p.76 #1 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
^ ugly adapter but it seems the 50mm Lux E43 works on the GFX. I expect the Leica R 50Lux E60 will also work on that camera. Too bad, I have the lens and can afford the adapter but not the GFX
p.76 #3 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well Fotodiox is supposedly making the adapter. I don't think it will be a big problem as the diameter of even the biggest M mount lenses I believe is smaller than the throat of the GFX so they could inset the mount just a bit.
adamdewilde wrote:
Isn't this it?
Ok it seems I underestimated the diameter of the GFX... by a lot looks like there's no problem for M-mount lenses!
If this comment means the image circles typical of these lenses aren't wide enough, that's okay (and understandable.)
But if it means the sensor's micro-lenses don't play happily with the steeply angled light rays, then that's another matter...
Mar 09, 2017 at 09:07 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.76 #6 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Audii-Dudii wrote:
Well, this statement potentially isn't very encouraging: "Wide angle 35mm lenses (lenses wider than 50mm) will vignette on Fujifilm GFX Cameras."
If this comment means the image circles typical of these lenses aren't wide enough, that's okay (and understandable.)
But if it means the sensor's micro-lenses don't play happily with the steeply angled light rays, then that's another matter...
All five of the announced fotodiox adapters (Canon EF, Nikon F, Olympus OM, Contax C/Y, and Mama 645) are available at B & H. So, it looks like we won't have any trouble getting them.
Mar 09, 2017 at 09:58 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.76 #7 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Audii-Dudii wrote:
Well, this statement potentially isn't very encouraging: "Wide angle 35mm lenses (lenses wider than 50mm) will vignette on Fujifilm GFX Cameras."
If this comment means the image circles typical of these lenses aren't wide enough, that's okay (and understandable.)
But if it means the sensor's micro-lenses don't play happily with the steeply angled light rays, then that's another matter...
I think it has to be the former rather than the latter. Fuji is making a 23mm with its short flange distance. It will have steeply angled rays, so the sensor has to be able to handle those. The trade off for micro lenses is usually a loss of light sensitivity and maybe a little resolution for longer lenses with less steep angles. Micro lenses are designed to help steep angles, so they are unlikely to make that problem worse.
Mar 09, 2017 at 10:02 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.76 #8 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
We will see a new era for heavy vignetting and vignette blur. The classic Summaron look
We may very well. If a lens resolves well all the way to the corner on FF 35mm, then on the Fuji sensor cropped to 4 X 5 it will cover all the way to the middle third of the short side and the middle 2/3rds of the long side, so there will be a lot of coverage, but to get all the way to the corner it will need a little more than 9mm more to the image circle, which is a lot, So, those two things together should mean that a FF 35mm lens that covers well all the way to the corner on that format with good sharpness should have plenty of coverage for the subject of a shot on the GFX, but the corners are often going to be ugly with minimal or even no coverage. So, yes the Summaron look . It will be interesting which lenses work and don't work. I would love to find a nice 50 that works at f/2 or even f/2.4/2.5, but there aren't many 50s that I like much on FF 35mm anyway, so I am definitely not sure I will find something to my liking.
p.76 #9 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it has to be the former rather than the latter. Fuji is making a 23mm with its short flange distance. It will have steeply angled rays, so the sensor has to be able to handle those. The trade off for micro lenses is usually a loss of light sensitivity and maybe a little resolution for longer lenses with less steep angles. Micro lenses are designed to help steep angles, so they are unlikely to make that problem worse.
Just don't forget the sensor filter stack. There is a possibility that adapted lenses will run into the exact same problems on the Fuji as they do on Sony cameras, with corner smearing and curvature of field.
p.76 #10 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Audii-Dudii wrote:
If this comment means the image circles typical of these lenses aren't wide enough, that's okay (and understandable.)
But if it means the sensor's micro-lenses don't play happily with the steeply angled light rays, then that's another matter...
They just mean you will get dark corners. Fuji claim in their marketing material that the mircolenses on the GFX are optimised for corner performance at the expense of sensitivity.
The image circle will naturally be smaller on wides as the entrance pupil has to be visible across the whole angle of view, mounting on a larger sensor means a larger angle of view which puts increased demand on the front element.
My experience with APS-C primes of 30mm and above is that most of them cover APS-H therefore I would expect FF primes of 50mm and above to be similar on 44x33, with most lenses darkening significantly toward the boarders but only going black in the extreme corners. If you are careful you can work this into the composition, otherwise a mild crop will be in order. Coverage will be slightly better wide open than stopped down, and can vary with focus distance.
Image quality outside the intended image circle tends to be very poor however as no effort is made to optimise for it (the opposite in fact), so results will be better for portraiture or anywhere the background is blurred out.
Zooms will tend to cover the sensor at the long end of their range provided you remove the rear baffles if present.
p.76 #11 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Matt Grum wrote:
[Coverage will be slightly better wide open than stopped down, and can vary with focus distance.
If you define coverage as absolute cutoff, yes. However some lenses will show steep vignetting wide open that goes away by stopping down. If you define coverage as acceptable vignetting, lenses like the CV 58 Nokton will have full coverage stopped down a little but not wide open.
Image quality outside the intended image circle tends to be very poor however as no effort is made to optimise for it (the opposite in fact), so results will be better for portraiture or anywhere the background is blurred out.
This is why we can get a hint already by looking for lenses without a knee in the MTF..
Zooms will tend to cover the sensor at the long end of their range provided you remove the rear baffles if present.
Mostly for wide angle and normal zooms probably. For long zooms like the Canon 100-400 II, the coverage is better at the short end (up to abut 200 mm in that case). The 70-200 2.8 IS II doesn't cover at any focal length. This is unfortunate, as we won't get much help for the zoom focal ranges not likely to be covered by native lenses. Canon teleconverters cover the full 44x33 format however, so if we want to play that game we can easily get to very long focal lengths. The corner perfomance is likely to suffer again though.
All this info from preliminary testing with a7r and shift adapter with 10 mm shift when rotated, covering one side of 44x36 mm.
p.76 #12 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it has to be the former rather than the latter. Fuji is making a 23mm with its short flange distance. It will have steeply angled rays, so the sensor has to be able to handle those. The trade off for micro lenses is usually a loss of light sensitivity and maybe a little resolution for longer lenses with less steep angles. Micro lenses are designed to help steep angles, so they are unlikely to make that problem worse.
The 23 will be designed differently from 20-24mm 35mm lenses to account for the larger sensor size and short flange distance, likely with larger elements to minimize obstruction of the exit pupil, so it can be farther away from the sensor. Or at least that is how I imagine it, along the lines of the 35 Sonnar in the RX1, if not quite that extreme.
Makten wrote:
Just don't forget the sensor filter stack. There is a possibility that adapted lenses will run into the exact same problems on the Fuji as they do on Sony cameras, with corner smearing and curvature of field.
Yeah, this was the first thing I thought. All good and well to get excited about adapting lenses, but so far the great unknown is how the sensor stack will play with anything at the wider end. Given the good results we're seeing from the various plano-convex lenses, Proxars, etc. attached to the front of problem lenses in the other thread here, it's likely a solution worth pursuing. Wonder if Kolari will offer a sensor mod? If so, at what cost...
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.76 #14 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
Just don't forget the sensor filter stack. There is a possibility that adapted lenses will run into the exact same problems on the Fuji as they do on Sony cameras, with corner smearing and curvature of field.
There are two different effect of the filter stack. One is solely a function of aperture: for apertures faster than f/2 you will get a drop in resolution across the whole frame. At f/1.4 a 1mm thicker or thinner than the lens was designed for will have only a modest effect, but 2mm will produce a pretty strong effect. At f/2 even 1mm off starts to have a pretty strong effect. If a lens is pretty poor this wide open, then you may not notice, but if it performs well you will notice the deterioration. I can be quite noticeable for the Zeiss Otus lenses for example. With miniMF f/2 is already quite narrow depth of field, however, so many lenses will provide some very good opportunities at f/2 and narrower.
The second effect is edge/corner smearing and/or curvature of field--these are really the same effect: curvature of field in the tangential plane that can lead to either pronounced smearing or straight curvature depending on the pattern of curvature in the sagittal plane. This issue has gotten the lion share of the attention with adapted lenses for the Sony A7 series. It is a function of exit pupil and aperture. It (i.e., the tangential plane field curvature) is worse with lenses with short exit pupils and for those lenses it is worse at wider apertures. One way to avoid these issues with the GFX is to adapt medium format wide angle lenses. These all have very long exit pupils and I don't think they will show any issues. The downside is that medium format wide angle lenses wider than 35mm are all very expensive. Some of the 35mm lenses can be pretty cost effective, however. Some of the DSLR lenses (especially the ones with tilt and/or shift) will have wide image circles, but you will want to be careful about the exit pupil of these lenses. Some may have somewhat short exit pupils and show effects. But even saying that the issues should be smaller with the GFX than the Sony A7 series as the available lenses to adapt tend to have longer exit pupils and tend to have slower apertures, both these things are known to mitigate the problems. Now if you want to try to adapt wide angle Leica M lenses, I think that is a very long shot. They tend to have short exit pupils and I doubt they will cover the image circle. Expect a mess if you try these, but if something happens to work do let us know.
p.76 #15 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
There are two different effect of the filter stack. One is solely a function of aperture: for apertures faster than f/2 you will get a drop in resolution across the whole frame. At f/1.4 a 1mm thicker or thinner than the lens was designed for will have only a modest effect, but 2mm will produce a pretty strong effect. At f/2 even 1mm off starts to have a pretty strong effect. If a lens is pretty poor this wide open, then you may not notice, but if it performs well you will notice the deterioration. I can be quite noticeable for the Zeiss Otus lenses for example. With miniMF f/2 is already quite narrow depth of field, however, so many lenses will provide some very good opportunities at f/2 and narrower.
The second effect is edge/corner smearing and/or curvature of field--these are really the same effect: curvature of field in the tangential plane that can lead to either pronounced smearing or straight curvature depending on the pattern of curvature in the sagittal plane. This issue has gotten the lion share of the attention with adapted lenses for the Sony A7 series. It is a function of exit pupil and aperture. It (i.e., the tangential plane field curvature) is worse with lenses with short exit pupils and for those lenses it is worse at wider apertures. One way to avoid these issues with the GFX is to adapt medium format wide angle lenses. These all have very long exit pupils and I don't think they will show any issues. The downside is that medium format wide angle lenses wider than 35mm are all very expensive. Some of the 35mm lenses can be pretty cost effective, however. Some of the DSLR lenses (especially the ones with tilt and/or shift) will have wide image circles, but you will want to be careful about the exit pupil of these lenses. Some may have somewhat short exit pupils and show effects. But even saying that the issues should be smaller with the GFX than the Sony A7 series as the available lenses to adapt tend to have longer exit pupils and tend to have slower apertures, both these things are known to mitigate the problems. Now if you want to try to adapt wide angle Leica M lenses, I think that is a very long shot. They tend to have short exit pupils and I doubt they will cover the image circle. Expect a mess if you try these, but if something happens to work do let us know....Show more →
Yeah, I know all of that Steve! But it's a good time to bring it up, and your post is sort of a summary of all the effects that could easily be forgotten.
I just wanted to remind you all of possible issues with adapting lenses to the GFX. Even if the image circle is sufficiently large, they could still suck because of filter stack properties. But we don't know that quite yet, of course.
As I stated earlier, the GFX is too expensive for me (got the money, but not the skills), but if I got one and would want to try adapting non-native lenses, I'd look at 645 SLR systems, since their long distance from exit pupil to sensor/film should be sufficient, whatever the properties of the sensor. The image circles are also not unnecessarily large, so there is a good chance that resolution will be good enough (larger image circle usually means lower resolution).
Mar 09, 2017 at 04:17 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.76 #16 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Makten wrote:
Yeah, I know all of that Steve! But it's a good time to bring it up, and your post is sort of a summary of all the effects that could easily be forgotten.
I just wanted to remind you all of possible issues with adapting lenses to the GFX. Even if the image circle is sufficiently large, they could still suck because of filter stack properties. But we don't know that quite yet, of course.
As I stated earlier, the GFX is too expensive for me (got the money, but not the skills), but if I got one and would want to try adapting non-native lenses, I'd look at 645 SLR systems, since their long distance from exit pupil to sensor/film should be sufficient, whatever the properties of the sensor. The image circles are also not unnecessarily large, so there is a good chance that resolution will be good enough (larger image circle usually means lower resolution). ...Show more →
I knew you knew all that , and what you suggest is exactly what I am doing. I will try a few of my 35mm FF lenses, but if they work that is just a bonus. The plan is for the set of lenses to be drawn from 645 (and one 6 X 6) SLR lenses and a couple of large format view camera lenses on the Cambo Actus. It actually will make a nice set of lenses. If a couple of 35mm FF lenses work for different looks for portraits then even better, but I am not counting on it.
p.76 #17 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I expect that it won't work well, but I don't know for sure. Here are the bad signs:
First it is pretty wide angle and wider angle lenses are less likely to have a wider image circle as wider image circles are tougher with these lenses. Even look at large format lenses, the wider lenses all have smaller image circles.
Second, both experience the the Zeiss MTFs suggest the image starts to deteriorate in the corners on FF 35mm. I really looks like the image circle barely makes it to the 43mm needed for FF 35mm. I don't think there is much chance it will make it to the 55mm needed to cover the mini MF sensor, and in any event a 26mm f/1.0 lens is probably way overkill for pretty much any application I can think of....Show more →
Yes, the MTF charts makes the CY 35 1.4 a no-go candidate. Actually the prospects for corner sharpness are slim for all classical Distagons, both the CY and ZF/ZF line. The MTF charts show a knee with a rather steep fall-off. Some are worse than others, but there is one candidate there may be more hope for, the newer ZF/ZF 35 1.4. Looks like there may be astigmatism though.
I am also curoius about the Pentax FA 31 1.8 limited.
MTF for 20 lp/mm indicate it is not hopeless.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.76 #18 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
Yes, the MTF charts makes the CY 35 1.4 a no-go candidate. Actually the prospects for corner sharpness are slim for all classical Distagons, both the CY and ZF/ZF line. The MTF charts show a knee with a rather steep fall-off. Some are worse than others, but there is one candidate there may be more hope for, the newer ZF/ZF 35 1.4. Looks like there may be astigmatism though.
I am also curoius about the Pentax FA 31 1.8 limited.
MTF for 20 lp/mm indicate it is not hopeless.
I have the ZF.2 35 f/1.4 and I have the F adapter and the camera on order, so I will know soon if it will work. I have my doubts having owned the lens. The astigmatism in the corners on FF 35mm is pretty bad. It is a great portrait lens, however. I think it is actually the best portrait 35mm, but others may disagree. So, for a 25mm portrait lens it might be interesting and wide open it would be the equivalent of f/1 in depth of field. The lens performs a lot better stopped down to f/2, however, and my guess if it works that or f/2.8 is where you would want to use it.
The 31 limited has over 2 stops of vignetting in the corners of FF 35mm wide open, so I expect that to get very bad as you approach the corners on the Fuji--I expect something like 4 stops based on the slope of vignetting curve. Perhaps it will be salvageable in post. I haven't see anyone talk about a Pentax 35mm FF adapter (a Pentax 645 adapter is likely), so it may be awhile before an adapter is made to check out the 31 limited.
p.76 #19 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have the ZF.2 35 f/1.4 and I have the F adapter and the camera on order, so I will know soon if it will work. I have my doubts having owned the lens. The astigmatism in the corners on FF 35mm is pretty bad. It is a great portrait lens, however. I think it is actually the best portrait 35mm, but others may disagree. So, for a 25mm portrait lens it might be interesting and wide open it would be the equivalent of f/1 in depth of field. The lens performs a lot better stopped down to f/2, however, and my guess if it works that or f/2.8 is where you would want to use it.
The 31 limited has over 2 stops of vignetting in the corners of FF 35mm wide open, so I expect that to get very bad as you approach the corners on the Fuji--I expect something like 4 stops based on the slope of vignetting curve. Perhaps it will be salvageable in post. I haven't see anyone talk about a Pentax 35mm FF adapter (a Pentax 645 adapter is likely), so it may be awhile before an adapter is made to check out the 31 limited....Show more →
Thank you, Steve!
I should add that I am most interested in these wide lenses stopped down.
For preliminary testing of Pentax K mount lenses, it would be possible to use stacked adapters, K - EF and EF - G.
Mar 10, 2017 at 08:24 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.76 #20 · Pre-order: Fujifilm GFX 50S Medium Format body ($6,499)
alundeb wrote:
Thank you, Steve!
I should add that I am most interested in these wide lenses stopped down.
For preliminary testing of Pentax K mount lenses, it would be possible to use stacked adapters, K - EF and EF - G.
I will make sure I test pretty far stopped down as well. The ZF 35 f/1.4's coma and astigmatism get much better by f/5.6 and may be even better on the GFX by f/8 where the effects diffraction will set in a bit later than on the A7rII. I wouldn't expect excellent landscape performance from this lens, as you don't even see that on 35mm FF, but it might be pretty good.
But it's a good time to bring it up, and your post is sort of a summary of all the effects that could easily be forgotten.