Steve Spencer wrote:
I think his intent is, at least in part, that he wants the controls of manual focus, particularly he wants to be able to set the focus distance and leave it. That is a lot easier with a manual focus lens with a distance scale. And further it seems he plans to shoot the lens exclusively at f/8, so that will of course limit optical differences. So, in this context I don't see performance of the lens as long as it covers the image circle with reasonable performance to be that much of a driving force in the choice of lens, but manual focus controls and especially a distance scale to be....Show more →
Steve, yes - your understanding is exactly right. My intent is to shoot at f/8 (optionally at f/11) with the lens set to a fixed distance optimized for the DOF with acceptable sharpness within that field. No manual focusing is intended.
In principle, this can be done with a AF lens such as the GF20-35mm f/4, however, using a compact and light MF lens instead would make more practical sense.
Thank you for the useful suggestions in the latest post!
highdesertmesa wrote:
Were you under the influence of something when you wrote this? Regardless, AI is hallucinating if it thinks the Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO M is a good lens to adapt to the GFX sensor. The Ultron 28 M is even worse.
The quoted text was written by ChatGPT, and I was trying to make fun of that (apparently, unsuccessfully, considering your response).
ChatGPT seems to be increasingly hallucinating, in my experience. Furthermore, I strongly dislike how ChatGPT is getting personal while tracking my interests and effectively profiling me.
ruthenium wrote:
The quoted text was written by ChatGPT, and I was trying to make fun of that (apparently, unsuccessfully, considering your response).
ChatGPT seems to be increasingly hallucinating, in my experience. Furthermore, I strongly dislike how ChatGPT is getting personal while tracking my interests and effectively profiling me.
Well, I was amused at least. Both from your response but also the thought of you trying to explain to your wife why your social media feed has ads for "female" sex bots after ChatGPT decides you might be a target for one, .
On a more serious note, I can imagine AI as being the death of creativity and free thought. But I'm rapidly becoming the old man shouting at the sky.
Steve Spencer wrote:
And further it seems he plans to shoot the lens exclusively at f/8, so that will of course limit optical differences. So, in this context I don't see performance of the lens as long as it covers the image circle with reasonable performance to be that much of a driving force in the choice of lens, but manual focus controls and especially a distance scale to be.
I think you are underestimating the problems with certain aberrations. The cyan shift of the Schneider/Leica 28 PC isn't due to the sensor, because it's uniform in every direction and the exit pupil is actually very far away. It must be inherent in the lens design and choice of glass types. There is also severe lateral chromatic aberration, that at least C1 cannot cure. The lens won't be sharp to the corners at f/8 but rather needs f/11-16 even unshifted. Lastly, there is moustache distortion that I also have no idea of how to deal with (but it's not necessarily a problem depending on what you shoot).
Edit: It also doesn't have a filter thread, if that is important.
I think it has many nice qualities and the rendering is quite special. But I would not recommend it unless one can find a sample at a low price (let's say below 500 dollars or so).
Personally I only occasionally use it for B&W and/or when I want to play with a bit of shift. But that's me...
--------
Edit: I also have the (latest version) Nikkor 35/2.8 PC, and if that says anything about the Nikkor 28 PC, I would stay clear of that one as well. The 35 performs like absolute crap on the GFX for some reason.
Makten wrote:
I think you are underestimating the problems with certain aberrations. The cyan shift of the Schneider/Leica 28 PC isn't due to the sensor, because it's uniform in every direction and the exit pupil is actually very far away. It must be inherent in the lens design and choice of glass types. There is also severe lateral chromatic aberration, that at least C1 cannot cure. The lens won't be sharp to the corners at f/8 but rather needs f/11-16 even unshifted. Lastly, there is moustache distortion that I also have no idea of how to deal with (but it's not necessarily a problem depending on what you shoot).
Edit: It also doesn't have a filter thread, if that is important.
I think it has many nice qualities and the rendering is quite special. But I would not recommend it unless one can find a sample at a low price (let's say below 500 dollars or so).
Personally I only occasionally use it for B&W and/or when I want to play with a bit of shift. But that's me...
--------
Edit: I also have the (latest version) Nikkor 35/2.8 PC, and if that says anything about the Nikkor 28 PC, I would stay clear of that one as well. The 35 performs like absolute crap on the GFX for some reason. ...Show more →
Thanks for sharing your experience. I am sure it is helpful to ruthenium as he decides what lens to get to try his experiment. Corner sharpness probably isn't important as he is planning to crop a bit and corners will likely be cut off. And he should definitely look into the color shift, lateral CA, and distortion to see if they are a concern for what he is trying to do. I don't think I am underestimating anything and I should say that in general if this was a very specific experiment that I agree that the GF 30 mm would be the way to go or the GF 20-35, which he already has. For most shooters at this point for wider lenses there really isn't any point in adapting lenses as the native GF mount lenses are a much better way to go. I see ruthenium's experiment as an exception to this general rule.
If you are interested in the NIkkor 28 f/3.5 PC, then you might want to check out the links I posted. I doubt you would be happy with that lens, but ruthenium may be. I should also be clear that I have no experience with any of these lenses and I am just trying to offer potential options for what he wants to do.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for sharing your experience. I am sure it is helpful to ruthenium as he decides what lens to get to try his experiment. Corner sharpness probably isn't important as he is planning to crop a bit and corners will likely be cut off. And he should definitely look into the color shift, lateral CA, and distortion to see if they are a concern for what he is trying to do. I don't think I am underestimating anything and I should say that in general if this was a very specific experiment that I agree that the GF 30 mm would be the way to go or the GF 20-35, which he already has. For most shooters at this point for wider lenses there really isn't any point in adapting lenses as the native GF mount lenses are a much better way to go. I see ruthenium's experiment as an exception to this general rule.
If you are interested in the NIkkor 28 f/3.5 PC, then you might want to check out the links I posted. I doubt you would be happy with that lens, but ruthenium may be. I should also be clear that I have no experience with any of these lenses and I am just trying to offer potential options for what he wants to do....Show more →
I guess what I'm saying is, that the risk of disappointment is very large with all these lenses. To the point that it makes more sense to use 24x36 mode, or get a much smaller (and perhaps older) FF camera and adapt whatever 28 mm lens one desires, and end up with a smaller package at not much more money. Maybe even less, if one considers how good results you can get from a humble OM 28/3.5 on FF.
Edit: Or OM 21 or 24 if 28 is not wide enough.
Edit 2: In fact, I would argue that the OM 21/3.5 performs way better on FF than the Schneider 28 does on 33x44. And it's absolutely tiny.
Example on FF, no crop or straightening. Probably f/11. As you can see, the far corners are a bit mushy, but most of the frame is plenty sharp and with much, much lower CA (corrected here though).
"the risk of disappointment is very large with all these lenses" - this is my main concern. I am hesitant to invest several hundred dollars into a high-risk experiment.
"it makes more sense to ...get a much smaller (and perhaps older) FF camera and adapt whatever 28 mm lens one desires" - I thought about this, and I already have a FF camera (the original Sony A1, that I have not used in a while). My two negative thoughts on this are about the 3 x 2 format (I would prefer the 4 x 3), and that this would mean adding both a lens AND a camera body on top of the existing GFX kit. My main use of the photography gear is when I travel, and recently I developed a strong preference for travelling with a camera in a holster bag, with everything else in a backpack that I take with me on a plane as a carry-on. This approach means counting grams and travelling with essential items. I wouldn't be able to add an extra ca. 1 kg of a second camera system just for the sake of having that manual lens.
This approach of mine to travel photography can be questioned and criticized, and good arguments can be made in favor of travelling with two bodies, etc.; but for now I would like to keep my travel camera kit to the most essential items. This itself isn't trivial, of course. E.g., I shall be travelling to Brazil next Tuesday, and I believe I should take the GFX100S II with two lenses (GF20-35mm and GF500mm). My GF55mm lens, that I like a lot should stay at home, even if it pains me to leave it behind.
ruthenium wrote:
"the risk of disappointment is very large with all these lenses" - this is my main concern. I am hesitant to invest several hundred dollars into a high-risk experiment.
"it makes more sense to ...get a much smaller (and perhaps older) FF camera and adapt whatever 28 mm lens one desires" - I thought about this, and I already have a FF camera (the original Sony A1, that I have not used in a while). My two negative thoughts on this are about the 3 x 2 format (I would prefer the 4 x 3), and that this would mean adding both a lens AND a camera body on top of the existing GFX kit. My main use of the photography gear is when I travel, and recently I developed a strong preference for travelling with a camera in a holster bag, with everything else in a backpack that I take with me on a plane as a carry-on. This approach means counting grams and travelling with essential items. I wouldn't be able to add an extra ca. 1 kg of a second camera system just for the sake of having that manual lens.
This approach of mine to travel photography can be questioned and criticized, and good arguments can be made in favor of travelling with two bodies, etc.; but for now I would like to keep my travel camera kit to the most essential items. This itself isn't trivial, of course. E.g., I shall be travelling to Brazil next Tuesday, and I believe I should take the GFX100S II with two lenses (GF20-35mm and GF500mm). My GF55mm lens, that I like a lot should stay at home, even if it pains me to leave it behind....Show more →
I totally get why you don't want to take another camera. That would not make sense, but what if you decided to use your GF 100S II and planned a 27 X 36 crop? That would let you use a FF 24mm or 25mm MF lens and get the perspective you want still lots of pixels. That crop is only a 45mm diagonal on the sensor so almost every FF lens would cover it and you could still plan on a 4 X 3 image ratio. My favorite FF lens in that range is the Zeiss ZF 25 f/2, but there is a 25 f/2.8 ZF that would work and would be a little cheaper. The f/2 goes for about $400 these days and the f/2.8 for about $250. If you want smaller there is the Olympus OM 24 f/2.8 which ought to be about $100 and the Minolta 24 f/2.8, which I like slightly better having owned both, also ought to do and it too is very inexpensive. So going FF with the lens but still using the medium format camera but cropping just a bit more may be the ticket.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I totally get why you don't want to take another camera. That would not make sense, but what if you decided to use your GF 100S II and planned a 27 X 36 crop? That would let you use a FF 24mm or 25mm MF lens and get the perspective you want still lots of pixels. That crop is only a 45mm diagonal on the sensor so almost every FF lens would cover it and you could still plan on a 4 X 3 image ratio. My favorite FF lens in that range is the Zeiss ZF 25 f/2, but there is a 25 f/2.8 ZF that would work and would be a little cheaper. The f/2 goes for about $400 these days and the f/2.8 for about $250. If you want smaller there is the Olympus OM 24 f/2.8 which ought to be about $100 and the Minolta 24 f/2.8, which I like slightly better having owned both, also ought to do and it too is very inexpensive. So going FF with the lens but still using the medium format camera but cropping just a bit more may be the ticket....Show more →
I also understand the problem with separate cameras, and I'd avoid that myself unless they were used at different occasions.
Random crops that are not supported in the camera is a no-go for me though, because I want to compose the image as close to final result already in the viewfinder. Can't do that if you want something in between 24x36 and 33x33 unfortunately.
It would be amazing to be able to scale a certain ratio how you want, so that you can get "FF 4:3" for example.
--------
For the Brazil trip I'd get a 35-70 or 50/3.5. I seldom care about "gaps", but there is a loooong way between 35 and 500 mm.
Edit: And still, the GF 30 would be a small and lightweight alternative to the 20-35. Not manual focus, but at least it has better ergonomics for MF than the 55 (where you can't even hold the bloody lens without throwing everything out of focus).
I'm on vacation right now and I mostly use the 50. Lovely lens with possibly the nicest rendering of all GF lenses.
GFX50S IIGF50mmF3.5 R LM WR lens50mmf/3.51/80s100 ISO0.0 EV
Oh, and since this is the adapted lens thread. Here's one with the EF 70-300L in pano mode. It occasionally covers the whole sensor, but I've come home with too many non-keepers because of crap borders to dare to use it. So I stay at 1:1, 24:65 or FF crop.
It's not the sharpest or most contrasty lens, but I love the rendering. It's so "smooth" and nice, with amazing colors.
GFX50S IICanon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM lens146mmf/9.01/15s160 ISO0.0 EV
I've been curious about the Mamiya 55/2.8 as an alternative to the very heavy GF 55, and yesterday I got to borrow one from a friend. I quickly realized that it's not a good fit for my purposes, but some might find it interesting.
It's very soft at f/2.8. The owner had a different sample earlier that he thought was sharper, so it's possible that this particular sample isn't good. However, it's uniform across the frame and very, very sharp stopped down. So I suspect it's just the old design and a relatively fast lens for the large-ish format (645).
Bokeh is a mixed bag. Jittery and with a bunch of LoCA at a bit of distance, but very nice and smooth with a hint of structure still close up (I prefer the opposite). The transition zone seems good, but I haven't investigated too much yet.
For stopped down work it's pretty good. Sharp across the frame at f/8-11, low LaCA and surprisingly low distortion (but a bit wavy). The question is why you would choose this over the GF 35-70 that wipes the floor with the Mamiya. I guess if you like the slight veil/softness (not lack of resolution), lower contast and simply working with a prime... It's also dirt cheap and has nice ergonomics even with the adapter. Kind of narrow and long, but not very front heavy.
Three examples, where the top two are wide open and the third is well stopped down. Very little PP, just contrast and LaCA correction (hardly needed at this viewing size). No distortion correction.
Edit: I do find the colors very pleasing, as with other Mamiya 645 lenses. "Subtle but complex".
GFX50S II55 mm f/-- lens55mmf/1.01/1400s100 ISO0.0 EV
GFX50S II55 mm f/-- lens55mmf/1.01/10s100 ISO0.0 EV
GFX50S II55 mm f/-- lens55mmf/1.01/280s100 ISO0.0 EV
I also tried a combination that I haven't even thought of before: Olympus OM 21/3.5 on 33x33!
This lens is absolutely tiny and gives hard vignetting, but it's juuuuust outside the square frame. Which is still larger than 24x36 and much larger than 24x24. Pano also works, but I have a hard time finding scenes that fit such a wide AOV at that aspect ratio.
You're not gonna get sharp corners, but they are "passable" at f/8, which all of these examples are shot at (vignetting actually gets worse at f/11). There is plenty of LaCA, but after correction in C1 I find it good enough. I will not use this for anything critical, but I'm still surprised by how relatively good the lens performs. Nice "what-if-angle" to have in your pocket.
These all have a 1 stop vignetting correction and auto CA correction in C1. Pretty much nothing else apart from my usual preset. Notice the low distortion!
The last image is the full frame to show the very sharp vignetting. Not even remotely usable without cropping.
Makten wrote:
I also understand the problem with separate cameras, and I'd avoid that myself unless they were used at different occasions.
Random crops that are not supported in the camera is a no-go for me though, because I want to compose the image as close to final result already in the viewfinder. Can't do that if you want something in between 24x36 and 33x33 unfortunately.
It would be amazing to be able to scale a certain ratio how you want, so that you can get "FF 4:3" for example.
If you use “35mm mode” and “Image Size” (to choose aspect ratio), you can discard parts of your GFX sensor to get any crop or aspect you need, to make any FF lens work without hard vignetting.
For example, my EF 70-200/4 has some hard vignette at GFX 4:3, but not at GFX 65:24. I also like to shoot with a viewfinder that matches my intended photo, so I’d use either FF 4:3 or GFX 65:24 with this lens. Neither is the full 50mpixels of my 50R, but I’m not grading my photos by megapixels these days, and I can always “uncrop” RAW files if needed.
If you use “35mm mode” and “Image Size” (to choose aspect ratio), you can discard parts of your GFX sensor to get any crop or aspect you need, to make any FF lens work without hard vignetting.
For example, my EF 70-200/4 has some hard vignette at GFX 4:3, but not at GFX 65:24. I also like to shoot with a viewfinder that matches my intended photo, so I’d use either FF 4:3 or GFX 65:24 with this lens. Neither is the full 50mpixels of my 50R, but I’m not grading my photos by megapixels these days, and I can always “uncrop” RAW files if needed....Show more →
Yes I know. The problem is that you can NOT "uncrop" the FF mode, and it's still 3:2 that I really don't like. So there is no way to compose at 4:3 in the camera with a crop. Both 1:1 and 65:24 work fine with many FF lenses, but it is larger than FF and some actually don't cover those formats properly (like the Olympus 21/3.5 that I showed; there is still very dark corners).
Also, there is no guarantee that any FF lens will work alright even in FF mode, because the filter stack of the GFX sensor is incredibly thick and can ruin peripheral performance on lenses even within their intended format.
The 50R doesn't have IBIS, which actually makes it more tolerant to lenses with a bit too small image circle. The cameras with IBIS will move the sensor around and thus require a slightly larger image circle. That's why one might end up with only one black corner in one shot and none in an other shot.
.
The cyan shift of the Schneider/Leica 28 PC isn't due to the sensor, because it's uniform in every direction and the exit pupil is actually very far away. It must be inherent in the lens design and choice of glass types. There is also severe lateral chromatic aberration, that at least C1 cannot cure. The lens won't be sharp to the corners at f/8 but rather needs f/11-16 even unshifted. Lastly, there is moustache distortion that I also have no idea of how to deal with (but it's not necessarily a problem depending on what you shoot).
