thrice wrote:
Nice shot. Was the crop to remove vignette? How much of the original frame did you crop out?
I cropped about 30-35% from the top of the frame to bring more attention on the dog. The vignette exists, but it's pretty soft compared to other lenses I've used.
Would be interested to see what the uncorrected soft vignette looks like, since we know how subjective that can be. The cropped version has a significant soft vignette to my eye.
Betacamman wrote:
I cropped about 30-35% from the top of the frame to bring more attention on the dog. The vignette exists, but it's pretty soft compared to other lenses I've used.
Snagged a Fringer EF-GFX adapter today and tried the Canon 70-300 L. It doesn't vignette as bad as I thought, but it requires a bit of cropping from ~150 mm and above. I tried removing the rear baffle but if it made a difference it was very minor at the longest focal lengths.
I think I will find it useful in 6:7 (33x38.5 mm) format, which is still a bit larger than 24x36. Or I'll just use it in crop mode.
The plan is to get a bit more reach than with the GF 100-200, which I then might sell. Yes I know, I could just crop that one instead, but it feels wrong. And it has ugly bokeh, while the Canon has beautiful.
I think I'll have to give up on this lens as well. When it works, it's absolutely fantastic. Best bokeh of any tele zoom I've ever seen, and it's consistently awesome at all focal lengths and apertures. The colors are great and the general character of the rendering makes me think it was designed by a bunch of real lens nerds.
The tradeoff is that it's not bitingly sharp, but I don't mind it at all. It's probably a tiny bit of residual spherical aberration going on.
However... The sharpness across the frame is anything but consistent, and I don't think it's because of the lens. At the longer end, the edges are kind of blurry even at FF width, unless you stop down a fair amount.
My suspicion is that it's the thick sensor stack of the GFX that ruins the performance, because it does much better on my Sony. And the exit pupil is actually quite close for a tele, so that makes sense.
Coverage-wise, it's fine at 7:6 or 16:9 at all focal lengths, with the hood on. Here's 5:4 without any correction, that happens to work at that particular focal length.
GFX50S IICanon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens124mmf/4.51/15s500 ISO0.0 EV
Creative Edge wrote:
My favorite wide angle lens on the GFX is the EF 17mm tse.
I went through a couple of copies before finding one that is sharp edge to edge, so yes there is sample variation.
Was bored so I was messing around with it in the house..
Did you shoot that using the full sensor or 35 mm crop ?
One of the advantages, as your example reminds us, of the Canon TS lenses on miniMF is that they have a larger image circle to accommodate movements on FF cameras.
How much leeway for using movements do you retain on miniMF with this lens? In other words, do you basically just use it as an excellent 17mm prime or do you still manage to get some tilt/shift out of it?
gdanmitchell wrote:
One of the advantages, as your example reminds us, of the Canon TS lenses on miniMF is that they have a larger image circle to accommodate movements on FF cameras.
How much leeway for using movements do you retain on miniMF with this lens? In other words, do you basically just use it as an excellent 17mm prime or do you still manage to get some tilt/shift out of it?
Although I would love to hear from someone who has used the lens, I thought I would point out that Canon claims the lens has a 67.2mm image circle, so it should provide some tilt/shift on 33 X 44 mm sensors as they "only" need 55mm to cover the image circle without tilt/shift. Here is the link to the Canon specification on the Canon Canada site:
gdanmitchell wrote:
One of the advantages, as your example reminds us, of the Canon TS lenses on miniMF is that they have a larger image circle to accommodate movements on FF cameras.
How much leeway for using movements do you retain on miniMF with this lens? In other words, do you basically just use it as an excellent 17mm prime or do you still manage to get some tilt/shift out of it?
According to Canon, you can shift the lens + or - 12mm on Fx. This implies the IC is 24mm larger diameter than the Fx IC of 43mm, or 67mm. Since Fuji GFx IC is 55mm, this leaves you still + or - 6mm of shift on the GFx sensor.
Don't have 17mm TSE but I have 24mm TSE II, 50mm f2.8 TSE and 90mm f2.8 TSE II. 24mm TSE on GFX100s works nicely unlike some other posters saying it is crap. I have GF 23mm to compare. . I only use +/-6mm shift not more. When I use tilt, only small amount is needed and lens works for me. 50mm/90mm I can do +/-10mm shift and whatever tilt is needed. Fuji 30mm TS would be nice but damn thing is not available easily and is also $4k.
gdanmitchell wrote:
One of the advantages, as your example reminds us, of the Canon TS lenses on miniMF is that they have a larger image circle to accommodate movements on FF cameras.
How much leeway for using movements do you retain on miniMF with this lens? In other words, do you basically just use it as an excellent 17mm prime or do you still manage to get some tilt/shift out of it?
I find 6-8 mm of shift works well. The samples I have posted are with 5mm shift if I recall correctly.
It is my favorite uwa lens on the gfx
Or I'll just use it in crop mode. 
And it has ugly bokeh, while the Canon has beautiful. 
