Makten wrote:
I also think that the combo of the EF 70-300L and the Metabones Expander shows that a native lens in this range would NOT have to be huge and expensive. Optically it's pretty damn good and without OIS it could be a 90-380 mm GF lens, no question. It's a tad soft at 380 mm wide open, but still very usable.
All the other problems are only because of trying to electronically adapt a lens from a different brand. It's not related to optical performance.
That's my biggest issue with GFX right now... we COULD have a decent, compact xx-300mm zoom, but we have only the 100-200.
With my Z9 I can fit a 24-400mm kit into a shoulder bag. With GFX you're into backpack territory. Those of us who want to travel light with GFX are forced into compromises like these, or to just give up on telephoto.
I hope Fuji has a compact telezoom akin to the 35-70 in the works!
CKrueger wrote:
That's my biggest issue with GFX right now... we COULD have a decent, compact xx-300mm zoom, but we have only the 100-200.
With my Z9 I can fit a 24-400mm kit into a shoulder bag. With GFX you're into backpack territory. Those of us who want to travel light with GFX are forced into compromises like these, or to just give up on telephoto.
I hope Fuji has a compact telezoom akin to the 35-70 in the works!
I agree, but you can still crop the 100-200 and/or get the teleconverter for it. At least it balances quite well on the camera and is nice to handle, and IBIS/OIS works really great.
I'm leaning towards giving up on the adapted lenses all together. It just ruins the joy of photography when you can't trust your gear. Sometimes I get that randomly unsharp edges even without OIS, and at very reasonable shutter speeds for hand-holding with only IBIS. With the 70-300L and Metabones Expander that is. I wonder if IBIS is causing issues as well, since it needs an even bigger image circle. I mean, the lens was never designed with IBIS in mind.
Edit: A possible solution would be to get a Fringer adapter and use the crop mode. But there are virtually no tests online of that combo, so I have no idea of if it will work properly or not. Just discovered that you aren't even allowed to turn IBIS off with the Expander. That option doesn't exist in the menus.
New to GFX several weeks and I tried the actual operation between native lens and 3rd party lens, it is true that the 100MP will make the 3rd party Lens difficult to focus and avoid vibration, this will limited the use of 3rd party lens in many shooting situation.
KKFung wrote:
New to GFX several weeks and I tried the actual operation between native lens and 3rd party lens, it is true that the 100MP will make the 3rd party Lens difficult to focus and avoid vibration, this will limited the use of 3rd party lens in many shooting situation.
Totally depends on what lens you want to use. Many lenses give much, much higher resolution than needed for 100 Mpix, in the center of the frame. Could be good even to the corners as well, if you stop down a lot. Or if you adapt medium format lenses of good quality. Some lenses are just crap and not even necessarily because of resolution, but because the sensor stack on the GFX cameras is extremely thick.
IBIS works with adapted lenses too, but ironically it seems that it's most reliable with fully manual focus lenses (if you set the correct focal length in the menu).
Makten wrote:
Totally depends on what lens you want to use. Many lenses give much, much higher resolution than needed for 100 Mpix, in the center of the frame. Could be good even to the corners as well, if you stop down a lot. Or if you adapt medium format lenses of good quality. Some lenses are just crap and not even necessarily because of resolution, but because the sensor stack on the GFX cameras is extremely thick.
IBIS works with adapted lenses too, but ironically it seems that it's most reliable with fully manual focus lenses (if you set the correct focal length in the menu). ...Show more →
Now I have EF50/1.4, EF100/2 and Laowa 20mm shift, but none of them I can switch on the IBIS. This could be the mount converter issue (I'm using STEELSRING)?
Makten wrote:
I agree, but you can still crop the 100-200 and/or get the teleconverter for it. At least it balances quite well on the camera and is nice to handle, and IBIS/OIS works really great.
I'm leaning towards giving up on the adapted lenses all together. It just ruins the joy of photography when you can't trust your gear. Sometimes I get that randomly unsharp edges even without OIS, and at very reasonable shutter speeds for hand-holding with only IBIS. With the 70-300L and Metabones Expander that is. I wonder if IBIS is causing issues as well, since it needs an even bigger image circle. I mean, the lens was never designed with IBIS in mind.
Edit: A possible solution would be to get a Fringer adapter and use the crop mode. But there are virtually no tests online of that combo, so I have no idea of if it will work properly or not. Just discovered that you aren't even allowed to turn IBIS off with the Expander. That option doesn't exist in the menus. ...Show more →
If you’re shooting the Metabones for its focal extender feature, I agree it’s probably best to go back to reliable GFX lenses. I’m happy with my Fringer, but I’m happy to live with corner restrictions, like some lenses not covering 4:3 at 100% of their range (like my 70-400/4), or having poor wide open performance. I lived with worse wide open performance from my EF 50/1.4 on my 5D, after all… not having to stop down for great corners is only a recent development in my world.
---------------------------------------------
KKFung wrote:
Now I have EF50/1.4, EF100/2 and Laowa 20mm shift, but none of them I can switch on the IBIS. This could be the mount converter issue (I'm using STEELSRING)?
I use IBIS with my EF Tamron 45/1.8, Sigma 105/2.8 OS and Canon 70-200/4 with no issues, using the Fringer EF adapter. I don’t know that the Fringer is better than Steelsring, and perhaps I’ve had some unoptimal photos that I just didn’t notice. But I can shoot at less than 1/FL and get 100mpix-level sharp photos with these lenses, so I consider that a success!
CKrueger wrote:
If you’re shooting the Metabones for its focal extender feature, I agree it’s probably best to go back to reliable GFX lenses. I’m happy with my Fringer, but I’m happy to live with corner restrictions, like some lenses not covering 4:3 at 100% of their range (like my 70-400/4), or having poor wide open performance. I lived with worse wide open performance from my EF 50/1.4 on my 5D, after all… not having to stop down for great corners is only a recent development in my world.
I use it because I don't want to crop, since it ruins the experience of actually composing the image before taking the picture. IQ-wise, it would be no problem at all for me to crop heavily. I seldom use long teles and I never print. I like to pixel peep, though.
I disagree about wide open performance. The Sigma 100-400 is fabulous on 24x36 and that's a cheap lens. No need to stop down for any other reason than DOF.
-----
Since my last post I've also tried the Samyang 135/2 with the Expander, and it seems to play veeery nicely. However, my copy of the Sammy is obviously either decentered or somehow tilted, because the right side of the image always seems slightly out of focus. Sigh. That doesn't happen with other lenses so it's not the Expander. I think.
I've also done some more testing with the Sigma 100-400 after I realized that the 70-300L didn't work either. And I think the Sigma is optically great with the expander. The problem there is that focus is constantly a tiny bit off, and that lens is more or less impossible to focus manually because of the focus ring being too stiff and "notchy". You just can't move it a little bit, it's nothing or too much. Sigh again.
Edit: And yes, the GF 100-200 is fine. It's just too short for when I want a tele. Could just as well use the tiny, dirt cheap and still more than a stop faster Mamiya 150/3.5.
pingflood wrote:
Might be picking up a 100s next week and was wondering if there are any decent medium format zooms that can be adapted to it. Any suggestions?
The SMC Pentax-A 645 45-85mm F4.5 is pretty good and adaptable. Their SMC Pentax-FA 28-45 is great but can only be adapted with an adaptor with an aperture stop-down mechanism built in. At the price-point it usually goes for the Fuji 32-64 is a better option.
I think you'll find in most cases the native zooms are available for a great price on the used market and beat all but the best zooms out there, with the added conveniences of native glass.
pingflood wrote:
Might be picking up a 100s next week and was wondering if there are any decent medium format zooms that can be adapted to it. Any suggestions?
What is your goal? To save money? To have nice manual focus? To get "character"?
And what zoom range do you want; wide angle, normal or tele?
If you want to save money and need a normal/standard zoom, I'd say ditch the plan of adapted lenses and get the GF 35-70. It's very, very good and cheap and small and light.
Makten wrote:
What is your goal? To save money? To have nice manual focus? To get "character"?
And what zoom range do you want; wide angle, normal or tele?
If you want to save money and need a normal/standard zoom, I'd say ditch the plan of adapted lenses and get the GF 35-70. It's very, very good and cheap and small and light.
Oh, it's mostly because I like playing with alt glass. I will probably pick up a 32-64 (owned one before when I had a 50R) as well.
So reason is mainly to see how it renders and compares to modern glass, and it's fun testing different optics. Zoom range standard-ish so something that falls between 24-100mm equiv.
suteetat wrote:
Waiting to hear your impression of Hasselblad lenses, especially in comparison to Fuji's own lenses. I just got the H adapter as well but only tried 150/3.2 HC so far and I am very impressed.
Does not matter who made it. As far as I know, Hasselblad lens are not identical to Fuji lens lineup so Fuji making it does not make Fuji brand lens identical to what Hasselblad have to offer right ?
suteetat wrote:
Does not matter who made it. As far as I know, Hasselblad lens are not identical to Fuji lens lineup so Fuji making it does not make Fuji brand lens identical to what Hasselblad have to offer right ?
The H lenses and the XPAN lenses were identical, fuji only marketed the lenses in Japan, and they are interchangeable on H body and XPAN body
pingflood wrote:
Oh, it's mostly because I like playing with alt glass. I will probably pick up a 32-64 (owned one before when I had a 50R) as well.
So reason is mainly to see how it renders and compares to modern glass, and it's fun testing different optics. Zoom range standard-ish so something that falls between 24-100mm equiv.
I only shoot "alt" glass on my GFX 100S, but I've owned several GF lenses, and currently have the GF 35-70mm in my lens drawer. It's pristine due to lack of use... I also have the Pentax-A 645 45-85mm in my lens drawer. I used it a fair bit years ago, but not for years now.
In my opinion, you're not going to see anything "special" until you adapt a lens that has some aberrations that you find pleasing. Some people like CA, spherical aberration and swirly bokeh. Fuji GF lenses don't do those things. Pentax 645 lenses have the flaws that come with lenses that can be 40 years old, but they were serious lenses for professionals so you'll mostly get non-"special" results (by which I mean you'll get good quality images expected by professionals).
If you have money to throw at exploring adapted lenses, have at it! Some folks are getting great results with Minolta Rokkors for full frame, so that might be fun. Check out this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4774000
However, if you ultimately want a good lens that gives good results, the Fuji GF 35-70mm is excellent and very reasonably priced.
msadat wrote:
The H lenses and the XPAN lenses were identical, fuji only marketed the lenses in Japan, and they are interchangeable on H body and XPAN body
And Xpan lenses are not identical to Fuji GF lens right so what is the problem with wanting to hear how Hasselblad H lenses
work with GFX exactly ?? Different lenses and different rendition even if made by same company. Focal length are not
all identical either but I don't want to just randomly shelfing out money. Not all GF lenses perform at the same level so
just because Fuji made Hasselblad H lenses does not one way or another saying that it is the same as Fuji GF lenses.
May be same as Xpan but how is that relevant to comparison to GF lenses?
In only shoot "alt" glass on my GFX 100S, but I've owned several GF lenses, and currently have the GF 35-70mm in my lens drawer. It's pristine due to lack of use... I also have the Pentax-A 645 45-85mm in my lens drawer. I used it a fair bit years ago, but not for years now.
In my opinion, you're not going to see anything "special" until you adapt a lens that has some aberrations that you find pleasing. Some people like CA, spherical aberration and swirly bokeh. Fuji GF lenses don't do those things. Pentax 645 lenses have the flaws that come with lenses that can be 40 years old, but they were serious lenses for professionals so you'll mostly get non-"special" results (by which I mean you'll get good quality images expected by professionals).
If you have money to throw at exploring adapted lenses, have at it! Some folks are getting great results with Minolta Rokkors for full frame, so that might be fun. Check out this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4774000
However, if you ultimately want a good lens that gives good results, the Fuji GF 35-70mm is excellent and very reasonably priced....Show more →
@rdeloe I just posted a WTB for a 35-70 if you happen to want to free up some precious desk drawer space....
suteetat wrote:
And Xpan lenses are not identical to Fuji GF lens right so what is the problem with wanting to hear how Hasselblad H lenses
work with GFX exactly ?? Different lenses and different rendition even if made by same company. Focal length are not
all identical either but I don't want to just randomly shelfing out money. Not all GF lenses perform at the same level so
just because Fuji made Hasselblad H lenses does not one way or another saying that it is the same as Fuji GF lenses.
May be same as Xpan but how is that relevant to comparison to GF lenses?
OT: I am way off topic here, I was making a point that Fuji made all the Hasselblad lenses (H&Xpan) and they were marketing and selling those in japan under fuji brand.
I also have the Pentax-A 645 45-85mm in my lens drawer. I used it a fair bit years ago, but not for years now. 
?? Different lenses and different rendition even if made by same company. Focal length are not 