallow depth of field results with lovely, creamy bokeh. The “crop factor” relative to the 35mm sensor size of Fuji’s GFX mount is 0.79, which means that the GF 55mm will perform similarly to a full frame 44mm F1.3 lens for framing and depth of field, though the light gathering potential of the lens is only F1.7. Confused yet?
Up front we have a fairly common 77mm filter size that is shared by the 80mm lens.
The included hood is petal shaped and made of plastic and has a smooth satin finish that hopefully won’t be too susceptible to marking (a frequent problem with a smooth rather than flocked finish). It does have a lock to make sure that it doesn’t get inadvertently bumped loose.
The GF 55mm has a rubber gasket at the lens mount, internal seals, and a fluorine coating on the front element to give it a professional grade of weather resistance. This is what the WR in the name stands for.
One departure from the 80mm in design is that Fuji has moved up to an 11 bladed aperture iris, as the high blade count lens itself to rounder bokeh highlights as the lens is stopped down.
This is a positive change, in my opinion. As we will see in a bit, the quality of the bokeh is one of the highlights of the lens.
Minimum focus distance is 50cm (1.6 feet), and the lens produces a a decent 0.17x maximum magnification.
That’s not going to set any records, but it is high enough to be useful in shooting up close…and lens performance stays high there. Pair this lens with one of Fuji’s high resolution MF bodies, and you can easily crop in tight to make things look a lot more macro-ish.
The lens design and features on the lens is going to be instantly familiar to anyone who spent any time with Fuji lenses. There is a dual approach to aperture with both a manual aperture ring along with an “A” mode (automatic) that allows aperture to be controlled within camera. On GF lenses there is also a “C” mode, which stands for command, giving you yet another way (command dial) to control aperture. The “R” in the lens name refers to this aperture ring.
The focus ring is wide and rubberized, and that section of the lens is the largest in diameter. Your hand will fall naturally to that area. The damping and precision is fairly good, though, as per usual on Fuji cameras, it will take a lot of rotations on the focus ring to make any major focus changes. It is better used to fine tune focus if you want a slightly different focus point than what AF selects.
There are no switches on the lens barrel. AF/MF will be handled by on camera controls, and there is no focus limiter. There is also no lens-based stabilization, though in camera stabilization has been a constant feature of Fuji’s GFX cameras, so it pretty much a moot point. I was able to handhold very low shutter speeds with the lens/camera combination…like this shot at 1/3rd second.
The lens looks good mounted Fuji’s very handsome looking new GFX100 II. It has a nice profile and looks like it belongs.
There are no surprises here in the build and handling. Fuji has a formula that they are sticking to for now. With the advances in video features on the GFX100 II, however, it would be useful to see an option to declick the aperture and perhaps to have a few more on lens controls.
Autofocus Performance
While there are some Fuji GFX lenses with a linear focus motor (LM), Fuji has elected to go with the older DC motor technology in both of these large aperture lenses. I’m not sure that I fully understand the reasons why, though I will also note that the largest aperture lens on the XF platform (the XF 50mm F1.0 which I reviewed here) also didn’t use an LM motor even though they are even more common with XF lenses. Clearly Fuji has a challenge in implementing linear motors in some of these more demanding lenses. Sony is the best example of how to do with right now, with their 50mm F1.2 G Master employing 4!!! equivalent type motors to make sure that autofocus is effortless even with the very large maximum aperture. I think that learning to design with multiple linear motors is the way forward for autofocus on premium lenses like the GF 55mm F1.7.
But that’s not what we have. We have a DC motor instead, and what that means is that focus is definitely not silent. You hear some scratchy motor sounds whenever larger focus changes are made, and those will definitely be picked up by the on board mics during video capture even though Fuji has done a good job in damping focus changes (and thus noise) during video capture.
Fuji’s goal has been to make a previously inaccessible format more “populist” by giving its medium format cameras autofocus performance that is close to what’s achievable on smaller formats. Every generation is to be “the one” where autofocus truly catches up, but there is of course the reality that this is a moving target. Autofocus development on the mirrorless front in smaller sensors has rapidly advanced over the past five years, and while the new GFX100 II that I used to test the lens on is definitely the most advanced autofocusing medium format camera that Fujifilm has produced to date, it is still far removed from the top 35mm cameras. I’ve seen one reviewer claim that autofocus is as good as the Sony a7R5 (a camera that I own), but I suspect this person doesn’t have much experience with the a7R5. I ran some head to head tests, and even using an inexpensive Viltrox AF 28mm F1.8 that I happened to be testing at the same time, autofocus performance was faster, more confident, and more accurate for both stills and video with the Sony combination despite the lens costing more than 6x less. But let us lay aside these comparisons outside the system, as a more accurate snapshot of what is going on is a comparison with what has been happening on Fuji’s own smaller sensor cameras.
I saw focus results with the 55mm and GFX100 II combination that is fairly similar to what I’m seeing with my X-H2, with AI tracking doing a good job of identifying subjects and following them, though the very narrow depth of field at close focus distances will often show one shortcoming: focus is typically on the eyelash or lid rather than the iris. That was true with an animal subject:
…and also with a human subject.
This comparison of a few shots of Nala shows the difference between that front focused result and a (unfortunately) rare accurately focused result:
My experience is that the slightly front focused result is the more typical result.
With a little more depth of field, however, I found Eye AF to be very accurate at a variety of focus distances. I had excellent portrait results with the GF 55mm F1.7 at a variety of focus distances and angles, and even when I put obstructions like branches, leaves, or pine needles in between myself and the subject.
I also saw mostly good results in backlit situations. I shot a photo of a golfing buddy teeing off with the strong autumn afternoon directional sun coming right at me, but you can see that the end result is well focused.
This shot is the only one that I had to resort to manual focus for, and it was largely because I was shooting a narrow backlit subject. Autofocus didn’t want to come close (kept focusing on the background), so I used manual focus to nail the shot.
This shot was arguably more difficult, and, while I got a few pulses, autofocus really nailed the shot.
Autofocus also locked on accurately even when shooting in extremely dim conditions – like this bookshelf basically in the dark. I got a 1/40th of second shutter speed shooting at ISO 12,800 and using an F1.7 lens (the fastest maximum aperture currently available on the system).
Autofocus slows down, obviously, but not in an extreme way.
Autofocus also worked well for landscape shots or shots with larger depth of field:
So, by and large, I had very good focus results with still subjects.
So how about if subjects are in motion? I had a mixed bag of results in those scenarios. Trying to grab photos of Nala walking towards me (Bengal cats don’t want to stay still when the camera comes out!) was an exercise in frustration. I didn’t get one well focused results as the camera/lens tried to grab focus quickly.
But things were much better when I had my son shoot some layups for me. Tracking immediately picked up his face and followed it successfully throughout the movement and follow through. Not every frame is perfectly focused (most misses come about 3-4 shots into the sequence for some reason), but I also didn’t see any big swings to front or back focus. I would estimate about 80% of the shots were well focused.
So no, that’s not Sony a7RV level of performance, but it is pretty fantastic for medium format…and when you consider that each file is 102MP!
I also saw a bit of a mixed bag when testing video autofocus. Focus pulls were relatively fast and smooth for medium format. I also saw less obvious stepping. But what I also saw was a frequent lack of confidence in locking focus. There were a few focus pulses and sometimes focus never transitioned properly to the new subject. In real world shooting I also saw some hunting and pulsing in landscape scenes, though most were okay.
My hand test was fairly successful, and while focus transitions were slow enough that sometimes I had started the next movement before it arrived there, a few of the cycles were accurate and smooth. My experience with Fuji’s current state of autofocus across its cameras is that the AF system works best when a trackable subject is in the frame.
Autofocus is still probably the weakest part of this lens, though I found that for the most part autofocus got the job done without a lot of drama. I didn’t love it for shooting video, but for stills the autofocus was generally pain free.
Fujinon GF 55mm F1.7 Image Quality Breakdown
The GF 55mm F1.7 features an optical design with 14 elements in 10 groups, which includes 2 aspherical and 2 ED elements. This is a bit more complex than what we saw with the 80mm F1.7.
This is a great optical design which does a nice job of balancing the tensions between sharpness and a quality of rendering.
So let’s dive into the details. First up is vignette and distortion. There is a little more distortion (and much more vignette) than the 80mm, unfortunately.
There is a mild amount of pincushion distortion that corrects in a fairly linear fashion (a +5 gave me the best results). Vignette was quite heavy without correction, needing a +86 to brighten up the corners, which is over 3 stops.
Fortunately Fuji’s RAW correction profiles are very good, so the results I saw in post already looked good and I had to “uncover” the flaws by turning off corrections. JPEG and HEIF files will receive autocorrection in camera if enabled, as will video.
What is better handled here on the GF 55mm F1.7 is longitudinal chromatic aberrations (LoCA), of which I saw very little.
I see very little fringing even on this real world shot of a high contrast camera against a white background.
Neither did I see issues with lateral CA, which shows up along the edges of the frame. Results looks clear in either my test chart or real world results.
That’s really a pretty good result considering that this is a faster aperture than most medium format lenses and it is being examined on a punishing 102MP sensor.
So let’s see how that plays out for resolution and contrast. Here’s a look at my test chart that we will take the crops from:
And here are the high magnification crops from across the frame (center | midframe | corner):
That’s obviously a really fantastic result. Sharpness and contrast look great all across the frame. Nothing looks weak. Even the corners look strong.
That’s incredible.
While the 80mm was a very strong lens, the 55mm is sharper still, and that is most obvious in the corners.
The amount of detail at F1.7 and 102MP is extremely impressive.
This makes shooting full length portraits effortless, as you can shoot a F1.7 and get a nice subject separation along with an amazing amount of detail on your subject.
Stopping down to F2 gives a bit of a contrast boost across the frame…not that anything was lacking before!
Stopping down to F2.8 makes no change in the middle and tiny improvements elsewhere. Stopping down further makes no difference in the center and midframe but will give you slightly sharper corners. Landscape apertures will give you stunning amounts of detail all across the frame.
I showed a photo of this old bridge earlier. Look what happens if we zoom right into the bolts on the side of the bridge. There is amazing detail there.
Minimum aperture is F22, but diffraction starts setting in after F8, so by F22 the image is quite soft by comparison to F1.7:
I would stay at F11 or larger and avoid F16 and F22 because of diffraction.
This is an incredibly amount of resolution. You can easily create images from within images on a sensor and with a lens like this. I can take this shot, which looks fair wide angle:
…and deeply crop to make an image that looks like a telephoto look at the same scene.
Equally nice is the bokeh quality, though. Here’s a couple of examples taken at, surprisingly, ISO 12,800 (which just goes to show the potential of this platform). Up close the background just blurs away…
But if I move back a bit, I also find very nice and natural falloff to defocus.
In a fairly distant portrait setting when nothing is completely blurred out, there is a nice transition to focus on the subject and then a nice defocus away. The subject has very good 3D pop.
Here’s a look at foreground bokeh, which is also nice and smooth and transitions well to the focus on the mums.
Flare resistance was mostly good. There’s a few bits of stray ghosting blobs here and there, but for the most part I felt like contrast held up well.
Color rendition is often a strength for Fuji glass, and that’s true here. I was really happy with the colors I captured in my images and how easy they were to edit.
I also tested for coma by shooting the night sky. I found that start points looked great in the center of the frame, but they definitely “grow wings” towards the edges of the frame. It’s not terrible, but not great, either.
The Fujinon GF 55mm F1.8 R WR is going to be a very welcome addition to the GFX lineup, as it does hit what I feel is a very interesting focal length and does it a maximum aperture size that equals the largest that Fuji has ever attempted. This allows you to get great looking images with wonderfully shallow depth of field.
While we don’t have linear motor autofocus here, it is at least improved over what I saw with the GF 80mm F1.7. Focus is quick enough for some action photography, though I still feel like portraits, weddings, landscapes, architecture, and other slower moving subjects are your best targets with the GFX system.
At $2300 USD, the lens is not cheap, but neither is it more expensive than the premium prime lenses on full frame platforms. Most importantly, it is a great pairing for Fuji’s extremely high resolution medium format camera bodies, and this particular focal length is just so useful for so many different types of photography. This is a lens that could stay glued on your camera most of the time. The GF 55mm F1.7 R WR is destined to become a favorite to a lot of Fujifilm’s GFX shooters, and I’m very glad to have it added to the catalog. It would definitely be on my personal shortlist should I ever invest in the GFX system.
Keywords: Fujinon GF 55mm F1.7 W RW, GF, 55mm, F1.7, R, WR, 55mm F1.7 Review, Fuji 55mm Review, Fuji GFX 100 II, Fujifilm GFX100 II, GFX100 II, Fujifilm, Fujinon, Fujifilm GFX100S, Fujifilm GFX-50S II, Review, Fuji, Medium Format, MF, Portrait, Bokeh, Sharpness, Resolution, Video Test, Sample Images, Real World, Comparison, review, Dustin Abbott, dustinabbott, letthelightin, DA, #fujifilm, #fuji, #GFX
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
I reviewed the first Fujifilm GFX100 body back in 2021, and it was almost ridiculously extreme as a first look at the Fujifilm’s medium format entries. It was absolutely huge, even for a person with medium large hands. It was a vertical grip integrated style body, and while I absolutely loved the performance of the sensor, I was less thrilled by both the ergonomics and autofocus capabilities of that camera. Add to this that the price tag was nearly $10,000, and you definitely had a niche item . The Fujifilm GFX100S was much closer to hitting the sweet spot for me, incorporating the big 100+ MP sensor of the GFX100 into the more traditional body style of the GFX50S II. But Fuji is back with a new take on their flagship model in the form of the Fujifilm GFX100 II. Like the GFX100S, it uses a traditional body style without the integrated vertical grip (a battery grip is available for an additional $500) but with a new 102MP sensor, a faster processor, and better autofocus. It also has a new BISHAMON-TEX™ texture to the grip and the body which is instantly my favorite grip material ever. It looks modern, sleek, and sophisticated, and feels great in the hands. The price point is better, too, at $7500 USD, though that’s still prohibitively expensive for most people. You can get my full thoughts on the camera in my video review below…or keep reading.
Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for providing me a review loaner of the GFX100 II and the new GF 55mm F1.7 WR. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.
Here’s a quick rundown of some of the main new features of the GFX100 II:
102MP 43.8 x 32.9mm BSI CMOS Sensor
X-Processor 5 Image Processor
9.44m-Dot EVF
8K30 Video
4K60 Video; 10-Bit Out
5-Axis Sensor-Shift Image Stabilization rated at 8 Stops
3.2″ 2.36m-Dot Tilting Touchscreen LCD
ISO 80-12800, Up to 8 fps Shooting
Multi Aspect Ratios
Before we dive in to the good stuff, let’s get a few relevant details out of the way. Purists will point out that Fujifilm’s GFX sensor is not actually true medium format. It’s true that the sensor size (43.8 x 32mm) is about halfway between a full frame sensor (35.9 x 24mm) and Hasselblad’s 53 x 40mm sensor size. You can see a comparison of sensor size below:
While Fuji’s sensor is smaller than the larger Hasselbad/Phase One sensor, it is worth noting that it is also nearly 70% bigger than the full frame standard! But the GFX 100S has even more accessible resolution due to having IBIS (In Body Image Stabilization), as stabilization is really important to getting excellent results where so much resolution is on tap. That makes each individual pixel about 30% bigger, which has the advantage of smoother gradations of color and light. There’s something very special about the rendering from medium format. I definitely think that Fuji’s higher resolution point (the 102MP 43.8 x 32.9mm BSI CMOS Sensor found in this camera) is by far the preferred option largely because the 50MP resolution point has a lot of full frame competitors, and, in my opinion, the current limitations of using medium format cameras are not outweighed by the sensor advantages in the 50MP sensor. This 102MP sensor has a clear advantage over anything currently available on full frame, making it unique and special. The ability to deeply crop images is like nothing else out there. You truly have the ability to create a variety of images from one frame:
You’ll note that the chart in the opening section also shows the various crop factors associated with the size of the relative sensors. A full frame sensor has a 1.0x crop factor, and the industry standard for focal lengths is in the full frame/35mm standard because of this. A 100mm lens, then, will behave like 100mm on the 35mm/full frame sensor, while the same lens mounted on a Fuji APS-C sensor (1.5x crop factor), will behave like a 150mm lens (full frame equivalent) in terms of focal length. Mount that same focal length on Fuji’s medium format (0.79x crop factor), and it will behave like a 79mm focal length. This helps explain why many of the focal lengths of Fuji’s GF lenses are atypical. The 55mm F1.7 I used in this review has a full frame equivalent of 44mm.
There is no question that the image quality from the GFX100 II is exceptional, but is Fuji succeeding in making its larger format a legitimate competitor to full frame cameras? Let’s dive into the details and find out.
Fujifilm GFX100 II Build, Handling, and Features
Everything about medium format is chunky if you’re accustomed to smaller formats. I was doing a concurrent lens review on my Sony a7RV body, and it felt like a toy when I went back and forth to it from the GFX100 II.
If you are unfamiliar with medium format and know Fuji more for X-mount, prepare to be shocked by how huge the mount size actually is. That opening to the sensor is massive – look at how much bigger it is than the APS-C sensor on the X-H2:
The inner mount diameter is 65mm, which is significantly larger than Fuji’s own APS-C X-mount (44mm), Sony E-mount (46.1mm), Canon’s RF (54mm), or Nikon’s Z mount (55mm). The front opening of lenses changes according to the focal length and aperture combination, but the rear diameter at the mount is consistent. This means that medium format lenses are going to be bigger than comparative Sony full frame lenses as a matter of course, because they start at nearly a 66% larger diameter. I used the GF 55mm F1.7 WR for this review, and it (like many shorter lenses for the system) is actually larger in diameter than it is in length…and noticeably more chunky at the lens mount.
What I found interesting, however, is when I put the camera in my wife’s hands. She has quite small hands, and I asked her how the camera felt. “It’s huge, isn’t it?”, I asked. She responded yes, but that it felt really good in the hands. That really sums up this body well. It is chunky and heavy (with typical setup – memory cards, battery, and viewfinder) it outweighs my Fujifilm X-H2 by over 400g, but the grip is so well executed that the camera feels good in the hands even if it is bigger than what most of us are accustomed to.
That new BISHAMON-TEX™ texture doesn’t just look great; it feels great in the hands, too. There’s a lot of grip to it, and Fuji has done a great job of implementing the curves and angles of the grips so it really just naturally fits in the hand. I personally didn’t love the body of the GFX100, as I found it unnecessarily large. It had the chunkiest grip of any camera I’ve used (the camera is 102.9mm/4.05″ deep), and while I have medium large hands, it felt just slightly uncomfortable – like I was having to stretch a bit. The depth of grip here isn’t radically different (98.6mm or 3.9″), but that little change along with the better executed contours of the grip add up to a much more comfortable grip. The body is roughly 152mm wide and 117.4mm tall (6 x 4.6″) and weighs a manageable 1030g with memory cards and battery inserted. This makes it visibly larger than the “S” bodies, but not radically so. The biggest difference is the height of the camera.
I would say the size is slightly larger than is my preference, but the great feel of the camera does help to offset that. The GFX100 II feels slightly more robust and professional grade than my other cameras (which include the aforementioned X-H2, Canon R5, and Sony Alpha 1 and a7RV bodies). The body is made of magnesium alloy, the preferred material for tough, professional grade cameras, and previous bodies have had 60-100 seal points in the body to make it highly weather resistant (I would expect this new flagship to be just slightly under the larger figure due to not having an integrated battery grip). Fuji utilizes the 2200Mah NP-W235 battery pack that is rated for 540 shots here or roughly an hour of 8K or 4K60 video recording. Getting a spare is always a good idea. You have different charging options including charging in camera.
On the right side there is a battery compartment where we find our first upgrade: in addition to the SD/SDHC/SDXC (UHS-II) card slot behind the door there is also a CFExpress Type B card. This is a very welcome upgrade, and is almost certainly in part responsible for the faster burst rate along with the much more robust video specs the GFX100 II sports.
The left side of the camera has the other ports, with the top section housing an ethernet port while the bottom compartment houses a USB-C port, full size HDMI jack (another improvement), along with a dual purpose 3.5mm headphone monitoring jack or remote release. The compartment doors feel good, though the ports on this side dangle instead of being hinged, making them a little fiddly to pop back into place.
Fuji cameras are typically known by their plethora of physical controls (particularly dials), so it is more than a little ironic that their flagship cameras (with so much large bodies) offer far fewer controls. Still, I found that there are some key improvements here that helped the camera work more ergonomically for me – though I had to get familiar with how the camera worked before appreciating that. The top plate along with the front section with the shutter have received a unique look that is very functional. Both sections are angled (the top plate with the LCD is tilted 11° to make it more visually accessible).
It’s a subtle change that you start to appreciate when you realize that the information on the top plate LCD is much easier to see. The “Sub-LCD” is bright and clear and retains a passive display when the camera is powered off. You have three options for the top display that you can cycle through by pushing the small button on the lower right. One imitates two dials, which shift depending on what mode you are in, a second simply shows histogram, and the third reorganizes the information and shows you a bit more on screen. Most changes are made via the front or rear dials. A button to the left of the screen will light up the top LCD if you are working in a dimly lit environment. The screen seems a bit bit larger and also has a new look that displays information more clearly.
Another positive addition is the inclusion of three custom buttons on the section that tilts forward towards the shutter. The two outer buttons are thicker on the outer angle, making them easy to distinguish from the flatter and flusher center button. One of these natively allows you to use the rear wheel to work for exposure compensation, as there is no dedicated exposure compensation wheel.
I would still like to see a third wheel on the back of the camera (Canon/Sony style) that could be assigned a function without having to use a button. Case in point: by default the front control wheel beneath the shutter button needs to be clicked in to switch between aperture control and ISO control in my typical mode (AV). It’s a little clunky when I just rotate the rear wheel on my Sony or Canon cameras to interact with ISO.
On the left side of the viewfinder are two other control points. One is a traditional mode dial though with a whopping 6 custom modes. I like both the many custom modes and also the mode dial; it remains an easy, logical way to navigate different camera modes. There is a locking button in the middle. There’s also a switch that allows you to go from stills to movie function (allowing you to have a custom setup for both modes).
The main LCD screen is a 3.2″ 2.36 million dot touchscreen that can tilt on two axis – this allows you to get some function even when shooting at odd angles and in portrait orientation. I still prefer a fully articulating screen, but Fuji has resisted the use of fully articulating screens in their medium format bodies. I was frustrated to find that the touch function has still not improved one bit from the day that I started testing Fuji cameras. Touch will allow for touch to focus and shoot, but menu navigation is limited to the Q (quick) menu; you cannot navigate the main menu via touch. There’s also a bit more lag than recent Canon or Sony bodies when you touch. I do find Fuji’s quick menus a little frustrating, too, as what intuitively feels like a click to select (on the joystick) saves the selection and closes the menu, which often necessitates my opening it again to make other selections.
This is the first implementation I’ve seen of a camera without a fully articulating screen that is also compatible with Fuji’s FAN-001 accessory. I did a quick video on the FAN-001 a few months ago, and the premise is that it clicks into the back of the camera via electric contacts and runs to actively cool the chassis of the camera. This allows for longer format recording at high bitrates without the camera overheating. It works a little better with a fully articulating screen for the simple reason that the screen can fully rotate out of the way (to the side), leaving the back of the camera free for the fan to attach. In this case the screen can only tilt, so if you move it all the way down, you can attach the fan, but you won’t be left with a very effective monitor.
It’s good that the fan is an option, obviously, but I don’t see this being a popular accessory on the GFX100 II because the somewhat odd implementation.
The back of the camera has the typical collection of buttons and the mini-joystick common to Fuji’s designs. The joystick feels nice and has a good texture. The control wheels on the front and back can also be clicked in for an additional function. I like the mode selector near the viewfinder that allows you to quickly move between Single Shot, Continuous AF, and Manual Focus along with the great implementation of the Q button.
The front of the camera sports dual programmable buttons, a flash sync port (don’t lose that little cover!) and the front control wheel. That texture continues to look awesome!
The removable 0.64″ viewfinder is a standout. You don’t have to attach it if you aren’t really a viewfinder person, but it would be a mistake to not use it. The viewfinder is MUCH more special than the LCD screen. It has a massive 9.44 million dots of resolution along with an amazing 1.0x magnification. It looks like a movie screen in there, and is more engaging than any viewfinder I’ve ever used. My Sony Alpha 1 has an identical resolution spec, but the two viewfinders just don’t compare. The viewfinder on the GFX100 II is just special. You can also utilize the ridiculously priced EVF-TL1 tilt adapter that allows you to use the viewfinder in an upright vertical position or even from side to side. You need to be $570 USD desperate for that privilege, though, so I suspect that this will only appeal to those who have gotten accustomed to shooting in this position in the past.
The GFX100 II body has truly impressive in-camera stabilization that is CIPA rated up to 8 stops. I was able to get very effective stability for handholding stills and video. I could really feel the camera stabilizing at low shutter speeds, and that led to nice steadiness and clean results. That is so incredibly useful on a uber high resolution body. This shot is at 1/3rd of a second (55mm):
I definitely preferred the physical design of the GFX100 II over the GFX100. The grip material is beautiful, the body feels very robust and well made, and there’s a few new ergonomic decisions that make it an easier camera to use than any of Fuji’s previous MF bodies. I still want that third wheel in the back, though, as I think it would help to making changes on the fly much more intuitive. All told, however, there are a lot of positive steps in the right direction here.
Autofocus Performance
Fuji’s goal has been to make a previously inaccessible format more “populist” by giving its medium format cameras autofocus performance that is close to what’s achievable on smaller formats. Every generation is to be “the one” where autofocus truly catches up, but there is of course the reality that this is a moving target. Autofocus development on the mirrorless front in smaller sensors has rapidly advanced over the past five years, and while this is easily the most accessible MF camera that Fujifilm has produced to date, it is still far removed from the top 35mm cameras. I’ve seen one reviewer claim that autofocus is as good as the Sony a7R5 (a camera that I own), but I suspect this person doesn’t have much experience with the a7R5. I ran some head to head tests, and even using an inexpensive Viltrox AF 28mm F1.8 that I happened to be testing at the same time, autofocus performance was faster, more confident, and more accurate for both stills and video than the GFX100 II. But let us lay aside these comparisons outside the system, as a more accurate snapshot of what is going on is a comparison with what has been happening on Fuji’s own smaller sensor cameras.
While we have a similar autofocus system to what we’ve had before (a hybrid contrast/phase detect system with 425 selectable AF points that are accessed in a manner very similar Fuji’s APS-C cameras), the core improvement here is through the processor. The X-Processor 5 adds AI tracking of a wide variety of subjects and a faster, more intuitive focus process. Autofocus performance isn’t quite at the level of my X-H2, but it isn’t far off. That’s huge, particularly when you consider that many medium format systems of the past had painfully slow autofocus systems that could have as few as 1 autofocus point! This shot of Nala (processed with the ETERNA film simulation) shows the beautiful precision of the autofocus, though I will note that focus is on the eyelid rather than the iris (something I’ve regularly observed in the past on these cameras as well).
Autofocus is generally fairly bulletproof for grabbing the eye area now, but if depth of field is very thin (as in the shot below), you’ll see that the focus is almost always on the eyelash or lid rather than the iris.
This comparison of a few shots of Nala shows the difference between that front focused result and a (unfortunately) rare accurately focused result:
My experience is that the slightly front focused result is the more typical result.
With a little more depth of field, however, I found Eye AF to be very accurate at a variety of focus distances. I shot through obstructions and at varying angles, and autofocus was quick and accurate with the 55mm F1.7.
What’s more, autofocus seems to be improved in the margins as well.
This photo of a golfing buddy shows how that focus accurately focused on his eye though shooting in a strongly backlit situation.
Autofocus also locked on accurately even when shooting in extremely dim conditions – like this bookshelf basically in the dark. I got a 1/40th of second shutter speed shooting at ISO 12,800 and using an F1.7 lens (the fastest maximum aperture currently available on the system).
Autofocus slows down, obviously, but not in an extreme way.
This shot is the only one that I had to resort to manual focus for, and it was largely because I was shooting a narrow backlit subject. Autofocus didn’t want to come close (kept focusing on the background), so I used manual focus to nail the shot.
This shot was arguably more difficult, and, while I got a few pulses, autofocus really nailed the shot.
Autofocus also worked well for landscape shots or shots with larger depth of field:
So, by and large, I had very good focus results with still subjects.
Fuji is touting the GFX100 II as being a more capable action camera, too. This remains a work in progress in some ways, and a genuine improvement in others. I also had zero success with trying to get shots of Nala even slowly walking around. If she was moving towards the camera my results were invariably back-focused. It takes both a responsive camera and responsive lens to thrive in that kind of environment.
But things were much better when I had my son shoot some layups for me. Tracking immediately picked up his face and followed it successfully throughout the movement and follow through. Not every frame is perfectly focused (most misses come about 3-4 shots into the sequence for some reason), but I also didn’t see any big swings to front or back focus. I would estimate about 80% of the shots were well focused.
So no, that’s not Sony a7RV level of performance, but it is pretty fantastic for medium format…and when you consider that each file is 102MP!
And, on that note, another core improvement is to the burst rate and buffer depth. The original GFX100 would allow for up to 5 frames per second of burst, but the buffer depth was only 14 RAW images or 41 frames of JPEGS. The GFX100 II can shoot up to 8 FPS with the mechanical shutter, and, depending on your file choice, you can have near unlimited buffer depth. The absolute worst figure with uncompressed RAW is 76 frame, but if you switch even to a lossless compressed RAW (my personal format of choice), that figure jumps to 302 frames. JPEGs are unlimited. If you switch to the 35mm mode and shoot with a crop and the electronic shutter, you can get as high as 8.7 FPS and have unlimited buffer depth other than uncompressed RAWs (260 frames). Here’s a detailed breakdown of the various choices:
That’s unprecedented in a camera like this. I’m not sure who would be choosing medium format for high speed recording, but it also is a logical step towards make Fuji’s medium format a credible alternative to full frame.
There is definitely some blackout between shots, though you can choose a 5.3FPS blackout free option (using the electronic shutter is required) and you can also get faster blackout free bursts when using the 35mm (full frame) modes. This is definitely an improvement for action work, though I doubt we’ll see medium format cameras replacing full frame bodies on the sidelines of sporting events anytime soon!
The GFX100 II is a bit of a video powerhouse (more on that in a moment), but I saw a bit of a mixed bag when testing video autofocus. Focus pulls were relatively fast and smooth for medium format. I also saw less obvious stepping. But what I also saw was a frequent lack of confidence in locking focus. There were a few focus pulses and sometimes focus never transitioned properly to the new subject. In real world shooting I also saw some hunting and pulsing in landscape scenes, though most were okay.
My hand test was fairly successful, and while focus transitions were slow enough that sometimes I had started the next movement before it arrived there, a few of the cycles were accurate and smooth. My experience with Fuji’s current state of autofocus across its cameras is that the AF system works best when a trackable subject is in the frame.
I wouldn’t characterize the AF as quite as good as the X-H2 or X-H2S, but it’s close. There isn’t much of a gap between the AF in Fuji’s large and small sensor cameras now, and that’s huge progress.
Video Performance
I’ve never included a dedicated video section in a GFX review before as it wasn’t really warranted, but Fuji has really gone all in on the video side of things with the GFX100 II. The improvements include autofocus improvements (that same AI tracking is available in both video and stills), formats and resolutions (up to 8K30 or 4K60), a new film simulation (REALA ACE), and even a wide variety of framing options. Worth noting is that now a baseline ISO of 100 can be used for video recording. Since we’ve already discussed the pros and cons of video autofocus, let’s move on to the formats and resolutions. Here’s a look at the many options available here:
That’s a long list of formats and bitrate options. We’ve got 8K options in either 17:9, 16:9, or 2.76:1 framing with bitrates as high as 720Mbps or as little as 50Mbps, though the framerate is limited to 24P in the 17:9 or 2.76:1 framing. Note that the 8K options come at a significant 1.53 crop factor:
There are some varied formats in between 8K and 4K, but 4K arrives with fully featured 17:9 and 16:9 framing – up to 60P and with the full sensor recording.
We’ve also got some internal options for Apple ProRes codecs along with H.265 and H.624 options, though the ProRes codec will require the use of the CFexpress Type B card for recording.
Internal recording is limited to 10 bit, but the GFX100 II also has the ability to output 12 bit options via HDMI. Fuji says, “Combined with a compatible ATOMOS HDMI device, RAW video output from GFX100 II can be recorded as 12-bit Apple ProRes RAW at resolutions up to 8K and frame rates up to 29.97fps. With Blackmagic Design Video Assist 12G HDRs, RAW video output from the camera can be recorded as Blackmagic RAW at resolutions up to 8K and frame rates up to 29.97fps.”
Another interesting addition is the ability to record directly to an external SSD via the USB-C port. You can record both still and video directly to that external drive, which is a feature I’ve not really seen implemented elsewhere.
Very interesting is that the GFX100 II is purpose designed around the use of lenses other than GF mount for video recording. There is the GF format, Fuji’s “Premista” cine lens crop, 35mm crop mode, and even a squeezed anamorphic mode. There are different crop options available for each of these formats:
The various squeeze ratios supported by the camera are: 2x, 1.8x, 1.5x, 1.33x and 1.3x. It is very interesting to have the option of using so many different types of lenses (though obviously with adapters) for video work.
Also included is Fuji’s F-Log2 option for advanced editing capabilities. Fuji claims more than 14 stops of dynamic range is potentially available with F-Log2. Fuji has also included waveforms and vectorscopes for more advanced monitoring of colors and exposure during video capture.
Don’t forget the up to 8 stops of stabilization through the very effective IBIS system in camera. In short, there is a lot here for video recording. I’m left to wonder if there was a lot of clamoring for this on medium format, as traditionally this has been more the domain of portrait and landscape photographers. But “hybrid” is the name of the game these days, and Fuji is once again out to prove that their larger format can do everything that 35mm (full frame) can. Time will tell if there is actually a market for this side of things. I’m sure Fuji hopes that there is in fact a whole new market that will open up because of the video side of things.
GFX100 II Image Quality Breakdown
On paper the sensor looks to be the same as previous 102MPM models, but Fuji assures us that the 43.8mm×32.9mm GFX 102MP CMOS II HS sensor here is all new.
We’ve got a massive 11648 x 8736 pixels in 4:3 crop mode, and Fuji provides a variety of other framing options in camera (though it’s worth noting that RAW images will still show up as the full resolution 4:3 files). The amount of detail that a camera like this can generate is just staggering, and the extremely high resolution means that you have near unlimited potential for cropping, be it a portrait:
…or a landscape scene:
Files are going to be big, obviously, though you have considerable control over that that. You can choose Uncompressed RAW files in either 16 or 14 bit (around 200MB, with 16 bit only slightly larger), Lossless Compressed RAW in 16 bit (near 120MB) or 14 bit (92MB), or Compressed RAW at 69MB (16 bit) or 60MB (14 bit). JPEGs are around 43MB or slightly smaller depending upon the quality you choose. You also have the ability to choose DCF, HEIF, or TIFF formats.
The sweet spot for me is the Lossless RAW files, which are indistinguishable from the Uncompressed RAW files. It’s called “Lossless” for a reason. I dare you to spot the difference between the two here:
I also saw only a very minor difference in contrast when comparing 16 bit lossless (left side) with 14 bit lossless (right side):
You can save a little more file space by choosing the Lossless 14 bit option and still get very near maximum performance.
I’ve always preferred Fuji’s 100MP sensors to the 50MP sensors, as the huge resolution numbers match the larger format better in my mind. The end results (which are the real reason to choose medium format) just feel more special. In my photographer career to this point these sensors are the pinnacle of what I’ve personally used in terms of image quality. Images are just…special.
A larger sensor area means that pixels themselves are larger, which, in theory, allows for less noise, better dynamic range, and smoother transitions. I’ve always favored full frame sensors over APS-C for that reason, and Fuji’s “medium-format-lite” sensor takes that further still, though the difference between full frame and the 0.79x crop of Fuji’s medium format isn’t as pronounced as the difference in sensor size between full frame and APS-C. But consider this: Fuji’s medium format sensor size is roughly 4x larger than the surface area of their APS-C sensor, so there is a huge difference between those two extremes. What we will find is that this adds up to better ISO performance, better dynamic range, and also better colors and overall tonality to images.
ISO Performance
A major change here is that the base ISO is now 80 rather than 100 with the new sensor. That’s interesting to me, as it not only allows for lower noise and even higher dynamic range, but it also opens up Fuji’s DR200 and DR400 modes faster as well (IS0 160/320 rather than 200/400), meaning that there will be less noise in the shadows when using those modes. Fuji tends to be a little overly conservative with their native ISO ranges in their cameras according to my tests. What we will find is that the GFX100 II is completely usable at the end of the native ISO range of 12,800 (which is actually a little higher than typical due to the ISO range starting lower). I think this monochrome looks awesome – clean and bright despite being shot in natural light at ISO 12,800:
The pixel pitch of the GFX-100 II is 3.76 microns, identical to the pixel pitch/density of the 62 MP Sony a7RV full frame sensor and the 26Mp APS-C sensors on Fuji’s 26MP APS-C sensors. A high number of pixels creates more visible noise, which on the Canon EOS 5DsR meant that by its ISO limit of 6400 it was a noisy mess. That’s clearly not the case here.
Here’s a look at the “still life” setup that I use for these tests and that crops will be displayed from:
There is only a minor uptick in visible noise and minimal loss of contrast at ISO 1250 (5 stops) when compared to base ISO.
Moving up several more stops brings us to ISO 5000, and you can see that while there is very slightly more pattern noise, the results look largely the same:
There’s some very mild inconsistency of pixel luminosity in the shadow areas, so contrast isn’t quite as high, but as you can
Going up another stop and a third to the native maximum value of 12,800 results in slightly rougher noise, but nothing significant.
You can see the shadows are raised a bit more, but things continue to look pretty clean overall. I actually really like the look of ISO 12,800 images in one of Fuji’s monochrome simulations. Images have a very film-like feel to them.
While I haven’t shown examples here, the expanded ISO range goes as low as ISO40 and as high as ISO 102400. Within the native range (80-12,800) there isn’t a value that I would personally hesitate to use, which is very impressive considering this is a 102MP camera! This is a camera that performs even in very low light conditions.
Dynamic Range
As of the date of my review, photonstophotos.com has not yet tested the GFX100 II’s sensor for dynamic range, but previous GFX100 models (including the GFX100S) the GFX-100 typically run about a half stop better than the best full frame sensors for dynamic range (right under 12.5 stops). As with all Fuji cameras, you can actually improve this by using their DR200 and DR400 settings, which we’ll detail in just a moment.
Good dynamic range gives you tremendous flexibility for processing images. In the case below, a very strong backlighting meant that I had to choose between exposing for my subject or for the background. I chose the background, and then used the AI masking feature in Lightroom to grab my subject and increase the exposure and shadow recovery on him. The end result is nice and clean.
In this second example, you can see that I’ve both raised the shadows to uncover information there along with reducing highlights too allow the colors and details of the sky to emerge. I’m sure you can agree that the end result looks extremely nice.
Fujifilm has given us a lower base ISO in this new camera, so there should be just a little extra dynamic range available at ISO 80 vs the base ISO 0f 100 for previous cameras. In my particular tests, I establish a base line exposure at ISO 80 (1/9th of a second here), and then test in both directions by over or underexposing and then recovering the image in post. Eventually you reach a limit of how far the camera can go and still successfully recover the image.
When it comes to the shadows, that limit extends pretty far. I underexposed until my test subjects pretty much disappeared, but when I added that light back in post, the image popped right back out (recovered image on right):
Even zooming in 100% we can see that everything remains perfectly clean. The shadows are deep, the colors are neutral, and there is good contrast in the recovered textures. Very impressive.
You couldn’t ask for more than that. That means that you’ll have very few practical limits for recovering shadow information. Here’s another image where I’ve gotten a lot of information back from some shadowed areas in this image:
Definitely useful.
How about highlights? I find the overexposure limit is between 2 and 3 stops. In the comparison below you can see that the 2 stop recovery on the left is nice and clean, but if you look at the right side (3 stops) you’ll find that color information has been lost from the swatches and that some of the texture information has been blown out and is unrecoverable.
The image on the right is typically not going to be usable, so you’ll want to avoid that degree of overexposure. If you want more latitude in the highlights you can either underexpose a bit (shadows are easy to recover), or you can utilize Fuji’s DR200 and DR400 modes. If you shoot at a slightly higher ISO value (160), you can choose the DR200 mode, or at ISO 320 you can choose the DR400 mode. In DR200, camera will use electronic trickery to sample the shadow and midtone data from the current ISO setting (160+) while using the base ISO’s highlights, giving you an additional stop of DR. In DR400 the process is further exaggerated as the camera can then sample the highlights from two stops down, giving you two additional stops of DR. Using the DR200 technique, that same 3 stop shadow recovery that was unusable before looks considerably better:
Moving on to ISO 320 unlocks the DR400 mode. While the DR200 and DR400 results look similar on a global level, punching in to 100% shows that some of the texture information that was blown out in the DR200 result is visible in the DR400 result.
It also means that you could push into the 4 stop of overexposure range and get a similar result to our 2-stop overexposure at base DR results.
I always note that more dynamic range doesn’t always equal better images. Sometimes leaving a little mystery in the shadows adds a lot to an image, and often a blown out light coming through a window is preferable to seeing what’s outside.
Color
Fuji’s medium format cameras have long been a great platform for gorgeous colors, and that’s definitely true here. The larger pixels result in more gradations and subtleties in images, and images are just special.
Portrait colors are just so rich:
Pair that big sensor with a large aperture lens like the 55mm F1.7 lens that I used for this review and background will just melt away:
Medium format comes with tradeoffs (gear is large and expensive), but when you are processing and reviewing images taken with a camera like the GFX100 II, you can’t help but wonder, “What if?” It’s special. Check out more images in the image gallery for the 55mm F1.7 to see more examples.
Conclusion
The Fujifilm GFX100 II goes a long way towards fulfilling Fuji’s goal of making medium format as accessible as their smaller format cameras. The GFX100 II is a beautiful camera with a truly gorgeous grip/wrap that makes me instantly wish all of my cameras had it. There are still places where the ergonomics and autofocus don’t measure up to the best full frame cameras, but that is counterbalanced by image quality that those same cameras can’t measure up to.
The GFX100 II is also designed to be a video powerhouse, which is an interesting twist. Time will tell if Fuji read the room accurately and that this is what the market was looking for. This is certainly the best hybrid larger sensor camera that we have seen with an arguably more robust feature set for video that what it boasts for stills.
Medium format remains out of reach for many photographers, but the GFX100 II does something rare in that the newer model at $7500 is considerably cheaper than the model it replaces ($10,000). Yes, the former camera has an integrated vertical grip, but you could spend the $500 for the grip from the GFX100 II and still pocket $2000. It’s hard to call a $7500 camera a bargain, but everything is relative, and I appreciate that Fuji is doing what they can to make medium format more approachable…and affordable. The GFX100 II is easily the best medium format camera that Fuji has produced…is that enough to convince you to take the plunge?
*Final image processed with the new REALA ACE film simulation.
Pros:
The best image quality that I’ve ever seen
Incredible resolution
Excellent dynamic range
Strong high ISO performance despite all those pixels
Strong, durable body with good weather sealing
The highest rated IBIS system I’ve ever seen
Improved autofocus
Much deeper buffer depth
Improved burst rate
Excellent top screen
Viewfinder is fantastic
LOVE the new grip texture
Huge improvements to video
Cons:
Autofocus remains the weakest area…though improved.
Keywords: Fuji GFX 100 II, Fujifilm GFX100 II, GFX100 II, GFX 100 II, Fujifilm, Fujinon, Fujifilm GFX100S, Fujifilm GFX-50S II, Review, Fujinon, Fuji, GF, Medium Format, Fuji GFX100 II, GFX, 100 II, MF, Portrait, Bokeh, Sharpness, Resolution, Video Test, Sample Images, Real World, Comparison, review, Dustin Abbott, dustinabbott, letthelightin, DA, #fujifilm, #fuji, #GFX
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Those who are accustomed to smaller sensors are unlikely to be impressed with a maximum aperture of F1.7, but when you are talking larger medium format(ish) sensors like Fujifilm’s GFX line, this is a HUGE maximum aperture. This is only the second lens on the platform from Fuji with a maximum aperture this large, and in many ways it is an improvement on the 80mm F1.7 that I reviewed a few years ago. The new Fujinon GF 55mm F1.7 R WR is released alongside the very impressive Fujifilm GFX100 II flagship camera, and I had the opportunity to review them both at the same time (you can catch my review of the GFX100 II here). The new GF 55mm is an interesting focal length (roughly the full frame equivalent of 44mm), which provides a very flexible “normal” angle of view that I particularly enjoy. You can get my full thoughts on the lens in my video review below or by reading my text review.
Thanks to Fujifilm Canada for providing me a review loaner of the GFX100 II and the new GF 55mm F1.7 WR. As always, this is a completely independent review. All opinions and conclusions are my own.
I love this focal length for its versatility and very natural framing. It’s great for landscapes…
…for portraits…
…and, thanks to its reasonably close focus abilities and large aperture, the ability to beautifully blur out backgrounds in closer shots.
Here’s a quick rundown of some of the main new features of the GF 55mm:
Medium Format
44mm (Full-Frame Equivalent)
F1.7 aperture is the brightest on the system
DC Motor with GMR Sensor AF System
Rounded 11-Blade Diaphragm
2 x Aspherical, 2 x ED Elements
Weather-Sealed Design & Fluorine Coating
This is an excellent pairing for Fuji’s medium format bodies, providing great image quality, a solid build, and better autofocus than what we saw on the 80mm F1.7 lens. At $2300 USD, it isn’t cheap (the same price as the 80mm), but medium format in general is more about optical excellence than financial bargains. Despite the price I think this is one of the better options on the GFX platform and a great pairing for the GFX100 II (my review below):
Keywords: Fujinon GF 55mm F1.7 W RW, GF, 55mm, F1.7, R, WR, 55mm F1.7 Review, Fuji 55mm Review, Fuji GFX 100 II, Fujifilm GFX100 II, GFX100 II, Fujifilm, Fujinon, Fujifilm GFX100S, Fujifilm GFX-50S II, Review, Fuji, Medium Format, MF, Portrait, Bokeh, Sharpness, Resolution, Video Test, Sample Images, Real World, Comparison, review, Dustin Abbott, dustinabbott, letthelightin, DA, #fujifilm, #fuji, #GFX
DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Viltrox AF 35mm F1.2 LAB FE Gallery 
Viltrox AF 35mm F1.2 LAB FE Review 
llano 2-in-1 Dual Bay Camera Battery Charger Review 
Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena Gallery 
Nikkor Z 135mm F1.8 S Plena Review 
