Thank you. It helps
I wonder if they are as good as native Fuji GFX lenses or there are some other brand(SK, Rodenstock etc. )lenses that are under 1000$ used and on par with fuji lenses
Any macro lens to suggest?
BTW, there is also a Mamiya 67 and 645 options, some of them I already have.
I thought the Fotodiox adapter to fuji gfx is the best one in quality. Ok, good to know there is something better like Kippon.
And, if I use view camera, isn't it better to buy Pentax 67 or Mamiya 67 sekor lenses for bigger shifts/tilts/swings etc.? or the 645 series are more modern?
Allthink wrote:
Thank you. It helps
I wonder if they are as good as native Fuji GFX lenses or there are some other brand(SK, Rodenstock etc. )lenses that are under 1000$ used and on par with fuji lenses
Any macro lens to suggest?
BTW, there is also a Mamiya 67 and 645 options, some of them I already have.
I thought the Fotodiox adapter to fuji gfx is the best one in quality. Ok, good to know there is something better like Kippon.
And, if I use view camera, isn't it better to buy Pentax 67 or Mamiya 67 sekor lenses for bigger shifts/tilts/swings etc.? or the 645 series are more modern?...Show more →
I recommend the Kipon adapter over the Fuji Tilt ROKR (which I have) because the Kipon allows shift movements in two directions at the same time. That means you can have tilt and rise/fall, which you can't on the Fotodiox.
I've landed on a set of lenses for my Arca-Swiss F-Universalis plus Fuji GFX 100S. I wrote about it here, but this is already out of date because I've made some changes: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Lenses I'm now using a Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6 L-88 instead of the Pentax-A 645 35/3.5. The Pentax-A 35/3.5 is on part with the S-K in terms of overall image quality, and it shifts more and doesn't require an LCC frame. However, it's bigger, heavier, requires a separate lens board, and has moustache distortion (as do all the wide choices).
If you're interested in Mamiya RZ lenses, my friend John in NZ uses these and has a nice write-up: https://johnleathwick.wordpress.com/2023/10/27/using-mamiya-rz67-lenses-on-the-arca-swiss-f-universalis-setting-up/ I've never used them, but they have a nice big image circle. The widest non-fisheye is 50mm. I have not used Mamiya 645. Pentax 67 has some good ones (notably the third generation 55mm). Unfortunately the P67 45mm doesn't cut it for me (too soft). But P67 is also big and heavy.
The Mamiya N and G lenses for the rangefinder Mamiya 7 and 6 cameras are top notch, but adapting them requires irreversible changes that cost money. See my writeup for details.
I'm actually shocked the 35XL can get close enough to the sensor to focus to infinity. When I shot one on a tech cam I remember it sitting quite close to the sensor.
I recommend the Kipon adapter over the Fuji Tilt ROKR (which I have) because the Kipon allows shift movements in two directions at the same time. That means you can have tilt and rise/fall, which you can't on the Fotodiox.
I've landed on a set of lenses for my Arca-Swiss F-Universalis plus Fuji GFX 100S. I wrote about it here, but this is already out of date because I've made some changes: https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Lenses I'm now using a Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35mm f/5.6 L-88 instead of the Pentax-A 645 35/3.5. The Pentax-A 35/3.5 is on part with the S-K in terms of overall image quality, and it shifts more and doesn't require an LCC frame. However, it's bigger, heavier, requires a separate lens board, and has moustache distortion (as do all the wide choices).
If you're interested in Mamiya RZ lenses, my friend John in NZ uses these and has a nice write-up: https://johnleathwick.wordpress.com/2023/10/27/using-mamiya-rz67-lenses-on-the-arca-swiss-f-universalis-setting-up/ I've never used them, but they have a nice big image circle. The widest non-fisheye is 50mm. I have not used Mamiya 645. Pentax 67 has some good ones (notably the third generation 55mm). Unfortunately the P67 45mm doesn't cut it for me (too soft). But P67 is also big and heavy.
The Mamiya N and G lenses for the rangefinder Mamiya 7 and 6 cameras are top notch, but adapting them requires irreversible changes that cost money. See my writeup for details. ...Show more →
Allthink wrote:
Any macro lens to suggest?
BTW, there is also a Mamiya 67 and 645 options, some of them I already have.
The Mamiya 645 120/4 has really gorgeous bokeh and OOC colors. It's not the highest resolving macro available, but it makes some lovely images.
My favorite field macro for the 50sII was the Irix 150/2.8 in F-mount (I sold the camera, but still have the lens). Very strong lens at f/4 and higher on the larger sensor, decent bokeh, and it plays well with Kenko Teleplus 300 1.4x, though I recommend stopping down to f/5.6 for the best results with the extender.
I think a good bellows unit is the way to go for tabletop and reproduction. It opens up a whole world of different lenses (bellows mount, enlarging, and process). There are plenty of ways to go there, but this is my favorite: Novoflex BALPRO 1 I have the camera end set with their Hassy V mount and then a Kipon V to GFX tilt shift adapter between the bellows and camera so you get movements with any lens you mount to the front. My favorites are the Hassy Zeiss MP 135/5.6 (bellows mount) and the Rodenstock APO-Sironar Digital 120/5.6, which works best with the thick sensor stack on the GFX. The APO-Rodagon-D 120/5.6 is typically far less expensive, has the same optics with slightly different spacing, and performs just as well in the center, but when you shift outside of the center, you start to see some FC issues. They aren't major, but the Digital lens is free of that issue. Otherwise, sticking with englarging/reproduction lenses between 75 and 135mm gets you good magnification and plenty of room for movements. You can stretch that to 150mm with the use of their extension ring on the front side. And, though I sold the camera, I just swapped out the Kipon adapter for a V to E mount, and now it all gets used with my Sony rV.
thrice wrote:
I'm actually shocked the 35XL can get close enough to the sensor to focus to infinity. When I shot one on a tech cam I remember it sitting quite close to the sensor.
The rear of the lens is inside the GFX mount. This constrains shift movements to a hair under 8mm. As it turns out, the lens I bought is the original L-88, not the XL-110 that has the larger image circle. The L-88 only allows 8mm anyway.
Importantly, at the start of the thread I hadn't figured out yet that the L-88 and the XL-110 are close but not the same.
I'm now a huge fan of this little lens. Even with the constraints on movement and the need to use an LCC frame, it's very sharp, super lightweight, and a pleasure to use. I love distortion free lenses that are reliably excellent.
Quick (and hopefully not too dirty) test shot of a Peony yesterday afternoon, checking out my new to me Fringer adapter along with a ZE Milvus 50/1.4 on my newish to me 50s ii.
I continue to be pleased with this lens. It is fantastic on my 5d4, and I'm not seeing too much more vignetting when open on the Fuji -- providing I don't use the hood which makes for a hard mechanical vignette at 4:3.
Edit -- sorry for the ginormous image. Any tips on keeping this to a reasonable size welcome by PM.
Anyone try a nikon 58g on the gfx ? I owned one in the past and recall it came close to covering. If anyone has first hand experience using this combo would love to get your feedback.
Picture This! wrote:
Anyone try a nikon 58g on the gfx ? I owned one in the past and recall it came close to covering. If anyone has first hand experience using this combo would love to get your feedback.
I have it and use it from time to time. I’ve used it with a Steelsring AF-adapter in the past but prefer a manual adapter to be honest. Love the rendering of this lens. For me the limiting factor is the GFX 100s viewfinder when shooting wide open.
Picture This! wrote:
Anyone try a nikon 58g on the gfx ? I owned one in the past and recall it came close to covering. If anyone has first hand experience using this combo would love to get your feedback.
I have one. It covers the full frame, no problem.
Its corners at f/1.4 aren’t great… it reminds me of shooting my Canon 50/1.4 USM years ago, where f/1.4 was reserved for centered subjects, and I’d stop down a bit if anything interesting was in the corners.
By f/2 the corners are OK, and by f/2.8 they’re great.
Overall I really like the lens on GFX. It has a really nice, smooth rendering, it’s plenty sharp, colors are nice, and it handles the sun well. It’s a “character” lens on Nikon, and that character is all the more extreme on GFX.
thrice wrote:
I used to have one of these 12 years ago, hard to imagine such a small lens covering the GFX sensor so well, with the hood fitted! Incredible.
Yes it is almost too good to be true!
I am glad I held onto the lens, although I haven't used it for almost ten years.
The 90 mm Apo-Lanthar SL performs similarly, I will post examples later. These two lenses are true finds for GFX, contrary to the CV Ultrons and Noktons from the same era.
freaklikeme wrote:
The Mamiya 645 120/4 has really gorgeous bokeh and OOC colors. It's not the highest resolving macro available, but it makes some lovely images.
Argh I bought a Mamiya 645 120mm macro but it came in the 'digital' version without aperture ring - so wide-open only on the GFX... Back to the seller it goes.
At last I could borrow an adapter to try my Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 in EF mount. Unfortunately, the Viltrox behaves so randomly that I haven't really bothered trying to take any decent photos.
The lens is borderline usable in 7:6 crop from 135 to 400 mm. Vignetting is soft but if IBIS makes the sensor move a lot, you can get almost black corners. 4:3 is crap, but I'm sure a lot of people would think it's "perfect".
Stopping down to f/11 makes the vignetting go (almost) completely away in 7:6, but it's not enough for 4:3.
I would definitely use it if I had an adapter that worked properly. But since it's a Sigma, I have no idea of if there is such an adapter. With the Viltrox, the camera locks up frequently, often totally misses focus even if you get the green square, tries to focus again when you half-press the shutter button even if you are in manual focus mode. Also I've had the IR eye sensor to quit working, and during my last half hour of shooting, I had to disconnect the battery four times because of the camera being locked, not even possible to shut off.
Sooooo, I wonder if there is anything similar that actually works? I want a long tele zoom and it doesn't have to be perfect. But I'm not paying hundreds of dollars for adapters that behave completely random.
Edit: And no, the GF 100-200 is not for me. Too large, too short, too expensive for what it is. Performance seems fine though. But I'd rather take a few optical flaws for longer reach and/or smaller size.
-------------------
Edit 2: By the way, I also borrowed the EF 40/2.8. Nope, not for me either. Sure it's usable, but wide open there is bad curvature of field and the corners never get even close to sharp. For specific purposes I can understand why some like it. But I'd take the GF 50 or 35-70 any day over it.
Makten wrote:
At last I could borrow an adapter to try my Sigma 100-400/5-6.3 in EF mount. Unfortunately, the Viltrox behaves so randomly that I haven't really bothered trying to take any decent photos.
The lens is borderline usable in 7:6 crop from 135 to 400 mm. Vignetting is soft but if IBIS makes the sensor move a lot, you can get almost black corners. 4:3 is crap, but I'm sure a lot of people would think it's "perfect".
Stopping down to f/11 makes the vignetting go (almost) completely away in 7:6, but it's not enough for 4:3.
I would definitely use it if I had an adapter that worked properly. But since it's a Sigma, I have no idea of if there is such an adapter. With the Viltrox, the camera locks up frequently, often totally misses focus even if you get the green square, tries to focus again when you half-press the shutter button even if you are in manual focus mode. Also I've had the IR eye sensor to quit working, and during my last half hour of shooting, I had to disconnect the battery four times because of the camera being locked, not even possible to shut off.
Sooooo, I wonder if there is anything similar that actually works? I want a long tele zoom and it doesn't have to be perfect. But I'm not paying hundreds of dollars for adapters that behave completely random. ...Show more →
As re adapters, I reco Fringer. They just work. Personally I’ve decided to go with Nikon lenses so will be selling my Fringer EF to GFX in a few weeks.
As re adapting Fx telezooms, I think you’re going to be disappointed unless you plan on shooting some cropped ratio and settling for a net of 60 or so MP — I just don’t see the optical physics working out well there much beyond the Fx IC. Fx tele primes, I think you might have better luck, but still expect at least some crop. Heck, you should anticipate crop on any FX lens if corner quality is a concern.
