wushuliu wrote:
Sounds like you've never even looked at the database to see the color coding and descriptions. And no dude, the vignetting is not 'crazy'. I just showed you the worst of it.
I've looked at it and consider it worthless just because there are people who think that black corners is "perfect coverage". To me, that particular lens would be of zero interest because it doesn't cover the sensor. So in this case the red designation seems correct.
Makten wrote:
I've looked at it and consider it worthless just because there are people who think that black corners is "perfect coverage". To me, that particular lens would be of zero interest because it doesn't cover the sensor. So in this case the red designation seems correct.
Didn't think I'd have to hit the Hide/Ignore button this early but such are the times I guess...
markhout wrote:
I think the broader question is - why use these lenses (lenses that vignette) on a GFX and crop, if you can use them on a FF body without crop?
As a GFX and Z7 user, I own many FF lenses, but none that perform visibly better (in all aspects) on the GFX vs the Z7.
Because you might not want to own or use multiple systems.
What I don't understand is how anyone could say that a lens "covers the sensor" when it obviously doesn't (hard vignetting is not possible to correct). Liking the results anyway is something else though, and understandable.
Here's a lens that covers the sensor, albeit with some vignetting unless you stop down a bit.
I rebought the Samyang 135/2 a few days ago, because I wanted something sharper and a bit faster than the Mamiya 150/3.5.
Last time I sold it because I got the GF 110/2, that is now replaced with the 80.
Wide open with no correction. The scene was lit only by moonlight, hence the strange look.
GFX50S II135 mm f/-- lens135mmf/1.025s400 ISO0.0 EV
markhout wrote:
I think the broader question is - why use these lenses (lenses that vignette) on a GFX and crop, if you can use them on a FF body without crop?
If it's a lens that requires you to crop to 36x24 or nearly so, absolutely. But the whole point of this thread is that a lot of these FF lenses don't. Even the Rokinon 55/1.2 image Makten dismissed on the previous page as a *poor* example of coverage only requires cropping to about 42x31.5, which is still 53% extra sensor area.
Makten wrote:
Because you might not want to own or use multiple systems.
Yep. I walked around yesterday carrying an FE2 with Provia and an F4 with Ektachrome, and they each had a dedicated lens and I made a point of swapping them as little as possible. That was annoying enough. When you figure that those two setups combined take up less volume (and very possibly less weight) than just a GFX 100 and one lens, much less that plus a second setup...
Lee Saxon wrote:
If it's a lens that requires you to crop to 36x24 or nearly so, absolutely. But the whole point of this thread is that a lot of these FF lenses don't. Even the Rokinon 55/1.2 image Makten dismissed on the previous page as a *poor* example of coverage only requires cropping to about 42x31.5, which is still 53% extra sensor area.
Sure, but one can not claim that it "covers the sensor", because it doesn't.
It depends, I have few (3) lenses that cover the sensor with some mild form of vignetting. Darkening is actually when the optical path is blocked and you loose everything.Some might consider severe vignetting also as darkening, some not (I do).
Fpessolano wrote:
It depends, I have few (3) lenses that cover the sensor with some mild form of vignetting. Darkening is actually when the optical path is blocked and you loose everything.Some might consider severe vignetting also as darkening, some not (I do).
DubB20 wrote:
Apologies for the reductive post. I've perused the thread and enjoyed seeing everybody's thoughts and pics. I've done and search on the forum and come up short, so I wanted to ask if there is a list of "best" adapted lenses folks have used? I'm just looking to complement some of the native GFX lenses I have, as well as see if any other lenses I have might work. TIA!
which focal length?
I have tried Tamron 35mm/45mm f1.8 and both work very well
Canon 24mm TSE very good
Canon 50mm TSE, 90mm TSE excellent
Canon 200mm f2.8 I or II - very good
Sigma 135mm f1.8 - excellent
Maybe I misunderstand the intent of this thread and/or the purpose of owning a GFX? 'Crap' and 'worthless' sensor coverage aside - is there a taboo against cropping? Is something lost if I have only 90/76/60MP to work with from 102? Am I adding to carbon footprint by using FF and not spending 5-10k on GFX lenses? Does the 35mm Crop Mode (or crop in post) *not* look as good as using a FF camera?
wushuliu wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand the intent of this thread and/or the purpose of owning a GFX? 'Crap' and 'worthless' sensor coverage aside - is there a taboo against cropping? Is something lost if I have only 90/76/60MP to work with from 102? Am I adding to carbon footprint by using FF and not spending 5-10k on GFX lenses? Does the 35mm Crop Mode (or crop in post) *not* look as good as using a FF camera?
There is no taboo. You free to use whatever you want but then why spend the money on the GFX? Why not keep shooting your FF or whatever else you have. I mostly use GF lenses and only use 3rd party where there is no GF available or is much slower. I had 45mm f2.8 GF but personally I didn't like it much against my FF Sigma 40mm f1.4. Others disagree, fine, so I sold mine and got Tamron 45mm f1.8 till I get 55mm f1.7 GF.
You started with this:
Liking the results anyway is something else though, and understandable.
