Another tidbit, though, we can add today, is that the Fujinon GF35-70mm f/4.5-5.6 will weight less than half than the one Fujinon G mount lens I own and I am totally in love with as it is a prime lens that can zoom: the Fujinon GF32-64mmF4 R LM WR (which weights 875g).
I see what Fujifilm is trying to do here.
I mean, how the heck can any zoom lens compete with the stellar GF32-64?
If you can’t beat it in terms of image quality, then beat it in almost everything else: make it much smaller, much lighter and much more affordable, and it will have a chance to carve out its niche among Fujifilm GFX shooters.
I personally will stick with the Fujinon GF32-64mmF4. Mainly because I already own it, and because I used it on a 6 hours hike recently. I packed with my GFX100S in my small Camslinger Outdoor bag (yep, it still fits in that small bag !!) and hiked no problem with it.
So for now I don’t see the need for the GF35-70mmF4.5-5.6, although having such a light and compact G mount zoom would certainly be a temptation for those looking to make their GFX system as portable as it gets, maybe in combination with the super small GF50mmF3.5 prime.
Now also Christopher Frost made the very same comparison, but will he also get to the same conclusions?
all very similar build quality. All made of metal
all focus rings are precise enough for accurate focusing at f/0.95, although the Laowa turns round further, which can be helpful
all manual focus, no IBIS, no EXIF transmitted to camera
the Laowa Argus is bigger and heavier than the other two lenses
at f/0.95 all three lenses are surprisingly sharp in the middle, but none of them has impressive contrast
at f/0.95 the 7Artisans shows quite strong color cast and some magenta color fringing
at f/0.95 the Mitakon as some purple fringing
at f/0.95 the Laowa Argus shows a bit less color fringing than the other two
in the corners the Mitakon is by far the softest followed by the 7Artisans while the Venus Optics Laowa lens remains surprisingly sharp
at f/1.4 all lenses remain sharp as before in the corners, while in the middle they gain a lot of contrast and look a little sharper than before with the Laowa Argus being still noticeably ahead of the other two
at f/2 all three lenses look virtually perfect in the center. In the corners the situation is the same as in the wide apertures
at f/4 all three lenses enjoy a nice improvement in corner sharpness with the Laowa being ahead of the others
af f/11 diffraction kicks in
vignetting and distortion: all three lenses have a remarkably similar performance. They show just a little barrel distortion af f/0.95
the Mitakon seems to show the least vignetting at f/0.95 and the Laowa Argus the most
at f/2 the vignetting is gone on the 7Artisans and Mitakon, but it remains a bit on the Laowa
close up focus at f/0.95: Mitakon is the softest, the 7Artisans is sharp but with terrible contrast, the Laowa is pretty sharp with a bit of color fringing
at f/1.4 the Mitakon begins to look sharper and the 7Artisans gains contrast, and the Laowa looks the sharpest
af f/2 all gain sharpness, although the 7Artisans still suffers from lower contrast
against bright light sources, they all show tons of intrusive flare with the Mitakon looking a bit worse than the others
Bokeh: on the 7Artisans is fine but can be a bit nervous and also show a little colorful outlining. Background bokeh on Mitakon and Laowa is exceptionally soft and smooth. The Mitakon suffers a bit of longitudinal chromatic aberration.
Conclusions:
7Artisans typical low budget model that can give some gorgeous narrow depth of field image
the Mitakon is more expensive than the 7Artisans. He liked it a lot when it came out, but it’s the oldest of the three and now shows its age
if you want to spend more for the lens than for the 7Artisans, go for the Laowa, as it is sharper and better in every way over the Mitakon, except for vignetting
Loading ...