Love the look of this camera without the hood, just the oem front ring. Anybody shooting bare or is this risky since you're shooting without a filter?

There is surprisingly little information available about the new native G-mount version of the Meike 85mm f/1.8. Before ordering mine, I could basically only find these two posts here: Quick take on Meike 85/1.8 & MEIKE 85 1.8 gfx mount sample

I've only had the lens for a few days, so this isn't meant to be a full review. I mainly wanted to share some first impressions and test shots because there is still so little information available about it.

I'm using it on a GFX100S II.

Why I bought it

I had been interested in the GF80mm f/1.7 for a while, but wasn't sure how much I would actually use this focal length. Spending that much money just to find out seemed a bit excessive, so the much cheaper Meike looked like an interesting alternative. I ordered it directly from the Meike Global Shop for $399 plus $30 express shipping (FedEx). Shipping was surprisingly fast: it went from China to Germany in about two days.

Build quality

First impression is very positive. It feels solid and well made. My Fujinon GF lenses feel more premium, but there is nothing about the Meike that immediately strikes me as cheap or poorly made. I haven't found any obvious quality issues on my copy so far.

One small thing: the lens hood locks very firmly on mine. It takes quite a bit of force to remove it.

At around 400g, the lens is also surprisingly small and light for an autofocus f/1.8 lens covering the GFX sensor.

Autofocus

So far I've mainly used AF in normal daylight, where it has been very reliable. I haven't properly tested low-light AF, Eye AF or AF-C yet, so I can't say much about those. AF speed is obviously difficult to quantify without doing a proper test, but compared to the GF lenses I own, my subjective ranking would currently be:

1. GF20-35
2. GF35-70 / Meike 85 / GF100-200
3. GF45

So the Meike isn't extremely fast, but to me it also doesn't feel noticeably slower than most of my GF lenses. The AF motor is slightly audible, but fairly quiet – definitely quieter than my GF45.

Manual focusing has a rather long focus throw. You need to turn the focus ring quite a lot to move through the range. That can be useful for precise focusing, but isn't particularly quick.

Sharpness

This has probably been my biggest surprise so far. To my eyes, the lens is already very sharp in the center at f/1.8 – even on the 102 MP sensor of the GFX100S II. Fine details are clearly resolved wide open, and f/1.8 doesn't feel like an aperture that is only there for emergencies.

The first four images show the same subject at f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4 and f/8. These were exported as full-resolution JPEGs from the GFX100S II, so you can zoom in and judge the detail for yourself.

f/1.8 – full-resolution JPEG

f/2.8 – full-resolution JPEG

f/4 – full-resolution JPEG

f/8 – full-resolution JPEG

Longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA)

LoCA is definitely present at f/1.8, with visible green/magenta fringing in out-of-focus high-contrast areas. It improves noticeably at f/2.8, is much less pronounced by f/4 and is basically a non-issue by f/8 in this example.

The fifth image shows crops from the same scene at f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4 and f/8.

LoCA comparison – f/1.8, f/2.8, f/4, f/8

First impressions

After a few days, I'm pretty impressed with it.

It's small and light by GFX standards, feels well made, AF has been reliable in daylight and – most importantly for me – it is genuinely sharp at f/1.8 on the GFX100S II. The shallow depth of field at f/1.8 is also quite impressive on GFX, and was one of the main reasons I wanted to try a lens like this in the first place.

It's obviously not optically perfect. LoCA is clearly visible wide open if you provoke it, and there are still things I haven't properly tested, especially low-light AF, Eye AF and AF-C.

I also tried a few astro shots at f/1.8. The first results look promising, although precise manual focusing was difficult because it was so dark that there was basically nothing useful visible in live view. But I haven't tested it enough yet to say much about it.

Considering the price, size and weight, my first impression is very positive. For my use case it seems like a very interesting alternative to spending much more on the GF80mm f/1.7, especially if – like me – you're not yet sure how often you'll actually use this focal length.

I'll probably add some normal real-world samples once I've had more time to actually take pictures with it rather than photograph Meike boxes and Japanese text. :-)

hi guys! by any chance would any of you have tried adapting the lomo minitar 32mm m mount to the gfx? ive put a brightin star on mine and its made the camera much easier to bring out on walks and such i wanted to see if the minitar would also be fun thing to slap on

I shoot with a GFX50s and my only lens is a 63mm 2.8

Hi gents/ladies,

Any experience of handling raw files at average >100mb - what’s your usual way of storage on raw and need a decent upgrade of computer to handle the larger file size?

Note I have Nikon Z FF camera and Fuji apsc ones (raw size usually 30-50mb) but never had chance to edit medium format raw and store them. Just wonder what’s the cost implication and is it an annoying process?

Cheers.

I currently use a 50R with manual focus only (Nikon 50mm1.8 and Mitakon 65mm). Let’s say I have a budget of $1,200 and want to purchase 2-3 third-party autofocus lenses. I will also need an adapter. I was thinking:

1. Viltrox EF-GFX Adapter: $260
2. Canon 40mm 2.8 Pancake: $210 (on KEH currently)
3. The new Meike 85mm 1.8 G Mount: $400
   4.???? I could find something in-between these focal lengths or something longer. I mainly shoot portraits and prefer lenses that don’t feel too clunky on the 50R (looking at you Mitakon).

What do you think of this set up? What would you change?

I currently have the GF 120 macro. I’d like something that goes 1:1.

I’ve been looking at the Pentax 645 and the Contax 645 macro lenses.

Any opinions on either?

These would be product shots and in-studio.

Hi everyone,
I am planning to buy a new hybrid sub-camera for my professional work (promo videos, event coverage, interviews, snapshots) to pair with my main studio/still camera, the Fujifilm GFX 50S II.
My primary RAW developer is Capture One, and I always shoot in a standard/neutral profile to color grade later. I will use only one system per gig depending on the client’s needs.
I am completely torn between two very specific gear strategies, and I need advice from working pros on which route is production-safe.

Option A: The Nikon Z6III (or Z5II) "Lens Sharing" Route
I would use multiple adapters to circulate my existing lenses across both bodies.
The Setup:
GF lenses adapted to Nikon Z: I will use the SHOTEN GXTZ (electronic adapter) to mount my existing GF35-70mm F4.5-5.6 WR, GF45-100mmF4 R LM OIS WR, and GF63mmF2.8 R WR onto the Nikon Z body. This will serve as a high-quality, backup full-frame lens setup for personal tests and B-roll.
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED (F-mount) ➔ Used on Nikon Z via FTZ, but ALSO adapted to my GFX 50S II using a Fringer FR-FTX1 to cover the ultra-wide end on medium format.
Sony 24-70mm F4 (My existing lens) ➔ Adapted to Nikon Z using the Megadap ETZ21 Pro.
My Questions for Option A: How risky is it to rely on the Megadap and SHOTEN adapters for paid video gigs? Will Capture One handle the lens profiles correctly when swapping cross-platform, or will it cause massive headaches with manual distortion/vignetting correction for commercial deliverables?

Option B: The Fujifilm X-H2 "Native & Eco" Route
I would completely drop the adapter idea and build a native APS-C system to match the GFX ecosystem.
The Setup: Fujifilm X-H2 (Used) ＋ SIGMA 17-40mm F1.8 DC Art ＋ XF50-140mm F2.8 R LM OIS WR.
Why it's appealing: It shares the exact same battery (NP-W235) with my GFX 50S II, minimizing my travel gear. No adapter quirks, native 8K/4K performance, deep Capture One integration, and a huge 40MP sensor.
My Questions for Option B: Since I color grade everything in Capture One anyway, would I be missing out on the physical full-frame advantages (low-light video noise, dynamic range) of the Nikon Z6III/Z5II by choosing the 40MP APS-C sensor of the X-H2 for paid gigs?

Given that this is for client work where reliability and turnaround speed are everything, which strategy makes the most sense? Is the Nikon adapter-heavy workflow a ticking time bomb for a professional, or is the X-H2 the smarter business investment?
Would love to hear from anyone running a GFX dual-system for business.
Thanks!