Rumored Fuji GFX 50S camera and Fujinon GF lenses pricing


FujiAddict.com just reported the rumored Fuji GFX 50S camera (see specs) and GF lenses pricing in USD:

  • Fuji GFX 50S body only incl. EVF: $6,499 (B&H listing)
  • Fujinon GF 32-64mm f/4 lens: between $2,299-2,399
  • Fujinon GF 63mm f/2.8 lens: $1,499
  • Fujinon GF 120mm f/4 macro lens: between $2,599-2,699

Shipping will start at the end of February. The official announcement should be in the next few weeks. Other lenses will ship at the end of June (see full list of GF lenses here, pictures of the lenses can be found here).

Check also the new Fuji GFX group and Fuji GFX page on Facebook.

Via FujiAddict

This entry was posted in Fuji and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • sperdynamite

    Who cares!? Ektachrome is back! Rejoice!

    • Brennan McKissick

      This.

    • Jeffry De Meyer

      I remember wasting time in the darkroom spending a small fortune on film chemicals and paper.
      I have a hard time understanding why anyone would be happy about that

      • sperdynamite

        Why do people sail? Ride horses? Listen to vinyl? Paint? Put on stage shows? Wear non-digital or non-smart watches? Many people have spent a small fortune of some pretty crappy digital cameras, computers, printers. Why does anyone do anything!? Because they choose to. Personally I spend enough time at my computer during my day job. Developing a roll of film at home is quite relaxing and rewarding.

        • I think Jeffry was talking from the viewpoint of professionals and I agree with him in that sense. Now for amateurs, you are absolutely right.

          • sperdynamite

            Maybe professionals aren’t shooting press and your average product shot on film but actually a huge number of professionals shoot at least SOME film. You find huge numbers of film shooters in editorial, fashion, portrait, and even weddings. Jose Villa is one of the most successful wedding photographers in the world and he is shooting 100% film on Contax 645s among other cams. So yes, pros shoot film, amateurs shoot film, anyone who wants to shoot film shoots film. Is it 1992 and millions of rolls are going out to every mom and dad on vacation? No, I’m under no illusions about that. But it’s also not 2002 when photographers were selling their Hasselblad’s for Canon D60s and embracing the dream of 6 megapixels.

          • tornwald

            Agreed. I know many professionals who shoot mostly or ONLY on film. And not only in the photobusiness, but also in the motion picture world some of the greatest living filmmakers such as Hou Hsiao Hsien, Tarantino, P.T. Anderson, Bela Tarr and most famously perhaps, Christopher Nolan. And they all do this for understandable reasons to quote Nolan: It’s cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable.
            I think he is totaly right.

          • Right. Film is not dead. But where one cannot deny that digital works better for pros who do not want to take any risk with their work. And film users’ graph is not going to go up or stay there.

          • tornwald

            “But where one cannot deny that digital works better for pros who do not want to take any risk with their work.”
            How so?

            “And film users’ graph is not going to go up or stay there.”
            You have a crystal ball?

          • # You can see what you have shot. Polaroids are inefficient and expensive.
            Less steps for work to get messed up( processing and printing. (And of course film issues)
            As for film users graph, (for pro work) think again!

          • tornwald

            Bollocks.

            “You can see what you have shot.”
            A professional knows what he has shot.

            “Polaroids are inefficient and expensive.”
            Polaroids are very efficient and fast to determine a final shot and not expensive in the total framework of a project.

            “Less steps for work to get messed up( processing and printing. (And of course film issues)”
            This makes no sense at all, like I said before film is extremely reliable, much more then digital.
            Professionals choose to use film for the obvious reasons I stated. Now, and for a long time to come.

  • Brennan McKissick

    Called it. $8k with a lens.

    • Banan Tarr

      I feel like anyone who wanted a MF system at this price point is already walking around with a 645Z which is the same price, has the same size sensor, and already has a more robust lens line-up.

      As long as MF is going to cost two or more times as much as FF then I’m sticking with FF. Pretty sure a lot of other photographers would say the same.

      • Brennan McKissick

        The 645Z is large and don’t underestimate the buying power of the Fuji fan base and the wealthy amateur market. People are walking around with Leica SL kits that cost more than this. Also, once you start talking about $5k-$6k for a basic kit, convincing someone to go $2000 further isn’t a big stretch.

        • Banan Tarr

          Well I guess we’ll see. I for one don’t expect Fuji to move a massive number of these. The “wealthy amateur market” isn’t exactly a huge demographic. What I was hoping to see is something that could help move MF into more mainstream availability. That’s not what this is.

          • Brennan McKissick

            It’s actually a very large demographic.

          • It is, but what wealthy amateurs purchase is the real question. I know quite a few. Many go way upscale, toward Leica, for instance. Some collect every top-flight camera out there. Others invest heavily into camera modifications.

            Will this Fuji capture their imagination? If so, I expect that cohort to do a lot for this camera. It is an interesting camera. I’d have preferred if the sensor was removable, but I’m only one voice.

      • i just got a d800e for 1k on amazon and got it today. im happy.

      • Brennan McKissick

        And also, the one uppers. The Sony A7RII fan base also likes to brag about their 42mp and by the time you add in the cost of a 50/1.4 you’re at close to $5000. Not to mention the other lenses they may or may not have.

        Another thing, there’s a lot of people shooting MF who have legacy lenses who would love to stick these on a smaller body than the 645Z. The Fuji will give third party manufacturers more room with adapters I feel like as well simply because they are a more popular brand that will draw attention like the Pentax can’t.

        • abortabort

          And that Sony kit has approximately 1 1/3 stops more light gathering with fractionally less resolution. Has IS, shoots 4K video, can track a moving subject and has more lens options.

          • But not the same look.

          • abortabort

            What ‘same look’? What you think a 65mm f2.8 is going to have a drastically ‘better’ look than a 50mm f1.4? People are sooo gullible.

          • First of all I didn’t see the 50/1.4 reference. So yes the bokeh would certainly be more than adequate. Secondly when one says look, it is not only the bokeh that one is talking about. But to be fair, I wouldn’t be able to speak about recent MF cams. They have CMOS sensors. That may make some difference compared to the earlier CCD sensors.

          • abortabort

            Will certainly agree with you that CCDs has a certain look. Shoot CCD about as often as I can.

          • 44×33 doesn’t have that MF look either.

          • It does. Tonal gradients are smoother than the best 35mm digital, just not by leaps and bounds.

          • Brennan McKissick

            Doesn’t matter, all the one uppers will just want to say it’s medium format and therefore “better.”

  • silmasan

    Come on… you’ll want faster lens than those… w/ native AF of course!

    • hje

      63mm f/2.8 is fast enough for this sensor size. I like it.

      • abortabort

        32-64mm + 110mm is all I would need.

      • silmasan

        135mm f/2 vs ~180mm f/2.8
        105mm f/1.4 vs ~140mm f/2
        85mm f/1.4 vs 110mm f/2
        50mm f/1.4 vs 65mm f/1.8 (or at least f/2)
        35mm f/1.4 vs 45mm f/1.8 (or at least f/2)

        Lenses like 100mm f/2.8, 110mm f/2 are legendary in the medium format world, and yet those are made for 6×7 or 6×6, so you can clearly see the DoF advantage and the unique “look” that MF was so famous for.

        These new gen (crop sensor) MF mirrorless are no doubt appealing to a lot of users, but on the whole they still don’t give that much advantage to modern 35mm systems.

        • hje

          thank you for that comprehensive reply.

          I did shoot medium format 6×7 before i switched to dslr. I’m currently very happy with my d810 setup.
          So I need to admit, you’re right. 🙂

        • As small as the difference to FF appears to be, the difference in output to FF even at crop 1,3 like this sensor, is stunning. That goes for low light hi-ISO and softer colour transitions.

          I’ve been incredibly surprised by the CFV-50c, though I prefer using the CFV-50 in studio.

    • sperdynamite

      Well they have the fastest lenses currently available in the digital medium format mirrorless segment. But yes a 65/2 would be a dream lens. Plenty of time going forward to make that happen.

      • silmasan

        And approximately 110 f/2 and 180 f/2.8. Though honestly I think they’re aiming for compact size with this system, so it may not happen.

        Still, the availability of modern stellar fast lenses for 35mm cannot be underestimated.

      • … they have only one competitor, and that competitor’s designs are slower only because their shutters are inside the lenses.

        A fairer comparison would be with regular old medium format, in which case, they have no real speed advantage.

        • sperdynamite

          How do you figure? The only system with faster lenses in more categories would maybe be the Leica S, they have a 70/2.4. Fuji does have a 110/2, just like the Leica 100/2, Hassy 100/2.2. Plus they’re half the price or less than these systems. Seems like a highly competitive option to me.

  • Mr B

    Is this not rather cheaper than originally mooted? Very interesting.

    • kind of cheaper – they said body + lens under $10k

      • $8000 is not necessarily cheaper than “under $10k”
        Technically $8000 could be considered “under $10k”

        • That is true, I was thinking the pricing would be above $9k.

          • paige4o4

            Yeah, I was expecting a $9,500 price tag ($8.5k body + $1k lens). $6500 for body only sounds like an amazing deal. And since its mirrorless you can probably adapt 3rd party 645 SLR lenses if you need really cheap glass.

    • The body may be cheaper but introducing a new body and mount that is a little bit bigger than full frame and is only 50 MP, would be tough for me to justify because I would also have to buy a new set of lenses. It’s not a matter of price but how many different, incompatible bodies and lenses can I use. A 50 MP, full frame, mirrorless body in Nikon F-mount would be a different case.

  • Cesar Sales

    I’d rather kick in 2k more and get a refurbed Phase One system: larger sensor, tested lenses and hardware, Capture One support – what’s not to love?

    • CHD

      Larger sensor yes…but I wouldn’t knock the Fuji lenses. Fuji made Hassy lenses for years and their own X series lenses are mostly all stellar.

      • raziel28

        And not to mention their cinema lenses… Really high end products. Which bigger sensor? 100mp or 80mp? 60mp is outdated now.
        Regards

        • Their cinema lenses are amazing. But hitherto MF lenses and X lenses are pretty much even between good, bad, and great designs.

          The GX680 system lenses are the only ones that almost uniformly performed up to expectations across the board.

    • Have a direct link to such system? I wanna see.

      • Cesar Sales

        It’s on their website under certified pre-owned. As with all their equipment you have to purchase through an official vendor, so there’s not a list.

  • Cynog

    That price has got my attention. Now, I’m hoping that someone makes an adapter for Bronica 6×45 lenses, then I’m definitely in.

  • tornwald

    If true, that would be a bad move from Fuji imo. It is to expensive.
    If they price it around 5 to 6000 max with a lens, then they have someting serious strirring up here. 8000 is more than the Pentax 645z, which can be had for 6000 with a kit lens. If Fuji can come under that price, with a mirrorless system (and that should be totaly possible) then there are a lot of 35 mm shooters with top lenses that are willing to take the jump to medium format.

    When someone who is looking for maximum image quality and is able to afford a top DSLR with Otus lenses, they would be mad to choose a 35 mm system instead of what Fuji now has to offer. With 8000 dollars, the gap is to wide to make the jump for many. Canikon could be in serious trouble, unwilling to innovate for years now.
    There is still time for Fuji before the official announcement though 🙂

    • CHD

      $6500 for a brand new medium format digital and you think it’s ‘too expensive’. Some people are never happy…

      • tornwald

        6500 for a mirrorless camera with a sensor that has been out for a few years and where Pentax offers a medium format camera for less than that WITH a lens and WITH a high quality, big optical finder which is more expensive to build then an EVF.
        Yeah, I am not happy with that price indeed.

        You see, you are missing the point here.
        Fuji has a big opportunity to realy stir up the premium DSLR market that has stagnated who for years are not and is not willing to innovate. (Canon and Nikon)
        Sony is already a competitor in that segment, innovating at a high pace, but so far has failed to build a professional camera that is reliable and practical.
        If Fuji gets close to the price of say, a D810 with an Otus, that means they can potentially mix up the market and sell a lot of these, thus building a foundation for a new camera lineup next to their X-line.

        • decentrist

          wtf have you been drinking?

          • tornwald

            Elaborate?

          • decentrist

            where do I begin? Fuji has leapfrogged FX.. D810 with an Otus wtf Sony? competitor? Sony is horrible as a system..their cameras are weak and they iterate fast because they keep getting it wrong..Fuji is more nimble than any maker out there currently

          • tornwald

            Have you read what I wrote? We are exactly on the same page. Only difference I mentioned is that Sony had been competition for Canikon because they do innovate and they do sell a lot of camera’s.

          • decentrist

            Sorry for the mixup, but Sony is just flat out a waste. They have zero support regarding Precision camera…end of story

        • CHD

          The Pentax 645Z is $7k for just the body…..so what are you talking about.

          • tornwald

            “Pentax offers a medium format camera for less than that WITH a lens and
            WITH a high quality, big optical finder which is more expensive to build
            then an EVF.”

            As you can read, I made a comparison of production costs, not personal preference.
            As for the Fuji lenses being probably superior to the Pentax offerings, I agree. That is why I brought up the 35mm shooter up with Otus lenses example as possible direct competition, but ONLY if Fuji prices the GFX more competitive than the rumor now suggests.

            Where I am at, the Pentax 645Z is 6K, with kit lens.

          • paige4o4

            > Where I am at, the Pentax 645Z is 6K, with kit lens.

            That must be where the confusion is, because in the USA, the 645z is $7000 (body only), or $7700 (body + 75mm).

            Can you link where you see the 645z for only $6,000 USD?

          • I’d not be so sure of Fuji VS Pentax. Pentax and Fuji prioritise different things, but when equalised for sensor sizes, etc., Fuji lenses don’t test better across the board than anyone else’s lenses do.

            Some are great. Some are not. It’s pretty much a wash.

      • johnny

        6.5k for a body is fine for me. I do care about the price on lenses. If they can be more affordable, it will greatly improve the market share.

  • Zos Xavius

    No leaf shutter lenses. An interesting omission really.

    • nwcs

      They left themselves the possibility of doing it later, though.

    • Build up a user base first. If you use good flashes, 1/125 is plenty. I shoot 99% studio and my top flash-synced shutter speed is 1/60 and sometimes as low as 3 seconds. The possibility of adding leaf shuttered lenses later and leading without them is a viable option.

  • Back to top