sputnik wrote:
Have you experienced any problems with light leaks? I sent my Kipon Shift adapter back due to leaks and the fact that it would not lock the lens in place. I’ve heard orher people had the same experience with the shift version. Orher than that - great idea.
I have not had any problems so far, but I can see through the adapter in one direction so I assume it can be a problem.
Woo, just “dug out” my Mamiya 645 lenses and my EOS Mirex tilt/shift adapter.
Using with TechArt adapter.
- 120/4 macro works great.
- 35/3.5 N works great.
- 80/1.9 N works great.
I also have the 145/4 SF, and the 55/2.8 N
The 35/3.5 N focuses pretty dang close.
This will be fun to test these babies out.
pressureworld wrote:
Has anyone tried Hasselblad V CF lenses with the GFX. I'm very curious about the perspective. Would there be a crop factor?
I have used a number of them. Hassy V (i.e. C, CB, CF, CFI, CFE, F, & FE) lenses are made for 6 X 6 film. Which is really about 55mm X 55mm. If you used a square aspect ratio for the 44 X 33 sensor, then the remaining part you would be using would be of course 33mm X 33 mm. So the crop factor is 1.67 for a square crop. If you use a 4 X 3 aspect ratio (or other more extreme rectangles like 3 X 2, 16 X 9, or panorama) then you are only using a 55mm X 41.25mm part of the film. For these aspect ratios the crop factor would be 1.25. Other aspect ratios including 6 X 7 and 4 X 5 would be somewhere in between those two crop factors (e.g., a 4 X 5 aspect ratio has a 1.33 crop factor). So yes there is a crop factor, but it varies depending on what aspect ratio you choose.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I plan to pick up one of the GFX cameras this year and would very much like to try some of my Hasselblad lenses. I had no idea what to expect.
Continuing testing of various lenses on the GFX 50R...
Got the Fotodiox Minolta (SR/MC/MD) mount adapter.
A quick test shows all my lenses are vignetting almost exactly the same.
That's kinda strange, but cool, I'll take it!
Not too bad, but definately visible.
- MC W Rokkor-X 28/2
- Zoom 35-70/3.5
- MD Rokkor-X 45/2
- MC Rokkor-PF 58/1.4
- MC Rokkor-PG 58/1.2
- MC Rokkor-PF 85/1.7
- MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100/2
Hmm, seems I had the 35mm HH at one time, where has that gone off to?
I also see, I have two more adapted to Canon EOS-EF mount.
28/2
85/1.7
Have to check these later...
buggz wrote:
Continuing testing of various lenses on the GFX 50R...
Got the Fotodiox Minolta (SR/MC/MD) mount adapter.
A quick test shows all my lenses are vignetting almost exactly the same.
That's kinda strange, but cool, I'll take it!
Not too bad, but definately visible.
- MC W Rokkor-X 28/2
- Zoom 35-70/3.5
- MD Rokkor-X 45/2
- MC Rokkor-PF 58/1.4
- MC Rokkor-PG 58/1.2
- MC Rokkor-PF 85/1.7
- MC Tele Rokkor-PF 100/2
Hmm, seems I had the 35mm HH at one time, where has that gone off to?
I also see, I have two more adapted to Canon EOS-EF mount.
28/2
85/1.7
Have to check these later...
Check your adapter and make sure it does not have an iris that is closing and causing the vignetting. I do not get the same vignetting on all my Minolta lenses. I don't have any of the ones you are using, however. Oh and that 100 f/2 is a wonderful lens with splendid bokeh. It is a great match for the 58 f/1.2 which has a bigger reputation.
No iris in the adapter.
Got a Kipon EOS-EF to GFX adapter for half price from an eBay sale today.
The Minolta EOS-EF mounted lenses seem to vignette slightly less than the native Minolta SR mount via Forodiox GFX adapter.
Oh, and the Minolta 28/2 is super close focusing, I had forgotten about this.
Cool, no helicoid, nor tubes needed for this one.
I do wish that these adapters were ALL helicoid designs, far more versatile...
buggz wrote:
Is the GFX 50S/R a thick stack sensor?
Yes, the sensor stack is a bit different with several different spots for glass in the path with one of them being much further from the sensor than other mirrorless cameras. My experience, however, is that lenses are affected by the sensor stack in similar ways as to how they are affected by Sony and Nikon full frame cameras. Lenses with short exit pupils and wide apertures are most strongly affected and lenses made for film are designed with no cover glass expected, whereas lenses designed for digital cameras were probably designed expecting some coverglass but often thinner than on the Fuji. Many wide angle Leica M mount lenses are quite strongly affected by the cover glass but such wide angle lenses often don't cover the image circle either.
Found my Minolta MC W Rokkor-HH 35/1.8 in Minolta SR mount, it vignettes the same as rest, slight, but noticeable. It is also a close focus, a positive to me.
All of these works great.
Looking at the photos on diglloyd blog, the Otus 100 doesn't cover. Surprising given its size and focal length that it's not an oversized image circle lens.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Looking at the photos on diglloyd blog, the Otus 100 doesn't cover. Surprising given its size and focal length that it's not an oversized image circle lens.
Hi Lee,
From my tests using the Leica R 100mm f2.8 Apo-Macro-Elmarit with my A7r and Cambo Actus, it should easily cover the sensor size of the GFX cameras.
The Techart EF-GFX adapter works well on my GFX 100. I sold off most of my Canon lenses, but I still have the 500mm 4:1 Version I. Autofocus is very good, and AFC works, but hunts quite a bit - too much to be useful.
A little surprise: The tiny Olympus OM 35/2.8 covers the entire GFX sensor with almost no vignetting (no need to correct at all). But, the corners are veeery smeared even stopped down to f/8.
I hated this lens on the a7 II and I find it pretty unsharp at f/2.8 on the GFX too. But stop down to f/4-5.6 and it's kind of usable with nice colors but a bit low contrast. It seems sharper close up than at distance also.
The OM 28/2 is semi-usable at 7:6 from f/4, but the corners need some PP.
OM 50/1.8 is usable for infinity at 7:6 with almost no vignetting. Stop it down to f/8-11 and the full frame is covered very well, but with smeared corners.
OM 21/3.5 hardly even works at 1:1, which is too bad.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Looking at the photos on diglloyd blog, the Otus 100 doesn't cover. Surprising given its size and focal length that it's not an oversized image circle lens.
Looking at Lloyd's publicly available shots (I don't have the subscription) it looks to me like coverage for landscapes would be a no go, but closer in shooting it does pretty well and especially if you did a 4 X 5, 3 X 2, or 16 X 9 crop. Panoramas for landscapes should also work nicely.
If you want t shoot 4 X 3 landscapes (or maybe even 4 X 5 or 3 X 2 landscapes) then this lens isn't going to work very well. Fortunately, there are some great alternatives for landscapes at or near this focal length. The Hassy V 100 f/3.5 is excellent on the GFX50s (love to see it tested on the GFX 100). The Contax 645 120 f/4 APO Macro is also excellent for landscapes and fairly cheap as well. If you want tilt/shift the new Canon 90 and 135 TSE lenses look excellent and have a very wide image circle (67.2mm).
So, from Lloyd's test I would say the Otus 100 could be used quite well for closer in shooting and especially if you use a 4 X 5 image ratio. This comprises a lot of my shooting, so I still see a lot of use for this lens on the GFX 100. You are right, however, to caution people about the use of this lens on the GFX. It won't be for everyone and does not cover the sensor nearly as well as the Milvus/ZE/ZF 135 f/2 APO. Thanks for point to Lloyd's blog. I hadn't seen his coverage of the lens yet.
