Any Fuji G690, G690BL, orGL690 user/owners here?

I only have the 100mm/3.5 AE for the G690BL. It gives me images that are at least as sharp as what I get from the Rolleiflex 2.8D Planar lens.
 
raid said:
I only have the 100mm/3.5 AE for the G690BL. It gives me images that are at least as sharp as what I get from the Rolleiflex 2.8D Planar lens.
Click to expand...

Raid,

I beleive your 100/3.5 AE is a multicoated lens while my 100/3.5 is a single coat. I'd love to get a 100/3.5 AE even though I already own a 100/3.5.

I found new wide angle and normal B&W collapsible rubber hoods for not a lot of money to fight the flare. They cost $19.99 and $24.99 respectfully.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Raid,

I believe your 100/3.5 AE is a multicoated lens while my 100/3.5 is a single coat. I'd love to get a 100/3.5 AE even though I already own a 100/3.5.

I found new wide angle and normal B&W collapsible rubber hoods for not a lot of money to fight the flare. They cost $19.99 and $24.99 respectfully.

Cal
Click to expand...

Hi Cal,
The 100mm/3.5 AE seems to be relatively less often found for sale. I also have a second body with a 100/3.5. Dante Stella has a nice write-up on this ystem. It is there where I read about the "rarity" of the 100/3.5. Many years ago, I paid $500 for the G690BL plus the 100/3.5AE. The AE offers me aperture priority and also AE flash.
I would expect the regular 100/3.5 to be as sharp.
 
Last edited:
raid said:
Hi Cal,
The 100mm/3.5 seems to be relatively less often found for sale. I also have a second body with a 100/3.5. Dante Stella has a nice write-up on this ystem. It is there where I read about the "rarity" of the 100/3.5. Many years ago, I paid $500 for the G690BL plus the 100/3.5AE. The AE offers me aperture priority and also AE flash.
I would expect the regular 100/3.5 to be as sharp.
Click to expand...

I'd want the 100/3.5 AE for use with a flash, aperture priority, and for the flare resistance.

Any comment on the difference between the 100 AE and the rgular 100 in say color saturation in slides or micro-contrast in B&W. I wonder if the single coat is better for B&W, offering lower contrast, and if the AE superior for color.

BTW you are a lucky guy also.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Any comment on the difference between the 100 AE and the rgular 100 in say color saturation in slides or micro-contrast in B&W. I wonder if the single coat is better for B&W, offering lower contrast, and if the AE superior for color.
Click to expand...

I only have the 100 AE. But going by the single and multi coated Mamiya 100mm f/3.5 I rather doubt there will be a noticeable difference in the case of the Fujis, unless they made additional changes to the design - Tessar types have few surfaces and did not benefit that much from single coating, the step up to multi coating does almost nothing for them.

Sevo
 
sevo said:
I only have the 100 AE. But going by the single and multi coated Mamiya 100mm f/3.5 I rather doubt there will be a noticeable difference in the case of the Fujis, unless they made additional changes to the design - Tessar types have few surfaces and did not benefit that much from single coating, the step up to multi coating does almost nothing for them.

Sevo
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. The 100/3.5 AE is still useful and desirable for aperture priority and for use with flash.

Cal
 
The shutter of a Rolleiflex is very silent.
If you are a wedding photographer who still is not going 100% digital, then a 100/3.5AE is very useful with a flash.
 
raid said:
The shutter of a Rolleiflex is very silent.
If you are a wedding photographer who still is not going 100% digital, then a 100/3.5AE is very useful with a flash.
Click to expand...

+1 on the shutter of a Rolleiflex, especally after it has been overhauled by Harry Fleenor.

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom