Steve Spencer wrote:
I set up this thread and from the very beginning I included it on both the Fuji and the Alternative forums. I did this because it is a Fuji camera (obviously relevant to the Fuji forum), but it is about using alternative lenses on that camera (seems to me obviously related to the Alt forum in which many threads are about adapted/alternative lenses). Where I think the thread went off the rails a bit is when the comparisons with Canon DSLRs became a big issue. I don't think that had anything to do with the thread being on both the Fuji and Alt forums. By the way, when a thread has a dot before the first word it is shared on multiple forums....Show more →
Good to know. It's been many years since I hung around FM primarily on the Alt Lens forum and still getting reacquainted with the format. Actually, I was referring to Dan's post in the Fuji forum where he compared the GFX to the 5DsR. I got mixed up since conversations in both threads have similar elements.
alundeb wrote:
Actually I was allowed access to the group by the administrators, without answering the silly questions. Lots of nice images in there, a good representation of medium format well used.
I do not recall being asked any questions either. I hate social media. I wasn't even a member of Facebook until the GFX group was formed. I had to join a thing twice, Facebook & the group (double hassle).
It is worth the time for anyone considering this format to check out the photos on that Facebook group if visual proof works better for you. The X1D forum also has similarly spectacular imagery. The images in the Fuji Facebook group tend to favor portrait and fashion photography while the X1D group seems to lean toward landscape and architecture although this is very likely coincidental.
However, if one has a grasp on digital imaging principles, it doesn't really require a look at photos to know that the 44x33 will produce noticeably better IQ than 35mm format sensors. Compared to smaller formats, the 44x33 sensors offer a higher degree of detail resolution than nearly all 35mm format sensors. Since the 44x33 sensor is larger, the pixels are larger than all high resolution 35mm format sensors thus provides better light gathering properties.
I didn't have these images available to me when I purchased the GFX but I do own the Pentax 645z with the same sensor. I bought the GFX because the 645z is huge and heavy and I am getting older. The GFX with the 32-64 zoom is like carrying my 5DsR/24-70 II in terms of size and weight; something I can handle.
The very very pleasant surprise about the GFX was the quality of the lenses. Sharp from corner to corner. On average, sharper than equivalent FOV Canon lenses. The Pentax 645 lenses, even the newer ones, while good are not as sharp. The lenses are a big part of the total IQ.
Nasal Fry wrote:
Hi, I'm asking this question of fishjump, apologies if I have done this all wrong since I have never posted on this forum before.
I'm curious what you encountered as far as distortion with the P67 45mm lens you have pictured in your post. I bought a P645 35mm lens and a Kipon shift adapter (P645 – EF since at the time the G adapters weren't available). The lens was terrific except from a distortion perspective it was unusable for my architecture and interior work. Shifting anywhere out of the centre of the image circle takes the distortion off centre and therefore makes it impossible to correct in post — there is a way but it's not practical. Not only was the distortion unfixable, but it makes lining up shots very difficult to begin with, especially given that on the GFX (or any camera I have used for that matter) the digital level meter is not 100% accurate.
If anybody else has anything to add please do. I see a lot of people online adapting various MF lenses onto GFX with the various shift adapters but nobody ever mentions distortion. I found one guy that had done a bunch of test shots and made them available to download (Contax 645 35mm, Hasselblad 50mm, P67 45mm, P645 35 & P645 55mm). They were somewhat informative yet the test subject was a room with wonky walls and a partially un-lined timber wall (studs etc. not very plumb): hence it is very hard to tell what is lens distortion and what is just sloppy craftsmanship.
I've settled on a Canon TSE 45mm for the time being, which has a lot less distortion than the Pentax and is actually a pretty decent lens (shows better performance on the GFX than on the Canons, and I have a reconditioned copy which along with my other Canon shift lenses is a lot better than what comes from the factory). It does a reasonable amount of shift but CA is an issue. It isn't exceptional when it comes to flare but neither was the Pentax.
fishjump wrote:
No distortion from the 45mm as far as I can tell. I'm sure the canon will be just as good.
Thanks for the reply and good to hear.
I'll stick with the Canon for the moment and hopefully Fujifilm will end up releasing the 30/35 shift at which point I can reconsider that focal length. I was interested in the P67 45mm since I'm still looking for 50mm + with shift so have been considering Pentax 645 & 67 along with Hasselblad (Zeiss CF/CFi for V series not the new ones). Any feedback and info helps since I can't test until I buy (eBay mostly). Nobody I know still has 67 or V series stuff to borrow. I can still rent a couple of Mamiya R67 lenses but the extra hassle and expense of using a bellows system I have ruled out for the time being: I have a Sinar P that I have been testing LF and also RB/RZ lenses on and it's great but a pain. I'm not sold on the Cambo design and the Universalis is too much to invest right now until I settle on system that works for me.
Nasal Fry wrote:
Thanks for the reply and good to hear.
I'll stick with the Canon for the moment and hopefully Fujifilm will end up releasing the 30/35 shift at which point I can reconsider that focal length. I was interested in the P67 45mm since I'm still looking for 50mm + with shift so have been considering Pentax 645 & 67 along with Hasselblad (Zeiss CF/CFi for V series not the new ones). Any feedback and info helps since I can't test until I buy (eBay mostly). Nobody I know still has 67 or V series stuff to borrow. I can still rent a couple of Mamiya R67 lenses but the extra hassle and expense of using a bellows system I have ruled out for the time being: I have a Sinar P that I have been testing LF and also RB/RZ lenses on and it's great but a pain. I'm not sold on the Cambo design and the Universalis is too much to invest right now until I settle on system that works for me. ...Show more →
Mamiya 645 50mm/4 shift (not TS) ?
I don't have this lens (nor a GFX, well, maybe later ) but I'm considering that lens since it is significantly cheaper than TS lens with similar FL (but it is a shift only lens).
I don't have this lens (nor a GFX, well, maybe later ) but I'm considering that lens since it is significantly cheaper than TS lens with similar FL (but it is a shift only lens).
Ideally I don't want tilt anyway, just one extra thing to be out of alignment. I rarely if ever use it in arch/interior since most 3D spaces/shapes don't benefit. I'd be happy if my other lenses didn't have it.
I have looked at the lens you mention but from memory the example photos I saw didn't knock my socks off. It's probably worth another look now especially there are more adapters around (there was no direct M645 to GF adapter at the time, everything ended an intermediary EF to GF) I know the RZ lenses are really good but not sure whether the M645 lenses are in the same league. It's the same problem where if they aren't easily available to test it's a big gamble buying stuff online (including the cost of shipping to Australia: generally from the states or Japan). Also factor in needing an extra adapter for anything else (say an 80mm, 100mm etc) vs just having one shift adapter for one kind of lens mount.
I just took delivery of the Mamiya 50/4 shift and will be happy to post or mail some samples if you like.
/Anders
Nasal Fry wrote:
Ideally I don't want tilt anyway, just one extra thing to be out of alignment. I rarely if ever use it in arch/interior since most 3D spaces/shapes don't benefit. I'd be happy if my other lenses didn't have it.
I have looked at the lens you mention but from memory the example photos I saw didn't knock my socks off. It's probably worth another look now especially there are more adapters around (there was no direct M645 to GF adapter at the time, everything ended an intermediary EF to GF) I know the RZ lenses are really good but not sure whether the M645 lenses are in the same league. It's the same problem where if they aren't easily available to test it's a big gamble buying stuff online (including the cost of shipping to Australia: generally from the states or Japan). Also factor in needing an extra adapter for anything else (say an 80mm, 100mm etc) vs just having one shift adapter for one kind of lens mount....Show more →
sputnik wrote:
I just took delivery of the Mamiya 50/4 shift and will be happy to post or mail some samples if you like.
/Anders
Thanks, that would be great. At least to compare against what I have. Assuming you are shooting with the GFX?
I've noticed a few lenses perform better with the larger sensor (compared to 35mm sensor). Definitely the Canon 45 shift does so maybe the Mamiya 50/4 shift will surprise …
So I managed to get the GFX + Mamiya 50/4 Shift out today. Light was good but the temperature was around -10°C and the wind was blowing 10-12 m/s. Needles to say it was really cold so between the wind, the temperature and the fact I did not have a tripod I feel quite optimistic about the results. I'd be happy to share raw files if anyone is interested. Anyway, here's a sample. I've added some base sharpening and corrected some chromatic aberration in ACR.
sputnik wrote:
So I managed to get the GFX + Mamiya 50/4 Shift out today. Light was good but the temperature was around -10°C and the wind was blowing 10-12 m/s. Needles to say it was really cold so between the wind, the temperature and the fact I did not have a tripod I feel quite optimistic about the results. I'd be happy to share raw files if anyone is interested. Anyway, here's a sample. I've added some base sharpening and corrected some chromatic aberration in ACR.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Has anyone managed to mount RF glass? I image the coverage might make it a no-go. I am curious about the zm 35 1.4, CV 40 1.2 and the 75 Lux...
I've not tried the 35 1.4 myself, but see Ming Thein at his blog who says it doesn't cover though that's on the X1-d.
I do use the CV 40 1.2 which covers with some soft vignetting - very little depending on distance and most to all gone closing down. I love it and use it with canon close-up lenses for shooting, but in my opinion, it's fine for distance/landscape as well.
While not m-mount, I've also found and like a great deal, the Voigtlander 58 1.4 for Nikon. It is an older copy but it fantastic and covers very well. I like this more without the close-up adapter.
Wides don't do well unless you crop, say to 1:1, at least with the exception of the ZM 2/35 which I have and like for landscapes, with full coverage.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Has anyone managed to mount RF glass? I image the coverage might make it a no-go. I am curious about the zm 35 1.4, CV 40 1.2 and the 75 Lux...
I have and found the Leica M 90 cron AA renders nicely but the outer image suffers. The Leica M 50 cron AA performs wonderfully in the centre but more of the outer image suffers. I posted samples earlier in the thread. I haven't found any RF lenses that work well yet, although I suspect the Leica M 75 f/1.4 might as the very similar Leica R 80 f/1.4 works fabulously and is one of my favorite lenses on the GFX.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have and found the Leica M 90 cron AA renders nicely but the outer image suffers. The Leica M 50 cron AA performs wonderfully in the centre but more of the outer image suffers. I posted samples earlier in the thread. I haven't found any RF lenses that work well yet, although I suspect the Leica M 75 f/1.4 might as the very similar Leica R 80 f/1.4 works fabulously and is one of my favorite lenses on the GFX.
Very good to know Steve. I have some other lenses that are wider (like a g21 and g28) but I figured at that wide there's really no hope for real coverage. The only lenses I have been very curious about on the GFX are:
I own several of those, so maybe I'll get rowdy, rent a gfx for a weekend and do a shootout. I am potentially interested in the gfx, but if I am just using the 35mm crop mode, no reason to switch from my a7rII.
If I do rent a gfx at some point, I'll make sure to update all you fine folks
tunisia wrote:
I've not tried the 35 1.4 myself, but see Ming Thein at his blog who says it doesn't cover though that's on the X1-d.
I do use the CV 40 1.2 which covers with some soft vignetting - very little depending on distance and most to all gone closing down. I love it and use it with canon close-up lenses for shooting, but in my opinion, it's fine for distance/landscape as well.
While not m-mount, I've also found and like a great deal, the Voigtlander 58 1.4 for Nikon. It is an older copy but it fantastic and covers very well. I like this more without the close-up adapter.
Wides don't do well unless you crop, say to 1:1, at least with the exception of the ZM 2/35 which I have and like for landscapes, with full coverage.
If you should try any, please let us know. ...Show more →
Thanks for the info! And I'll let you guys know if/when I have any findings.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Very good to know Steve. I have some other lenses that are wider (like a g21 and g28) but I figured at that wide there's really no hope for real coverage. The only lenses I have been very curious about on the GFX are:
I own several of those, so maybe I'll get rowdy, rent a gfx for a weekend and do a shootout. I am potentially interested in the gfx, but if I am just using the 35mm crop mode, no reason to switch from my a7rII.
If I do rent a gfx at some point, I'll make sure to update all you fine folks ...Show more →
I now have 5 FF 35mm lenses, but I don't have any of the one's your interested in. Probably the closest is the Canon FD 55 f/1.2 Asph, which I think is better than the Rokkor 58 f/1.2 that I used to have. The Canon covers the sensor pretty well too. The Rokkor's bokeh is better, but I like almost everything else better about the Canon.
Then as I reported above I have the Leica R 80 f/1.4 which works wonderfully on the GFX. I would think the very similar M 75 f/1.4 would work well too, but I can't confirm that.
I don't have the Mino 100 f/2 or the Contax 100 f/2, but I do have the Olympus OM 100 f/2 and it works great on the GFX. Those are three wonderful 100s. I would guess they will all work, but I can only confirm that the Olympus works.
I also have the Minolta MD 135 f/2 and it covers the sensors very well. Although it is probably the weakest of my FF 35mm lenses on the GFX, it still performs very well. It has noticeable longitudinal CA until about f/4, but it has lovely bokeh and for me plenty of sharpness for portraits even wide open.
Finally, I have the Angenieux 180 f/2.3 APO, which I have come to like very much on the GFX. It totally covers the sensor on portraits. Has very nice bokeh and a lot less longitudinal CA than I expected. As a bonus I find it a pretty manageable size at just less than 1000g without the adapter.
fishjump wrote:
Steve. I have the Kipon shift P67-GFX in my grubby hands! I'm using it with Pentax-6X7 45mm. Works a treat, can shift both vertically and horizontal.
That's very cool. Did the adapter have a tripod mount? I'm looking at the Kipon Hassy V to GFX shift adapter and the photo makes it look like there's a tripod mount, but it's not listed in the specs. If there is one on yours, is it on the lens side of the shift mechanism or the camera side? Finally, did you have to flock yours to cut down reflections? That was my only complaint about the Kipon shift adapters for the e-mount.
) but I'm considering that lens since it is significantly cheaper than TS lens with similar FL (but it is a shift only lens). 
