Quick tests with the Voigtlander 50 1.5 MC II (Panda) on the 50sii. Good amount of vignetting but I'd still use, especially for some portrait work and crop if I needed to.
last summer while going at work I crossed three tourists, two males and a female, the lady was carrying a camera over her shoulder, by approaching from behind I could tell a Fuji by the strap but the size was too big to be an X-T, no, I didn't think to steal and run away, was not in enough good shape to succeed so I just asked if that was a GF-X and she left me handle it, I think it was the 35-70 kit lens and the older of the two men tried to tell me difference with a FullFrame camera, dynamic range to begin with but they were on holiday strolling through our little alleys and I was on a rush (usually late...) to go at work (and with my Nikon Z6II in my shoulder bag) so I remained with the curiosity of knowing more about the GF system.
Later this past year been first time in NYC and, oh my, I expected it to happen and now wanna go again!!! Went to B&H and saw and handled the GF-X for a few seconds (was not alone and didn't want to bother my company by browsing male toys), I could say the camera is not that much bigger or heavier than a FF D-SLR like my D8xx series and neither that much bigger than the Z8, lenses of course a different thing, they are bigger but, again, some of the new Z mount lenses are way bigger than old D equivalent and I don't think the GF is the kind of camera to take around strolling (even tho I don't mind until my back and neck allows).
After this long of a premise I am wondering how do some of the primes I own work adapted on a GF body, in particular the Nikon 58G f1.4 and the 85D f1.4 which are two of the reasons I keep those bodies, might throw in the 20G f1.8 which I put on sale since I now use a 14-24S on the Z8; then I have a bunch of Contax Yashica primes among which a Distagon 35/1.4, a Planar 85/1.4 and a Planar 100/2 whose rendering I like quite a lot.
Any direct experience with these lenses on a GF body? Do they vignette or limit the resolution of the sensor? Do the AF ones do well enough when adapted?
last summer while going at work I crossed three tourists, two males and a female, the lady was carrying a camera over her shoulder, by approaching from behind I could tell a Fuji by the strap but the size was too big to be an X-T, no, I didn't think to steal and run away, was not in enough good shape to succeed so I just asked if that was a GF-X and she left me handle it, I think it was the 35-70 kit lens and the older of the two men tried to tell me difference with a FullFrame camera, dynamic range to begin with but they were on holiday strolling through our little alleys and I was on a rush (usually late...) to go at work (and with my Nikon Z6II in my shoulder bag) so I remained with the curiosity of knowing more about the GF system.
Later this past year been first time in NYC and, oh my, I expected it to happen and now wanna go again!!! Went to B&H and saw and handled the GF-X for a few seconds (was not alone and didn't want to bother my company by browsing male toys), I could say the camera is not that much bigger or heavier than a FF D-SLR like my D8xx series and neither that much bigger than the Z8, lenses of course a different thing, they are bigger but, again, some of the new Z mount lenses are way bigger than old D equivalent and I don't think the GF is the kind of camera to take around strolling (even tho I don't mind until my back and neck allows).
After this long of a premise I am wondering how do some of the primes I own work adapted on a GF body, in particular the Nikon 58G f1.4 and the 85D f1.4 which are two of the reasons I keep those bodies, might throw in the 20G f1.8 which I put on sale since I now use a 14-24S on the Z8; then I have a bunch of Contax Yashica primes among which a Distagon 35/1.4, a Planar 85/1.4 and a Planar 100/2 whose rendering I like quite a lot.
Any direct experience with these lenses on a GF body? Do they vignette or limit the resolution of the sensor? Do the AF ones do well enough when adapted?
Any reviews for various Ai-S lenses on GFX?
I have the 85/2 and 35/1.4, both in Ai-S, as well as a Voigtlander 58/1.4 and 40/2. Also considering getting the Ai/Ai-S 28/2 or 28/2.8 for my F3 - expecting a lot of vignetting there if used on GFX, though.
I tested a bunch of F glass, Nikon and CV, and quickly realized it’s not worth the pain. The only lens I still adapt is the CV 40/2 and it’s not great but has some character for mono shooting.
horus__ wrote:
Any reviews for various Ai-S lenses on GFX?
I have the 85/2 and 35/1.4, both in Ai-S, as well as a Voigtlander 58/1.4 and 40/2. Also considering getting the Ai/Ai-S 28/2 or 28/2.8 for my F3 - expecting a lot of vignetting there if used on GFX, though.
RoamingScott wrote:
I tested a bunch of F glass, Nikon and CV, and quickly realized it’s not worth the pain. The only lens I still adapt is the CV 40/2 and it’s not great but has some character for mono shooting.
The draw of FX to GFX to me is the reduced length of adapters compared to doing the same on 35mm. If the results are better cropped on GFX than full-frame on 35mm, it could work in a pinch. Do you have any sample images?
horus__ wrote:
Any reviews for various Ai-S lenses on GFX?
I have the 85/2 and 35/1.4, both in Ai-S, as well as a Voigtlander 58/1.4 and 40/2. Also considering getting the Ai/Ai-S 28/2 or 28/2.8 for my F3 - expecting a lot of vignetting there if used on GFX, though.
Would be worth scrolling through this thread. I am very happy with the coverage of the 20mm / 4.0 AIS - for the pano setting only. Also the 180mm 2.8 AIS works very well as does the Rokinon 135mm 2.0.
An adapter is cheap - just start exploring with whatever F lens you have.
My experience is that most adapted FF lenses perform worse even in crop mode on GFX, compared to when used on Sony cameras. Probably because of the extremely thick sensor stack (and then even Sony is degrading the performance compared to some other cameras).
And no, it doesn't only affect rangefinder lenses. Many SLR lenses have the exit pupil close enough to the sensor to introduce severe curvature of field and/or a ton of nasty aberrations. Mostly towards the periphery, but even the middle gets worse with fast lenses.
I was actually shocked at how good the performance of the Voigtlander 21/3.5 was on my GFX, at least with regard to sharpness in the (FF) corners.
That said, the Zeiss ZM 35mm distagon was *not good* on the GFX.
Makten wrote:
My experience is that most adapted FF lenses perform worse even in crop mode on GFX, compared to when used on Sony cameras. Probably because of the extremely thick sensor stack (and then even Sony is degrading the performance compared to some other cameras).
And no, it doesn't only affect rangefinder lenses. Many SLR lenses have the exit pupil close enough to the sensor to introduce severe curvature of field and/or a ton of nasty aberrations. Mostly towards the periphery, but even the middle gets worse with fast lenses.
horus__ wrote:
The draw of FX to GFX to me is the reduced length of adapters compared to doing the same on 35mm. If the results are better cropped on GFX than full-frame on 35mm, it could work in a pinch. Do you have any sample images?
I didn't bother sorting and uploading my test shots, sorry. I don't shoot GFX to shoot 3:2, so any lens that can't cover the sensor is a non-starter for me. All of the F glass I tried had gnarly bokeh and rough edges in 4:3 and made better images on any of my Z cameras. The adapter size is meaningless if the IQ suffers for it.
Here's a random CV 58 shot that shows a typical vignette in 4:3 that I was getting on the various lenses I tried.
markhout wrote:
Would be worth scrolling through this thread. I am very happy with the coverage of the 20mm / 4.0 AIS - for the pano setting only. Also the 180mm 2.8 AIS works very well as does the Rokinon 135mm 2.0. .
RoamingScott wrote:
I didn't bother sorting and uploading my test shots, sorry. I don't shoot GFX to shoot 3:2, so any lens that can't cover the sensor is a non-starter for me. All of the F glass I tried had gnarly bokeh and rough edges in 4:3 and made better images on any of my Z cameras. The adapter size is meaningless if the IQ suffers for it.
Here's a random CV 58 shot that shows a typical vignette in 4:3 that I was getting on the various lenses I tried.
Thanks for the info!
Based on the more detailed links in the spreadsheet, it seems adapting may go well for me. The Sigma 50/1.4 and 70/2.8 Art lenses, which I also own, both seem to perform very well on GFX, and the CV 40/2 performance is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. I am a touch concerned about the mega thick sensor stack, so I'll do some more research on that before I commit to anything.
horus__ wrote:
Thanks for the info!
Based on the more detailed links in the spreadsheet, it seems adapting may go well for me. The Sigma 50/1.4 and 70/2.8 Art lenses, which I also own, both seem to perform very well on GFX, and the CV 40/2 performance is perfectly reasonable in my eyes. I am a touch concerned about the mega thick sensor stack, so I'll do some more research on that before I commit to anything.
IMO, the sensor glass thickness is a trivial concern. A lot of excellent Fx lens options with little to minor vignette. If extreme, full Mx frame corner to corner performance is a requirement for you, then stick to MF lenses.
