As I have alluded to in a burst of recent posts, I am planning to generate a small database of lenses for use on the Fujifilm GFX series. Here's my chance for an introduction to give my rationale and to lay the foundation of this endeavor. I'd like to break this down into three "Y's." Let's begin with a personal "why": I'm choosing to use Sigma lenses to obtain focal lengths and apertures not currently offered in the GF lens lineup. Fujifilm's lineup is sparse at best, and apertures wider than ƒ/2 aren't represented. It's not that I'm a bokeh whore; it's that I need more light gathering for astrophotography and Fujifilm's widest lens, a 23mm, has a maximum aperture of ƒ/4 and that's just not going to work without a star tracker due to the sensor's 51MP resolution. I'm hoping to print a few of these so what counts for "sharp" on the web doesn't work at 20" print sizes. Other benefits: 35mm lenses are much cheaper, especially used prices, and these lenses mostly have direct focusing units unlike the "fly by wire" systems used on Fujifilm lenses. The GFX system just isn't mature enough to have grown both a complete lens lineup or a diverse used lens market.
There's a certain couple on Youtube that talks a lot about photography and tends to harp on the value of education also pushes their "free" photography education courses online. You may even begin to believe some of their rhetoric or have heard some of their misinformation floating around. Mind you, much of the technical information they love to claim they're proficient in and knowledgeable about is shit. They'll contradict themselves within the span of 5 minutes. One example is their belief that "professional" lenses on a smaller sensor, like APS-C, will perform worse in sharpness because said lens isn't tuned for the sensor size, yet will then claim that some lenses on 35mm are so sharp, you get the ability to crop the image in closer than other lenses. Realize that these two things are a contradiction and a sharper lens will never give a sensor of fixed resolution higher resolution, perceived or otherwise. How do I know this? Simple physics and geometry. Let me explain:
Oh, you're an "enthusiast," "professional," or talking face on YouTube? This camera wasn't designed for you. It was designed for the audience you spew your crap opinions at, like, "pros only shoot full frame and just because you don't get paid doesn't mean you're not a pro-level shooter. You need full frame if you want to be a pro." Well, now all of your viewers who have no technical reason to shoot with a 35mm camera now have a 35mm option with the price and features commensurate with an entry-level product.
Fujifilm proudly declared they would not be going with a 35mm sensor size in the future, for one, believing that it's a bit redundant since they currently cover APS-C and cropped medium format. There are significant benefits to both formats: the former covers a Super35 area and is currently fast enough for excellent video capabilities that consumer level 35mm cameras are currently unable to match, while medium format has a level of detail and low light capability that exceeds all current 35mm format sensors.
This lens was once an excellent value from the inception of the X-Series system until now. Unfortunately due to Fujifilm's push to dominate in video, the introduction of the ƒ/2 lens, and the announcement of the 33mm ƒ/1, the 35mm ƒ/1.4 has lost all reason to exist in its current form. A complete redesign, implementing these features, could create a lens that outsells all of their other lenses by appealing to the widest range of users and without having to compromise.
Nikon recently released their first full frame mirrorless cameras, the Z6 and Z7, and it seems all of the professional and "professional" photographers on the internets are having a meltdown because it doesn't have, amongst other things, dual card slots. Well, news flash, Nikon didn't design these cameras for you. I know, weird, isn't it?