ketang wrote:
Some EF glass was over-designed and covers a larger image circle. They are essentially closer to or are MF lenses that have an EF mount. Think of tilt-shift lenses as an example of this, they cover a larger area than the mount. There are detailed lists of which EF mount and other DSLR lenses cover a wider circle. While I'm not a lens designer, it makes logical sense to me that this is a good way to ensure sharpness to the corner even at wider apertures. The softer parts of the lens at the edges are cropped off when you put a full-frame sensor behind it....Show more →
Thanks for the explanation!!! I did notice on the Fringer website that they have lists of compatible lenses
The hard fact is that *most* Fx lenses will NOT fully cover the gfx 33x44 sensor. Many will *illuminate* the full GFX IC, but may have significant resolution and light fall-off to the GFX edges. But yes, there are a few lenses that perform admirably to the corners of the GFX sensor; but IME it’s very few that hit that mark. On the upside, adapted Fx lenses will perform optimally in 35 capture mode in the GFX. 35 capture mode is a setting that crops the GFX sensor to 24x36mm Fx dimensions.
I have the native 20-35mm, 45-100mm, and 80mm Fuji glass......primarily looking for a good macro solution and wanted to try some adapted lenses.....I don't shoot a lot of macro and it's hard to justify dropping $2800 for a GF 110mm.....looked at the TTArtisan 100mm, was contemplating a used EF 100mm f/2.8L / Fringer.......or Contax 120 / Fringer. Seems like going the EF/Fringer route would give the most options for non-macro lenses.......
shutterbug40 wrote:
I have the native 20-35mm, 45-100mm, and 80mm Fuji glass......primarily looking for a good macro solution and wanted to try some adapted lenses.....I don't shoot a lot of macro and it's hard to justify dropping $2800 for a GF 110mm.....looked at the TTArtisan 100mm, was contemplating a used EF 100mm f/2.8L / Fringer.......or Contax 120 / Fringer. Seems like going the EF/Fringer route would give the most options for non-macro lenses.......
shutterbug40 wrote:
I have the native 20-35mm, 45-100mm, and 80mm Fuji glass......primarily looking for a good macro solution and wanted to try some adapted lenses.....I don't shoot a lot of macro and it's hard to justify dropping $2800 for a GF 110mm.....looked at the TTArtisan 100mm, was contemplating a used EF 100mm f/2.8L / Fringer.......or Contax 120 / Fringer. Seems like going the EF/Fringer route would give the most options for non-macro lenses.......
In my opinion, the Contax 645 120 f/4 APO Macro is a great option on the Fuji GFX with the finger adapter. It is my favorite macro setup that I have used. I also generally like the Contax 645 glass on the GFX. I had the 35 f/3.5, 55 f/3.5, and 80 f/2 and I enjoyed using all of them.
Jack Flesher wrote:
On the upside, adapted Fx lenses will perform optimally in 35 capture mode in the GFX.
That is unfortunately very far from true. The GFX sensors have an extremely thick sensor stack that ruins the performance of many adapted (mainly short-ish) lenses, regardless of cropping. At least unless you stop down a fair bit.
Use my industrial linescan lens LINOS Inspec. XL FLOAT 120/5.6 shooting portrait, I choose to use a mobile phone with an APP for modifying background (only one finger touch needed). The final resolution of processed picture is related to the capability of the processor of mobile divices, right now what I have can resolve 60 megapixes.
Use my industrial linescan lens LINOS Inspec. XL FLOAT 120/5.6 shooting portrait, I choose to use a mobile phone with an APP for modifying background (only one finger touch needed). The final resolution of processed picture is related to the capability of the processor of mobile divices, right now what I have can resolve 60 megapixes.
By any chance would you be willing to share the un - phone - edited pics? Hard to imagine using a $4500 USD diffraction limited wide-open lens with an essentially flat MTF out to 41mm radius and then allowing mobile phone editing apps to mangle them, but different strokes for different folks.
this thread has really excited me, so I ordered a finger canon ef-gfx adapter to use with canon tse and sigma lenses, has anybody used the sigma 105mm 1.4 with the fuji?
I have and its one of my favorite lenses for the gfx. Simply fantastic along with the Sigma 135/1.8
msadat wrote:
this thread has really excited me, so I ordered a finger canon ef-gfx adapter to use with canon tse and sigma lenses, has anybody used the sigma 105mm 1.4 with the fuji?
The Sigma 105 1.4 is great on my GFX100s with the Fringer Pro adapter (along with the Sigma 50 & Sigma 135).
The 105 is a monster lens in terms of size and weight though....
Prosophos wrote:
Hi, this looks really good. Do you happen to have any examples with this lens wide open? Thanks.
—Peter.
What are you looking for in particular? The lens is sharp enough wide open, but DOF is quite shallow. It's rare that you will see me shooting an old or even modern lens wider than f/2.8.
cbass wrote:
What are you looking for in particular? The lens is sharp enough wide open, but DOF is quite shallow. It's rare that you will see me shooting an old or even modern lens wider than f/2.8.
Thanks for responding! I tend to shoot environmental portraits wide open.
I guess I was looking for the sharpness (which you mention is sharp enough) and the quality of the bokeh. For example, in a situation where a whole body portrait is being taken, at mid-distance. Tree branches in the background as a sort of a torture-test for smoothness (or lack thereof) of the rendering.
While I'm at it, can I have fries with that?
All kidding aside, no problem if you don't have any wide open examples. I just liked your image and also appreciate the relative small size of this lens, so I was wondering whether in practice it's in actuality an f/2.8 lens, or whether it can perform well at f/1.7.
Thanks for responding! I tend to shoot environmental portraits wide open.
I guess I was looking for the sharpness (which you mention is sharp enough) and the quality of the bokeh. For example, in a situation where a whole body portrait is being taken, at mid-distance. Tree branches in the background as a sort of a torture-test for smoothness (or lack thereof) of the rendering.
While I'm at it, can I have fries with that?
All kidding aside, no problem if you don't have any wide open examples. I just liked your image and also appreciate the relative small size of this lens, so I was wondering whether in practice it's in actuality an f/2.8 lens, or whether it can perform well at f/1.7.
I asked because I am willing to provide samples in the conditions you are interested in. This is one of the smoothest bokeh 50's I have, but IMO all 50s have limits and can produce harsh bokeh in the right conditions. How many tree branches and how far are you looking for? In terms of rendering, I find this lens ideal for portraits. The colors fall into what I call saturated pastels. The colors are similar to a 90 summicron-r pre-asph. Fall off is pretty aggressive, but this creates a nice dimensional rendering. It can have some CA, however, depending on the conditions. Yes, it can perform at f/1.7. It has a reputation for being sharp from wide open.
