THE 2025 PHOTONIQUE BLOG -

SONY FE 16-35MM F2.8 GM II

May 3, 2025 by infomatique

Last November I ordered and paid for the Sony A1 II and it is now 3 May 2025 and I am still waiting. I had also decided to purchase a number of appropriate lenses and one of them was the Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II which I used for the first time today (3 May 2025).

Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II vs GM I: A Detailed Look for Those Considering an Upgrade

Introduction: The Evolution of a G Master Wide-Angle Zoom

The arrival of the Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II (SEL1635GM2) lens represents a significant update to a key lens in Sony’s professional G Master lineup. This Mark II version, released in 2023, replaces the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM (SEL1635GM), which was launched back in 2017. It completes the second generation of Sony’s highly regarded F2.8 ‘trinity’ of zoom lenses, joining the FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II and the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II.

This generational update clearly demonstrates Sony’s consistent strategy for its flagship lenses. Across the G Master II series, the company has prioritised several key areas:

Significant reductions in size and weight.
The inclusion of enhanced physical controls, such as dedicated aperture rings.
Substantially upgraded autofocus systems utilising XD Linear Motors.
Meticulous refinements to the optical design aimed at pushing the boundaries of image quality.
The development from the original G Master zooms to their Mark II counterparts highlights Sony’s responsiveness to the demands of professionals for lighter and more versatile tools suitable for modern hybrid photo and video workflows. The consistency across these updates suggests a deliberate move towards a more unified and ergonomically refined professional lens system.

However, the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM was, and still is, a highly respected lens, praised for its optical quality and robust build. This sets a high standard and makes the decision to upgrade a complex one for existing owners. Is the Mark II simply a minor improvement, or does it offer compelling enough advantages to justify a significant further investment?

This discussion aims to provide a comprehensive analysis comparing the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II with its predecessor. By examining the specific changes in physical design, handling characteristics, optical performance, and autofocus capabilities, and considering insights from professional reviews and user discussions, this analysis will explore the tangible benefits offered by the newer model. Ultimately, it will evaluate the compelling reasons why an owner of the original GM lens might feel the need to upgrade. The following sections will break down the physical modifications, delve into the optical advancements, scrutinise the autofocus overhaul, consider perspectives from reviewers and users, and finally, offer a considered opinion on the upgrade question.

Downsized Design, Enhanced Handling: Physical Improvements

One of the most immediately noticeable differences between the two generations is their physical size and handling features. The FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II represents a significant step forward in terms of portability and operational refinement compared to the original.

Significant Size and Weight Reduction

Sony has achieved a notable reduction in the lens’s physical size. The GM II measures 111.5 mm in length, approximately 10 mm shorter than the GM I’s 121.6 mm. Even more significant is the weight difference: the GM II weighs 547 g, a substantial 133 g (around 20%) lighter than the 680 g GM I. This reduction allowed Sony to claim the title of the “world’s smallest and lightest” full-frame F2.8 autofocus 16-35mm zoom lens at the time of its release. When compared to contemporary rivals such as the Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM (840 g) or the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN Art (795 g), the GM II’s compactness is particularly evident.

Here’s a comparison of the key physical specifications:

FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II (SEL1635GM2):
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 87.8 x 111.5 mm
Weight: 547 g
Filter Size: 82 mm
Focus Hold Buttons: 2
Aperture Ring: Yes
Iris Lock Switch: Yes
Aperture De-Click Switch: Yes
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM (SEL1635GM):
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 88.5 x 121.6 mm
Weight: 680 g
Filter Size: 82 mm
Focus Hold Buttons: 1
Aperture Ring: No
Iris Lock Switch: No
Aperture De-Click Switch: No
Impact on Portability and Balance

This reduction in size and weight directly translates into practical benefits for photographers. The GM II is easier to pack for travel and less tiring to carry and use during long shooting sessions. Its lighter weight improves the overall balance, especially when mounted on Sony’s increasingly compact Alpha camera bodies. Furthermore, while both lenses physically extend when zoomed towards the wider end (the GM II extends by approximately 9mm towards 16mm, being shortest at 35mm), the GM II is designed to maintain a more consistent centre of gravity throughout the zoom range. This enhanced stability is a significant advantage for videographers using gimbals or other stabilising equipment, minimising the need for rebalancing after changing focal length. The original GM I also extends during zooming, potentially leading to more noticeable balance shifts.

Enhanced On-Barrel Controls

The GM II incorporates several handling upgrades that align it with Sony’s latest lens design philosophy, offering more direct, tactile control:

Aperture Ring: A key addition is the physical aperture ring, allowing direct manual control of the aperture in 1/3-stop increments. This feature, absent on the GM I, is now standard across the GM II trinity. For videographers, a crucial inclusion is the de-click switch, enabling smooth and silent aperture adjustments during recording. The ring also features an ‘A’ (Automatic) position, allowing aperture control to revert to the camera body if preferred.
Iris Lock: Complementing the aperture ring is an Iris Lock switch. This practical feature prevents the aperture ring from being accidentally moved out of the ‘A’ position or away from a manually selected aperture, addressing a common handling concern with aperture rings, especially during lens changes or in fast-paced shooting situations.
Focus Hold Buttons: The GM II features two customisable focus hold buttons, typically assigned to AF-lock but configurable via the camera menu. One is placed conventionally on the side, while the second is located on the top of the barrel, providing easier access when shooting in vertical (portrait) orientation. This is an upgrade from the single focus hold button found on the GM I.
Zoom Smoothness Switch: Some specifications also mention a zoom smoothness switch, allowing adjustment of the zoom ring’s torque, although this feature receives less attention in reviews.
The convergence of these handling features across the GM II lens series (16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm) creates a significant ergonomic advantage. For professionals who frequently switch between these focal lengths, the consistent placement and functionality of controls like the aperture ring and focus hold buttons allow for a more intuitive and efficient workflow, relying on muscle memory rather than adapting to different layouts. This operational parity makes the GM II wide-angle feel like a natural extension of the updated system, a tangible benefit over mixing first and second-generation lenses.

Build Quality and Weather Sealing

As expected from a G Master lens, the GM II maintains a high standard of construction. It utilises a hybrid construction incorporating both metal and plastic components to achieve a balance between durability and the targeted low weight. Comprehensive dust and moisture resistance is implemented through seals and gaskets at seams and around the lens mount, providing confidence for use in challenging weather conditions. It is important to note, however, that Sony does not guarantee 100% protection. The front element features a fluorine coating, which helps repel water, oil, and fingerprints, making the lens easier to keep clean. Additionally, the included petal-shaped lens hood has been redesigned to be smaller and sleeker, complementing the lens’s reduced dimensions.

Optical Performance: Sharper, Closer, Clearer?

While physical refinements enhance usability, the core value of a G Master lens lies in its optical capabilities. The FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II employs a revised optical design intended to surpass the already high standards set by its predecessor.

Optical Design Overview

The GM II features a slightly less complex optical formula than the GM I, comprising 15 elements arranged in 12 groups, compared to the GM I’s 16 elements in 13 groups. Despite fewer elements, the GM II incorporates a sophisticated array of specialised glass, including three XA (extreme aspherical) elements, one standard aspherical element, one Super ED (Extra-low Dispersion) element, two ED elements, and one ED glass aspherical element. The original GM I utilised two XA elements, three standard aspherical elements, and two ED elements. Sony explicitly states that the GM II is designed to rival the performance of prime lenses, indicating ambitious optical goals.

Here’s a comparison of the key optical performance metrics:

FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II (SEL1635GM2):
Optical Formula: 15 Elements / 12 Groups
XA Elements: 3
ED / Super ED Elements: 1 Super ED, 2 ED, 1 ED Aspherical
Aspherical Elements: 1 (plus XA and ED Aspherical)
Minimum Focus Distance: 0.22 m (8.7″)
Maximum Magnification: 0.32x
Aperture Blades: 11, Rounded
Coating Type: Nano AR Coating II
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM (SEL1635GM):
Optical Formula: 16 Elements / 13 Groups
XA Elements: 2
ED / Super ED Elements: 2 ED
Aspherical Elements: 3 (plus XA)
Minimum Focus Distance: 0.28 m (11.0″)
Maximum Magnification: 0.19x
Aperture Blades: 11, Rounded
Coating Type: Nano AR Coating
Sharpness Analysis

Professional reviews and lab tests generally indicate that the GM II delivers exceptional sharpness across the frame, often exceeding the performance of the GM I, particularly wide open at F2.8 and towards the corners. Centre sharpness is frequently described as outstanding even at the maximum aperture. Some analyses suggest the improvement is most noticeable at the 35mm end of the zoom range compared to the original. The GM I, however, was already considered a very sharp lens, especially when stopped down slightly, setting a high benchmark for its successor.

However, a degree of caution is warranted. While controlled tests paint a picture of clear superiority for the GM II, real-world user reports present a more mixed view. Some users, particularly on forums like Fred Miranda, have reported experiencing disappointing corner sharpness with their retail copies of the GM II, sometimes finding their previous GM I performed better in this regard. Concerns about decentring or sample variation, issues occasionally associated with Sony lenses even at the G Master level, have been raised. This discrepancy between lab results and some user experiences suggests that while the GM II’s optical design is likely superior, achieving that potential consistently across all manufactured units might be challenging, possibly due to the tighter tolerances required by the more compact design. This implies that the sharpness advantage over a known, well-performing GM I copy may not be guaranteed for every GM II unit purchased.

Bokeh Quality

Both the GM I and GM II feature an 11-bladed circular aperture designed to produce smooth, aesthetically pleasing bokeh (the quality of out-of-focus areas). Sony claims improved bokeh for the GM II, and its optical design specifically targets the reduction of ‘onion ring’ patterns within bokeh highlights. While wide-angle lenses inherently produce less background separation than longer focal lengths, reviews suggest the GM II renders out-of-focus areas smoothly and attractively, perhaps offering a marginal improvement over the GM I. However, some direct comparisons found the practical difference in bokeh quality to be minimal.

Aberration, Distortion, and Flare Control

Chromatic Aberration: Thanks to the inclusion of ED and Super ED glass elements, the GM II demonstrates excellent control over both longitudinal (LoCA) and lateral (LaCA) chromatic aberrations, resulting in minimal colour fringing even in high-contrast areas. The GM I also employed ED elements effectively for CA suppression.
Distortion: Like most wide-angle zooms, the GM II exhibits noticeable barrel distortion at its widest 16mm setting. Some reviews describe it as complex distortion that benefits significantly from lens correction profiles applied in-camera or in post-processing. Distortion becomes fairly neutral around 24mm and transitions to minor, easily correctable pincushion distortion at 35mm. While the GM I also had wide-angle distortion, some comparisons suggest the GM II shows an improvement, particularly at 16mm.
Vignetting: Significant light fall-off towards the corners (vignetting) is present when shooting wide open at F2.8, especially at 16mm (measured at over one stop in some tests). This is typical for fast wide-angle zooms and is effectively handled by correction profiles. The GM I also exhibited vignetting. Interestingly, one direct comparison found the GM II actually showed less vignetting than the GM I at 16mm F2.8 under identical conditions.
Flare Resistance: The GM II utilises Sony’s more advanced Nano AR Coating II, designed to provide superior suppression of internal reflections, ghosting, and flare compared to the original Nano AR Coating found on the GM I. Reviews generally praise the GM II’s excellent performance in challenging backlit situations, maintaining high contrast and clarity. However, at least one direct comparison reported finding little practical difference in flare handling between the two generations in their specific tests.
Major Upgrade: Close-Focus Performance

Perhaps the most significant and universally praised optical improvement in the GM II is its dramatically enhanced close-focusing capability. The Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) has been reduced from 0.28 m (11.0 inches) on the GM I to just 0.22 m (8.7 inches) on the GM II, consistent across the entire zoom range. This closer focus ability translates into a much higher maximum magnification ratio: 0.32x for the GM II compared to only 0.19x for the GM I.

This substantial increase in magnification (approaching the 1:3 reproduction ratio) significantly expands the lens’s versatility. It allows photographers to get much closer to their subjects, capturing intricate details and creating dynamic, exaggerated perspectives characteristic of wide-angle close-ups. This capability was not a particular strength of the original GM I. The 0.32x magnification brings the GM II’s close-up performance in line with other modern zooms like the FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II, enabling greater subject isolation against blurred backgrounds even at wide focal lengths. For photographers interested in environmental portraits, product details, food photography, or simply adding more compositional flexibility to their wide-angle work, this improved close-focus performance represents a tangible creative advantage and a compelling reason to consider the upgrade beyond incremental sharpness gains.

Autofocus Leaps Forward: Speed, Precision, and Video Focus

The autofocus system represents another area of substantial advancement in the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II, leveraging Sony’s latest motor technology for marked improvements in speed, accuracy, and suitability for video applications.

Motor Technology Upgrade

The GM II replaces the original’s capable but older dual Direct Drive SSM (DDSSM) autofocus system with a significantly more advanced setup. It employs four of Sony’s high-thrust XD (Extreme Dynamic) Linear Motors. These motors drive a floating focus mechanism, where internal lens groups move independently to maintain optimal image quality across all focus distances and focal lengths. While the GM I also featured a floating focus design, the combination with the quad XD Linear Motors in the GM II yields superior performance.

Performance Gains

The implementation of XD Linear Motors brings several key autofocus benefits:

Speed: Sony claims the GM II’s AF can be up to twice as fast as its predecessor. Independent reviews corroborate this, describing the autofocus as “lightning fast” and “near instant,” enabling rapid focus acquisition and transitions between near and far subjects with minimal delay.
Precision and Tracking: The XD motors offer enhanced precision and responsiveness. This translates to improved subject tracking performance, reliably maintaining focus on moving subjects even while zooming. The system is capable of supporting the high continuous shooting rates (up to 30 fps) of advanced Sony bodies like the Alpha 1. Excellent eye-tracking performance has also been noted.
Low Light: While the GM I’s AF was competent, some comparisons suggest the XD motors in the GM II provide slightly better autofocus reliability in challenging low-light conditions.
Video-Centric AF Improvements

The autofocus enhancements in the GM II extend significantly to video performance, addressing key requirements for modern videography:

Focus Breathing: Focus breathing (the slight change in focal length that can occur when shifting focus) is significantly suppressed optically in the GM II compared to the GM I. Furthermore, the lens supports the in-camera Breathing Compensation feature available on newer Sony Alpha and Cinema Line cameras, allowing for near-elimination of this distracting effect.
Quiet Operation: The XD Linear Motors operate virtually silently, ensuring that autofocus adjustments are not picked up by microphones during video recording.
Smoothness: Focus transitions are smooth and confident, without noticeable stepping, hunting, or pulsing, resulting in professional-looking focus pulls.

Parfocal-like Behaviour: Some reviewers have observed that the lens behaves in a parfocal-like manner, meaning focus is largely maintained even when the focal length is changed during a shot. While not strictly parfocal, this behaviour is a significant benefit for videographers who often zoom during recording.
The comprehensive overhaul of the autofocus system stands as one of the most compelling technical arguments for upgrading from the GM I to the GM II. The older DDSSM system was effective for its time, but the quad XD Linear Motors represent Sony’s current pinnacle of AF technology, offering demonstrable advantages in speed, tracking, and quietness. These improvements are particularly relevant for photographers capturing fast action, events, or wildlife, where the lens’s wide perspective might be employed. Crucially, the enhancements tailored for video – especially the minimised focus breathing and silent operation – directly cater to the needs of hybrid shooters and dedicated videographers, a user base whose requirements have become increasingly central to lens design. The GM II’s AF performance is better matched to the capabilities of Sony’s latest high-speed camera bodies, promising a higher keeper rate and smoother, more professional footage.

However, it is worth noting the perspective of diminishing returns. While objectively superior, the practical value of the GM II’s enhanced AF depends on the user’s specific needs. Some photographers, particularly those primarily shooting static subjects like landscapes or architecture, may find the autofocus performance of the original GM I entirely sufficient. For these users, the faster motors of the GM II might represent less of a critical upgrade compared to those shooting dynamic scenes or demanding video sequences.

Perspectives from Professionals and Peers: Reviews and Forum Insights

Evaluating the real-world value of the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II necessitates considering both formal technical reviews and the experiences shared by photographers using the lens in practice.

Synthesis of Professional Reviews

Across major photography publications and testing sites, the FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II has received overwhelmingly positive assessments. Reviewers consistently praise the significant reduction in size and weight, making the lens more manageable and portable. The enhanced handling, particularly the addition of the aperture ring with its de-click option and lock, is frequently highlighted as a major improvement. The dramatically improved close-focus capability (0.32x magnification) is lauded for its added versatility. Autofocus performance is consistently described as exceptionally fast, quiet, and accurate, with particular commendation for its suitability for video due to minimal focus breathing and smooth operation. Optically, the lens is generally rated as excellent, delivering high levels of sharpness across the frame, well-controlled chromatic aberration, and impressive flare resistance. Minor criticisms typically revolve around the noticeable barrel distortion at 16mm (though correctable) and the premium price point, which places it firmly in the professional market segment.

User Forum Sentiment (Reddit, Fred Miranda)

Discussions among photographers on platforms like Reddit and Fred Miranda provide valuable real-world context and reveal nuances often missed in formal reviews.

Agreement on Positives: Users generally concur with reviewers regarding the benefits of the GM II’s lighter weight, the utility of the aperture ring, and the significantly improved close-focusing distance. The faster autofocus is also acknowledged as an improvement.
The Value Debate: A dominant theme in user discussions is the cost-benefit analysis of upgrading. The substantial price difference between a new GM II (around $2,300 USD) and the readily available used market for the GM I (often found between $1,000-$1,300 USD) is a major consideration.

Many users argue that the original GM I offers superior value for money, especially if its performance is deemed sufficient for their needs and the handling/weight advantages of the GM II are not critical priorities. The sentiment often expressed is that the GM II offers primarily “quality of life” improvements rather than a revolutionary leap in core functionality for many users.

Image Quality Debate and Copy Variation: This area reveals the most significant divergence between professional reviews and user experiences. While some users report excellent image quality from their GM II copies, matching or exceeding expectations, a notable number have expressed disappointment. Specific concerns frequently mentioned include subpar corner sharpness, particularly at wider apertures or when stopped down for landscape foregrounds, sometimes perceived as worse than their previous GM I copy. Issues with decentring (where one side or corner of the frame is softer than others) have also been reported. This raises concerns about manufacturing consistency, particularly in early production runs, suggesting that the theoretical optical superiority of the GM II might not be realised in every unit. This potential inconsistency makes the upgrade feel riskier for those with a known, high-performing GM I.

Alternative Considerations: Users often weigh the 16-35mm GM II against other options. The Sony FE PZ 16-35mm F4 G is mentioned as a lighter, cheaper alternative with a power zoom feature, albeit with a slower F4 aperture. Third-party lenses like the Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN Art are considered for their wider perspective and excellent optics, though they are heavier and lack front filter threads. Some users also contemplate replacing the zoom with high-quality wide-angle primes like the Sony FE 20mm F1.8 G or FE 35mm F1.4 GM, which offer wider apertures for better low-light performance and shallower depth of field, albeit sacrificing zoom flexibility.
The high regard in which the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM is held creates a significant challenge for the GM II’s upgrade proposition. Many photographers find the performance of the GM I to be not just adequate, but excellent for their requirements. While the GM II offers improvements across multiple parameters, these are often perceived as incremental rather than transformative, especially concerning core image quality for typical applications. Consequently, the decision shifts from simply asking if the GM II is better (which, technically, it largely is) to whether it is sufficiently better to warrant the substantial cost over a lens already considered “good enough” or even “great” by its owner.

Furthermore, the discrepancy between the consistently glowing reports on sharpness in professional reviews and the user forum discussions highlighting copy variation and corner sharpness issues is noteworthy. This suggests a potential gap between the performance achievable under controlled testing conditions (often with carefully selected samples) and the experience of purchasing and using a retail unit. Factors like the GM II’s complex optics packed into a smaller, lighter body could potentially increase sensitivity to manufacturing tolerances. This highlights the value of user forums as a counterpoint to formal reviews and underscores the importance for potential buyers, particularly those upgrading, to be aware of this potential variability and ideally test specific copies or purchase from retailers with reliable return policies. Relying solely on published MTF charts or review conclusions might not fully capture the potential range of real-world performance.

The Verdict: Justifying the Upgrade from GM I to GM II

The Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II undoubtedly represents a technically superior lens compared to its predecessor, embodying Sony’s latest advancements in optical design, autofocus technology, and handling ergonomics. It successfully delivers on the G Master II philosophy of creating lighter, smaller, yet higher-performing professional tools.

GM II Advantages Summarised:

The key strengths favouring the GM II are clear:

Physical: Significantly lighter (by 133g) and more compact (10mm shorter), improving portability and balance.
Handling: Superior ergonomics with the addition of a de-clickable aperture ring, iris lock, and a second customisable focus hold button.
Autofocus: Markedly faster, quieter, and more precise AF performance powered by four XD Linear Motors, offering better tracking and significantly reduced focus breathing for video.
Close Focus: Dramatically improved close-up capability with a 0.22m MFD and 0.32x maximum magnification, unlocking new creative possibilities.
Optics: Refined optical formula potentially offering improved corner-to-corner sharpness (copy variation notwithstanding), better flare control via Nano AR II coating, and excellent chromatic aberration suppression.
GM I Strengths and Cost Factor Acknowledged:

Despite the GM II’s advancements, the original FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM should not be dismissed. It remains a highly capable lens delivering excellent image quality that satisfies many professionals and enthusiasts. Its primary advantage now lies in its significantly lower cost, particularly on the used market where it can often be acquired for less than half the price of a new GM II.

Nuanced Recommendations – Who Should Upgrade?

The decision to upgrade is highly dependent on individual needs, shooting style, and budget.

A Compelling Case for Upgrading Exists For:

Hybrid Shooters and Videographers: This group stands to gain the most. The vastly improved autofocus (speed, silence, tracking, minimal breathing), the de-clickable aperture ring for smooth iris pulls, and the improved balance for gimbal work collectively offer substantial operational benefits for video production.
Action, Event, and Sports Photographers: Users needing the utmost autofocus speed and tracking reliability to capture fast-moving subjects, even with a wide-angle perspective, will appreciate the responsiveness of the XD Linear Motors.
Photographers Prioritising Portability and Handling: Those who found the original GM I heavy or cumbersome, or who value the enhanced tactile controls (aperture ring, extra button) for a more efficient workflow, will find the GM II a significant ergonomic improvement.
Users Requiring Close-Focus Versatility: Photographers frequently shooting close-up wide-angle perspectives (e.g., environmental portraits with foreground interest, product details, food) will find the 0.32x magnification a distinct and valuable creative advantage over the GM I.

A Less Compelling Case for Upgrading Exists For:

Primarily Landscape and Architecture Photographers: If shooting predominantly stopped-down on a tripod, the AF speed advantage is less critical. If an existing GM I copy delivers excellent corner sharpness when stopped down, the potential (and reportedly variable) sharpness gains of the GM II might be marginal relative to the cost.
Budget-Conscious Photographers: If the original GM I already meets performance requirements, the considerable cost of the GM II makes it a luxury upgrade. Investing the difference in other equipment or travel might yield greater photographic returns.
Owners Satisfied with Excellent GM I Copies: Photographers who possess a well-performing copy of the original GM I and are content with its handling and autofocus may find the benefits of the GM II insufficient to justify the expense and the potential risk (highlighted in user forums) of encountering a less-than-perfect GM II copy.
Final Thoughts

The Sony FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM II is, by objective measures, a more advanced and refined lens than its predecessor. It successfully integrates Sony’s latest technologies into a smaller, lighter package with significantly enhanced autofocus and close-focusing capabilities. However, the excellence of the original GM I, combined with the substantial cost of the upgrade and user reports of sample variation, means the decision is not automatic.

The upgrade is most justifiable for those whose work directly benefits from the specific improvements offered: videographers needing better AF and handling, action shooters requiring maximum speed, photographers demanding greater close-focus versatility, or those simply placing a high premium on reduced weight and improved ergonomics. For others, particularly those satisfied with the optical quality and AF of their current GM I for less demanding applications, the original lens remains a formidable and far more economical choice. Given the discussions around sample variation, prospective buyers are advised to purchase from reputable dealers with robust return policies and, if possible, test the specific lens copy before finalising their decision.

KING’S INNS – THE BUILDING AND THE PUBLIC PARK PHOTOGRAPHED USING A FUJIFILM GFX100RF

May 1, 2025 by infomatique

30 APRIL 2025

The society uses the spelling “Honorable”, although “Honourable” is now standard in Ireland and Britain

Based between Henrietta Street and Constitution Hill in Dublin 1, The Honorable Society of King’s Inns (King’s Inns) is an independent educational institution renowned for professional legal education and training. Established in 1541, we are Ireland’s Oldest School of Law and one of Ireland’s significant historical environments.

King’s Inns is Ireland’s ‘Inn of Court’, training and admitting legal professionals who wish to be awarded the degree of Barrister–at–Law necessary to be called to the Bar by the Chief Justice of Ireland.

HENRIETTA PLACE AND HENRIETTA STREET – FIRST DAY USING MY FUJI GFX100RF

May 1, 2025 by infomatique

WILLIAM USED A FUJIFILM GFX100RF

The society uses the spelling “Honorable”, although “Honourable” is now standard in Ireland and Britain

CAN CROPPING HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES REPLACE A COLLECTION OF LENSES – THAT IS MY CURRENT PROJECT

May 1, 2025 by infomatique

The Unburdened Eye: Finding Freedom and Focus in High-Resolution Street Photography

Introduction: The Street Photographer’s Quest for Simplicity

The journey of a dedicated photographer often begins with the pursuit of ultimate capability. There’s an undeniable allure to assembling a comprehensive system – multiple camera bodies, a quiver of prime lenses spanning wide to telephoto, versatile zooms ready for any contingency. This desire for preparedness, for having the ‘perfect’ lens for every conceivable situation, can lead to impressive, technically adept kits. The Sony GM series, known for its cutting-edge technology and exceptional optical performance, represents a pinnacle of such versatility, a system capable of tackling virtually any photographic challenge. Many passionate photographers, particularly those engaged in demanding genres like street photography across varied environments – from the bustling cities to the quieter towns of Ireland – have embraced such systems.

However, this pursuit of maximum versatility can eventually become its own burden. The very comprehensiveness that was once desired transforms into logistical complexity. Managing multiple bodies and lenses, ensuring the right combination is ready at the right moment, deciding what to pack and what to leave behind – these tasks can introduce friction into the creative process. The weight and bulk demand dedicated bags, drawing potentially unwanted attention on the street and adding physical strain during long days of exploration. For the street photographer, whose craft often relies on agility, discretion, and immersion, the equipment can paradoxically become a barrier rather than a facilitator. This realisation often sparks a catalyst for change, a shift not away from quality, but towards a re-evaluation of priorities. It becomes less about having every option and more about having the right tools that enhance, rather than hinder, the experience and the final image.

This discussion explores such a transition: a deliberate move away from a complex, multi-lens system towards a radically simplified, yet remarkably potent, setup comprising two fixed-lens cameras: the Leica Q3 and the Fujifilm GFX100RF. This isn’t merely downsizing; it’s adopting a distinct philosophy. It champions the idea that “less is more,” leveraging extraordinary sensor resolution and sophisticated image processing to achieve compositional flexibility traditionally offered by interchangeable lenses. The core premise under examination is whether this minimalist, high-resolution approach – using cropping as a primary tool – can effectively substitute for a bag full of prime lenses in the demanding context of street photography, while simultaneously simplifying logistics, reducing stress, enhancing discretion, and maintaining exceptional image quality. This analysis delves into the practicalities, benefits, and inherent nuances of this strategy, affirming its effectiveness for photographers seeking quality, focus, and a more fluid connection with their subjects.

Embracing Constraints: The Power of the Fixed Lens

The decision to embrace a fixed-lens camera, particularly after wielding the extensive flexibility of a system like Sony’s GM line, often signifies more than just a practical adjustment. It taps into a long-standing appreciation for the creative discipline imposed by constraint. Working with a single focal length fundamentally changes the photographic process. It eliminates the temptation to stand still and zoom, compelling the photographer to move, to engage physically with the space, to “zoom with their feet.” This active participation often leads to more considered compositions, a deeper understanding of perspective, and forces a more intimate relationship with the scene. Over time, mastering a single field of view fosters an intuitive grasp of framing and distance, allowing for quicker, more decisive reactions – a critical advantage in the fleeting moments of street photography.

This approach carries historical resonance. Many titans of street photography, figures like Henri Cartier-Bresson with his ubiquitous 50mm lens, built their legacies upon the mastery of a single focal length. Their work demonstrated that profound vision wasn’t contingent on carrying an arsenal of optics, but rather on developing a unique way of seeing through their chosen lens. While technology has advanced dramatically, the fundamental principle remains potent. The modern iteration of this philosophy, as embodied by the choice of the Leica Q3 and the Fujifilm GFX100RF, leverages cutting-edge sensor technology not to replace this discipline, but to augment it, adding a layer of post-capture flexibility unthinkable in the film era.

For the street photographer, the benefits extend beyond the compositional. Fixed-lens cameras are often smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous than their interchangeable-lens counterparts, especially those equipped with large-aperture zooms or telephoto primes. This reduced footprint aligns perfectly with the need for discretion, minimising unwanted attention and allowing the photographer to blend more easily into the urban environment. The GFX100RF, despite its large medium format sensor, is remarkably compact for its class, drawing comparisons in handling to Fujifilm’s much smaller X100 series. Furthermore, the simplification inherent in a fixed lens reduces the mental overhead during shooting. By removing the constant internal debate – “Should I switch to the 35mm? Is the 85mm better here?” – cognitive resources are freed. This mental bandwidth can then be redirected entirely towards observation, anticipation, timing, and interaction with the subject. It fosters a state of flow, where the technology recedes, and the act of seeing takes precedence. This deliberate acceptance of constraint, paradoxically enabled by high technology (the high-resolution sensor allowing for cropping), often marks a mature stage in a photographer’s journey, shifting the focus from the accumulation of gear to the refinement of personal vision and process. The tool becomes a streamlined extension of the photographer’s eye, serving the art rather than dominating the experience.

The High-Resolution Advantage: Leica Q3 and Fuji GFX100RF in Focus

The linchpin of this minimalist strategy is resolution – specifically, the extraordinary pixel counts offered by the chosen cameras. In this context, the dense pixel arrays effectively become a new kind of versatility, allowing significant compositional adjustments after the fact without catastrophic loss of detail. It’s the technological enabler that makes the “cropping as zooming” philosophy viable for producing high-quality results.

Leica Q3: The Compact Powerhouse

The Leica Q3 represents a potent blend of classic design and cutting-edge full-frame technology. At its heart lies a 60-megapixel back-illuminated CMOS sensor, paired with a fixed Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH lens. This lens is renowned for its sharpness, rendering, and character, providing a superb optical foundation. The wide f/1.7 aperture offers excellent low-light capability and subject separation potential, while a surprisingly effective macro mode allows focusing down to 17cm, adding an unexpected dimension of close-up versatility.

Crucially for this approach, the Q3 directly integrates digital crop modes. With a simple button press or menu selection, the camera can provide framing guides and automatically cropped DNG/JPEG files equivalent to 35mm (at 39MP), 50mm (at 19MP), 75mm (at 8MP), and 90mm (at 6MP) fields of view. This feature directly supports the workflow, allowing the photographer to pre-visualize tighter compositions while still capturing the full 60MP sensor data for maximum flexibility later. Even the 35mm and 50mm crops retain substantial resolution, easily sufficient for large prints and detailed viewing. The Q3’s physical design – compact, understated, with a classic aesthetic – directly addresses the desire for discretion and ease of handling. It’s less likely to intimidate subjects or attract unwanted scrutiny compared to larger camera systems, and its size allows it to be easily concealed under a jacket. Furthermore, improvements over its predecessor, such as a more responsive autofocus system featuring phase detection, enhance its suitability for capturing dynamic street scenes. Added conveniences like wireless charging capabilities and improved connectivity options further contribute to a smoother, less stressful user experience.

Fujifilm GFX100RF: The Compact Medium Format Detail Engine

Complementing the Leica is the Fujifilm GFX100RF, a groundbreaking camera that packs a 102-megapixel medium format sensor (43.8mm x 32.9mm) into a surprisingly compact, rangefinder-style body. This sensor, approximately 1.7 times larger than full-frame, delivers exceptional detail, smooth tonal gradations, and the distinct “medium format look”. Unlike other GFX models, the GFX100RF features a fixed Fujinon 35mm f/4 lens, which provides a versatile 28mm equivalent field of view in full-frame terms. This lens was specifically designed for compactness, incorporating a leaf shutter (allowing high flash sync speeds up to 1/4000s) and enabling a shorter back focus distance. It’s praised for its sharpness, even wide open at f/4, and minimal distortion.

The GFX100RF’s 102MP resolution provides immense cropping latitude from its native 28mm equivalent perspective. Fujifilm leans into this by incorporating a dedicated digital teleconverter lever, allowing quick switching to 35mm, 50mm, and 63mm equivalent fields of view while shooting, still yielding very high-resolution files. The camera also boasts a built-in 4-stop ND filter, a first for the GFX system, adding flexibility in bright light. Its design priorities portability, weighing just 735g, making it remarkably light for a medium format camera and comparable in size to some full-frame or even APS-C models like the X100VI. While larger than the Q3, it remains highly manageable and relatively discreet for its sensor class. Key trade-offs for this compactness include the relatively modest f/4 maximum aperture and the lack of in-body image stabilisation (IBIS). However, the excellent dynamic range and low-noise performance of the 102MP sensor remain significant assets.

Curated Synergy: Strategic Minimalism with a Wide View

The choice of the Leica Q3 and the Fujifilm GFX100RF reveals a sophisticated strategy focused on high resolution and a wide perspective. Both cameras feature a native 28mm (or equivalent) field of view. This pairing provides two distinct interpretations of that popular wide-angle perspective: one through a fast f/1.7 full-frame lens (Leica Q3) known for its rendering and low-light ability, and the other through the unparalleled detail-capturing capability of a 102MP medium format sensor (GFX100RF). This dual setup gives the photographer two high-quality, wide-angle starting points, each with unique strengths – the Q3 for speed and classic full-frame look, the GFX100RF for ultimate resolution and the medium format aesthetic. Cropping then adds significant compositional flexibility to both, allowing the simulation of longer focal lengths from these wide foundations. This isn’t just reductionism; it’s strategic minimalism, selecting two powerful tools that excel at a specific perspective while offering digital reach, elegantly covering the photographer’s core needs.

Redefining Versatility: Cropping as a Creative Tool

The core mechanism enabling this simplified approach is the transformation of pixels into potential focal lengths. By cropping into a high-resolution image captured with the native wide lens, the photographer effectively uses a smaller portion of the sensor area, which, when viewed or printed at the same output size, mimics the narrower field of view of a longer lens. The massive pixel counts of the Leica Q3 (60MP) and Fuji GFX100RF (102MP) are what make this “digital zoom” practical without an unacceptable degradation in quality for many common uses.

Quantifying the Crop: Pixels vs. Primes

To make the abstract concept of cropping flexibility concrete, consider the practical implications in terms of resulting image resolution compared to the familiar focal lengths of the previous Sony GM system:

Leica Q3 (Native 28mm f/1.7, 60MP Full-Frame):
Cropping to a 35mm equivalent field of view yields approximately 39MP.
Cropping to a 50mm equivalent field of view yields approximately 19MP.
Cropping to a 75mm equivalent field of view yields approximately 8MP.
Cropping to a 90mm equivalent field of view yields approximately 6MP.
Fujifilm GFX100RF (Native 35mm f/4 lens = 28mm equiv., 102MP Medium Format):
Using the built-in digital teleconverter for a 35mm equivalent field of view (45mm actual crop) yields approximately 62MP.
Using the built-in digital teleconverter for a 50mm equivalent field of view (63mm actual crop) yields approximately 31MP.
Using the built-in digital teleconverter for a 63mm equivalent field of view (80mm actual crop) yields approximately 20MP.
(Note: Q3 values based on manufacturer specifications. GFX100RF values based on manufacturer specifications for digital teleconverter modes.)

This clearly illustrates the potential. Cropping the Q3 to a 50mm equivalent still yields a highly usable 19MP file. The GFX100RF, starting from 102MP, offers even more dramatic flexibility; cropping to a 50mm equivalent retains a substantial 31MP, and even the 63mm equivalent crop provides a very usable 20MP. This quantitative view validates the strategy, showing where significant flexibility exists within the 28-63mm equivalent range for both cameras. It also highlights the limits – the Q3’s longer crops drop to single digits, and while the GFX100RF maintains higher resolution further, achieving significantly longer reach (e.g., >100mm equivalent) would involve very heavy cropping.

Image Quality Considerations Beyond Resolution

While resolution retention is key, other image quality factors come into play. The exceptional quality of the Leica Summilux and the fixed Fujinon 35mm f/4 lens on the GFX100RF is crucial; cropping magnifies any optical imperfections, so starting with incredibly sharp, well-corrected lenses is paramount. Noise performance is another consideration. Cropping effectively enlarges the remaining pixels relative to the final image size, which can make noise more apparent, especially in shadow areas or at higher ISO settings. However, the baseline performance of the modern BSI sensors in both the Q3 and GFX100RF is excellent. A cropped 60MP Q3 file or a cropped 102MP GFX100RF file might still exhibit competitive noise levels, especially given the GFX’s larger initial sensor area advantage. The GFX100RF’s main limitation here is its f/4 maximum aperture, which necessitates higher ISOs sooner in low light compared to the Q3’s f/1.7. Additionally, the lack of IBIS on the GFX100RF means relying on steady hands or faster shutter speeds to avoid motion blur, especially when cropping heavily.

A critical distinction lies in depth of field. Cropping an image captured with a 28mm equivalent lens (at f/1.7 on the Q3 or f/4 on the GFX100RF) to simulate a 50mm field of view does not replicate the depth of field of a native 50mm lens shot at the same aperture from the same position. The cropped image retains the depth of field characteristics of the original wide-angle capture – typically meaning more of the scene will be in focus. For street photography, this wider depth of field might actually be advantageous. However, photographers seeking extreme subject isolation achievable with fast telephoto lenses will find that cropping cannot replicate that specific optical effect.

Psychological Shift: Decoupling Capture and Framing

Adopting cropping as the primary means of achieving “reach” also fundamentally alters the psychological process of photography. Instead of making the framing decision concrete by selecting and mounting a specific lens before the shot, the photographer using this high-resolution method often captures a wider perspective (native 28mm or equivalent on both cameras), knowing they have the flexibility to explore tighter compositions later in post-processing, or by using the camera’s built-in crop guides/digital teleconverter for framing assistance. This decouples the decisive moment of capture from the final decision about magnification and framing. It can lead to capturing “safety shots” that include more context, potentially preserving elements that might have been excluded by a tighter initial framing.

However, this approach locks the photographer into the optical perspective of the native 28mm (or equivalent) lens. While cropping narrows the field of view, it doesn’t change the way the lens renders spatial relationships – it cannot replicate the background compression characteristic of true telephoto lenses. This represents a fundamental trade-off: gaining significant post-capture compositional freedom and workflow simplicity, but sacrificing the ability to manipulate perspective optically in-camera through lens choice. The success and satisfaction derived from this method, as reported by the photographer, suggests their personal style either doesn’t heavily rely on extreme telephoto compression or that the practical benefits gained far outweigh this specific optical limitation.

The Streamlined Workflow: Beyond Carrying Less Gear

The benefits of transitioning to this minimalist, high-resolution setup extend far beyond simply reducing the physical burden of equipment. The reported reduction in stress is a significant outcome, directly linked to the simplification of the shooting process. Eliminating the need to constantly choose, carry, and change lenses removes a layer of cognitive load, freeing up mental energy. This allows for greater presence and immersion in the environment, enhancing the ability to observe subtle moments, anticipate action, and react instinctively – qualities essential to successful street photography. The camera becomes less of a complex machine to be managed and more of an intuitive tool for capturing vision.

The physical characteristics of the cameras themselves play a crucial role in the experience. The Leica Q3 is noted for its compactness and discretion. The Fujifilm GFX100RF, while housing a medium format sensor, is engineered for portability, being the lightest GFX model to date and remarkably compact, fostering a similar low-profile approach. This reduced visual signature can significantly alter interactions on the street. People may feel less observed, less intimidated, leading to more natural, candid moments. The ability to conceal the cameras under a jacket, foregoing the need for a conspicuous camera bag or backpack, further enhances this low-profile approach. It allows the photographer to blend in, becoming part of the scene rather than an obvious outsider.

This freedom from bags and bulky gear translates directly into physical benefits. Long days spent walking and exploring Ireland’s cities and towns become less taxing without the weight and encumbrance of a heavy kit. This improved physical comfort can sustain energy levels and maintain focus throughout the day, contributing positively to the overall creative output. The entire experience of doing photography becomes lighter, more fluid, and less encumbered.

Of course, this streamlined field experience has implications for the post-processing stage. The high-resolution sensors produce significantly larger files (60MP RAWs from the Q3, 102MP RAWs from the GFX100RF). Handling these requires substantial computing power for smooth editing and ample storage capacity, both locally and for backups. The act of cropping itself introduces an additional step into the digital workflow for images where the built-in crops/teleconverter weren’t used or require refinement. However, this time spent cropping in post-production may be perceived as a worthwhile trade-off compared to the time and mental energy previously spent juggling lenses in the field.

Ultimately, this shift represents a change in the holistic experience of photography. The value derived from the Leica Q3 and GFX100RF setup isn’t measured solely in megapixels or lens sharpness, but also in factors like psychological comfort, creative flow, physical ease, and the quality of interaction with the surrounding world. It underscores the idea that the “best” equipment is deeply personal and context-dependent; it’s the gear that best facilitates the photographer’s unique goals and process, considering the entire journey from seeing the shot to realising the final image. This focus on the overall experience, prioritising well-being and process alongside technical excellence, points towards a more human-centric evaluation of photographic tools, where the perceived value extends far beyond the spec sheet.

Weighing the Compromises: What’s Left Behind?
No photographic system is without its compromises, and the minimalist high-resolution approach, despite its compelling advantages, inevitably sacrifices some capabilities offered by a comprehensive interchangeable-lens system like the Sony GM line. It’s crucial to acknowledge these limitations to fully understand the nature of the trade-off.

The most apparent limitation is the loss of extreme focal lengths at both ends. True ultra-wide perspectives, wider than the native 28mm (or equivalent) of both cameras, are unavailable without resorting to techniques like panorama stitching. Similarly, significant telephoto reach, beyond the ~63-90mm equivalent achievable via cropping with acceptable quality, is sacrificed. Situations demanding expansive architectural shots, dramatic wide-angle landscapes within the city, or the isolation of distant details will be challenging or impossible to capture in the same way as with dedicated ultra-wide or super-telephoto lenses.

Beyond focal length, certain optical characteristics inherent to specialised lenses are also forgone. As previously noted, cropping cannot replicate the shallow depth of field and subject isolation achievable with very fast (f/1.2 or f/1.4) telephoto lenses, nor can it mimic the unique perspective compression these lenses provide. The GFX100RF’s f/4 maximum aperture further limits shallow depth-of-field possibilities compared to faster primes. The distinct rendering of specialised optics – like tilt-shift lenses for architectural control, fisheye lenses for extreme distortion effects, or dedicated macro lenses capable of magnification beyond the cameras’ close-focus ability – are outside the scope of this fixed-lens setup.

Furthermore, specific limitations of the chosen cameras come into play. The GFX100RF lacks IBIS, making handheld shooting at slower shutter speeds more challenging, especially given the high resolution where any shake is magnified. Its f/4 lens also means less light-gathering ability compared to the Q3’s f/1.7 or faster primes available in interchangeable systems, potentially impacting low-light performance despite the large sensor’s quality. Relying on heavy cropping in very low light conditions presents challenges on both cameras, as noise becomes more visible.

However, these compromises must be contextualised against the photographer’s specific needs and reported satisfaction. The fact that the results are deemed “excellent” strongly suggests that the sacrificed capabilities are not critical to their particular style of street photography. Perhaps their vision thrives within the 28mm to ~60mm equivalent range, or maybe the profound benefits of the simplified workflow, enhanced discretion, and reduced stress far outweigh the occasional missed opportunity at the extreme ends of the focal range or in very specific lighting conditions.

This highlights the subjective nature of “versatility.” The previous Sony system offered immense optical versatility. The new Leica/Fuji system offers a different, perhaps more relevant, kind of versatility for this photographer: practical versatility (portability, ease of use, discretion) combined with significant compositional versatility afforded by cropping, primarily starting from a wide 28mm perspective. It appears a conscious decision was made to trade one form of flexibility for another that better aligns with current priorities and working methods. This challenges the often-implicit assumption that more gear options automatically equate to a better or more versatile system. For an experienced photographer with a clear understanding of their requirements, curated limitations can paradoxically be more empowering than boundless theoretical possibilities, leading to a kit that feels less like a burden and more like a seamless extension of their creative intent.

Conclusion: Affirming the Minimalist High-Quality Path

The transition from a comprehensive, multi-lens Sony GM system to a streamlined kit built around the Leica Q3 and the Fujifilm GFX100RF represents a compelling case study in prioritising photographic experience and specific creative goals. The analysis confirms that this “stripped down” approach, leveraging the exceptional resolution of these cameras and the quality of their fixed lenses to enable flexible cropping, is not merely a viable alternative but a demonstrably effective strategy for a particular kind of street photography. It successfully addresses the stated desires for simplified logistics, reduced operational stress, enhanced discretion, and freedom from cumbersome bags, all while delivering results deemed “excellent” by the photographer.

The combination of the 60MP full-frame Leica Q3 and the 102MP medium format Fujifilm GFX100RF provides a potent, albeit constrained, foundation built around a shared 28mm (or equivalent) starting perspective. The Q3 offers speed (f/1.7 lens), compactness, and a classic full-frame look, while the GFX100RF delivers unparalleled detail, the unique medium format aesthetic, and immense cropping potential from its remarkably portable body. Together, they form a strategically minimalist pairing, offering two high-quality interpretations of the wide-angle view, leveraging high resolution to provide compositional flexibility that effectively mimics standard focal lengths (up to ~63mm equivalent).

This path undeniably involves a conscious trade-off. The photographer relinquishes the extreme ends of the optical spectrum and specialised lens characteristics. Specific limitations like the GFX100RF’s f/4 aperture and lack of IBIS must be managed. Yet, these limitations appear acceptable, outweighed by the significant gains in workflow efficiency, portability, reduced conspicuousness, and the resulting mental space freed up for creative focus. The positive initial results serve as strong evidence that this curated system aligns powerfully with the photographer’s current needs and style.

Ultimately, this journey exemplifies a mature and personalised approach to photographic tools. It moves beyond the pursuit of maximum theoretical capability towards optimising the entire photographic process – from seeing and capturing to carrying and interacting. It underscores that the most effective kit is often the one that feels most intuitive and least intrusive, allowing the photographer to connect more directly and fluidly with their subjects and the world they aim to document. This minimalist, high-quality path demonstrates that sometimes, the greatest power lies not in infinite options, but in the mastery of well-chosen constraints, facilitated by technology that serves, rather than dictates, the creative vision.

THE URBAN ENIGMA OF DUNCAN – MAY HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE UK

April 29, 2025 by infomatique

PHOTOGRAPHED BY WILLIAM MURPHY

The appearance of graffiti reading “Duncan Age 51 3/4” in Dublin City has sparked considerable curiosity, emerging as a recurring inscription that deviates significantly from typical street art. Unlike the stylized tags and pseudonyms often found in urban landscapes, this particular graffiti stands out due to its specificity, including a full name and a precise age.

The seemingly unsophisticated style of the inscription further distinguishes it, suggesting a motivation that extends beyond the conventional artistic or territorial aims of graffiti culture. This report aims to broaden the initial observations made in Dublin by investigating the potential presence of similar graffiti in England and the wider UK, as well as exploring any variations in the age format that may exist.

By analyzing the available information, this study seeks to understand the geographical scope of this phenomenon and to offer insights into the possible motivations and cultural significance behind these intriguing urban markings.

The Dublin Anomaly: Deconstructing “Duncan Age 51 3/4”

The graffiti “Duncan Age 51 3/4” has been noted for its consistent reappearance across various locations within Dublin. Observers have described the style as seemingly childlike or of “poor quality,” which suggests that the individual responsible may not be deeply embedded in the established graffiti scene where technical skill is often highly valued. This characteristic implies that the primary focus of the graffiti lies in its message rather than its artistic execution. The message itself is striking in its specificity, providing not just a name but also a precise age, including a fraction of a year. This level of detail is highly unusual in graffiti, where anonymity is often preferred. The regularity with which this inscription has been sighted throughout Dublin indicates a deliberate and sustained effort to disseminate this particular piece of information across the urban environment.

Several interpretations can be proposed to understand the motivation behind the “Duncan Age 51 3/4” graffiti in Dublin. One prominent theory is that it represents a form of personal expression, possibly serving as a unique way for an individual named Duncan to mark the passage of time and their presence within the city. The inclusion of “3/4” could signify the progression through the year following Duncan’s 51st birthday, acting as a public, albeit unconventional, diary entry documenting a specific phase of life. Another possibility is that the graffiti is part of a subtle social experiment or a piece of performance art, introducing an unexpected and thought-provoking element into the everyday lives of Dublin’s inhabitants. The unusual nature of the message might be intended to provoke curiosity, spark conversations, or simply inject a touch of the unexpected into the urban fabric. In a large city where individuals can often feel anonymous, the act of repeatedly writing one’s name and age, even in a rudimentary style, could also be interpreted as a desire to be seen and acknowledged. The simplicity of the message, combined with the precise age, might aim to create a sense of connection or shared experience, however fleeting, with those who encounter it. It is also important to consider that the motivation could be entirely personal, perhaps a fleeting impulse, a form of private humour, or an inside joke with a very limited audience. Not all urban markings are intended for widespread public interpretation, and the true meaning behind the “Duncan” graffiti might be known only to its creator.

Across the Irish Sea: “Duncan” Sightings in the UK

Expanding the scope of inquiry beyond Dublin reveals that graffiti featuring the name “Duncan” and an age has also been observed in England. A discussion on a Reddit thread titled “Who is Duncan, Age 51?” includes reports from users who have seen similar graffiti in London, specifically near Lewisham shopping centre and the Seven Sisters tube station. Furthermore, another user in the same thread mentioned seeing the graffiti in Hamstreet, Kent, noting the presence of more instances around Romney Marsh. These accounts confirm that the “Duncan” graffiti phenomenon is not exclusive to Dublin and has manifested in various locations across England.

A notable difference emerges when comparing the UK sightings to those in Dublin: the age format in the UK appears as “Age 51,” lacking the “3/4” fraction observed in Dublin. This variation in how the age is expressed could hold significant clues about the creator’s motivations and whether the graffiti in both locations is the work of the same individual or multiple people.

The Significance of the Age Format: A Comparative Analysis

The inclusion of “3/4” in the Dublin graffiti strongly suggests a connection to a specific point in time following Duncan’s 51st birthday. This level of precision indicates a potential ongoing documentation of age, perhaps tied to a personal milestone or a significant period in Duncan’s life that commenced around that time. The fraction implies a temporal element, suggesting the graffiti might have been initiated or is updated to reflect the progression through that particular year.

In contrast, the absence of the “3/4” in the UK sightings could point to several possibilities. It might indicate that the UK graffiti is the work of a different individual named Duncan who is simply stating their age at the time of the inscription. While the similarity in name and general age is intriguing, it could be coincidental. Alternatively, if the same person is responsible for both sets of graffiti, the “Age 51” format in the UK might represent a snapshot of Duncan’s age at a particular moment, without the intention of continuously updating it with fractions of a year. This would suggest a less temporally focused motivation in the UK context compared to the Dublin instances. It is also conceivable that if the same individual is behind both, they might choose to express their age slightly differently depending on the location or the specific circumstances under which the graffiti is created. This could reflect subtle variations in personal expression or how the message is intended to be perceived in different urban environments.

It is important to consider the temporal context of the reported sightings. The Reddit thread mentioning the UK graffiti indicates that these observations were made approximately a year ago. This timeframe suggests that the “Duncan Age 51” graffiti was present in the UK around that period. Whether it is still ongoing or if the stated age has since progressed remains unknown based on the available information. Conversely, the Dublin observations are more recent, dating around March and April 2025. This temporal difference could be relevant when considering whether the Dublin and UK graffiti are linked to the same person. If the UK graffiti predates the Dublin instances, it might suggest a timeline of activity that could help connect the two phenomena.

Thematic Resonance: Exploring Potential Overarching Motivations
Despite the geographical separation and the slight variation in the age format, both the Dublin and UK instances of “Duncan” graffiti share a fundamental element: the public display of a personal name and age. This suggests an underlying theme of asserting personal identity within the public sphere. Regardless of the precise format or location, the act of writing “Duncan” followed by an age can be interpreted as a way for an individual to declare their presence and perhaps seek a form of recognition, however unconventional.

The “Duncan” graffiti also represents an unconventional form of communication, bypassing traditional channels and engaging directly with the urban environment. The unusual nature of the message, particularly the specificity of the age, makes it stand out and prompts curiosity, as evidenced by the online discussions it has generated. By being different and unexpected, the graffiti achieves a level of engagement that more conventional forms of urban messaging might not.

Furthermore, there is an interesting tension between the apparent lack of emphasis on artistic skill in the creation of the graffiti and the explicit personal information provided. The focus seems to be on the message itself – the name and age – rather than on the creator’s artistic prowess or their persona within the graffiti subculture. This reinforces the idea that the primary motivation is likely personal expression or a unique form of public interaction, rather than a desire for fame or status within the traditional graffiti world.

Conclusion: Towards a Broader Understanding of the “Duncan” Phenomenon

The analysis of the available information indicates that the “Duncan” graffiti phenomenon extends beyond Dublin and has been observed in various locations in England. In Dublin, the age format is consistently “Age 51 3/4” , while in the UK, it appears as “Age 51” . The style in Dublin is described as “seemingly childlike” or “poor quality” , with a similar style implied in the UK sightings. The graffiti has been noted with “great frequency” in Dublin , and multiple sightings have been reported in London (Lewisham, Seven Sisters) and Kent (Hamstreet, Romney Marsh) . The Dublin sightings are recent (March/April 2025) , whereas the UK sightings were reported approximately one year ago . The motivations behind these inscriptions are likely rooted in personal expression, possibly serving as a unique way to mark time, assert identity, or engage with the urban environment in an unconventional manner. The lack of artistic sophistication suggests that the message itself is the primary focus, rather than adherence to the norms of traditional graffiti subculture.

Further research could explore several avenues to gain a more comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon. Investigating whether there have been other sightings of “Duncan” graffiti in different locations, both within the UK and internationally, could help delineate the geographical scope of this activity. Monitoring the Dublin and UK locations to see if the age progresses over time could provide insights into the longevity and intent behind the graffiti. Exploring potential connections between the Dublin and UK instances, perhaps through online communities or local news sources, might reveal whether a single individual or multiple people are involved. Additionally, examining social media platforms and local community forums could potentially yield further information or insights from individuals who have encountered the “Duncan” graffiti.