Canon FD/FL mounts this time, Fotodiox FD/GFX adapter...
I only have 3.
- FL 55/1.2 - heavier vignette than the Minoltas, which were slight but noticeable,
still should be easily corrected.
- FD 85/2.8 SF - slight vignette, similar to the Minoltas, maybe a touch more?
- FD 500/4.5L - similar to the vignette of the FL 55 above.
How do you release the Leica M mount to GFX adapter?
Is it somehow like the goofy CY mount? A spring steel tab, somewhere?
Mine is “stuck” on my Canon RF 50/0.95, that has been modded to the LM mount.
I don’t see a way to release/remove it...
Wow, looking at my other LM mount lenses, and LM to FX adapter, the adapter should have a positive release mechanism, via depressing a spring stop, outside on the adapter.
I don’t see this on this GFX adapter, bummer...
buggz wrote:
How do you release the Leica M mount to GFX adapter?
Is it somehow like the goofy CY mount? A spring steel tab, somewhere?
Mine is “stuck” on my Canon RF 50/0.95, that has been modded to the LM mount.
I don’t see a way to release/remove it...
Which adapter? Is it the "flat" metal Fotodiox? There's a red tab to depress (on the Leica side), which releases the lens. If it's something different, can you describe it or post a photo?
buggz wrote:
No, not Fotodiox, some cheap Chinese deal.
The release is on the INSIDE, BETWEEN the gap of the lens and the adapter.
Through perseverance, I got it off using thin blade right angle tweezers.
Wow! What an ordeal!
Lesson learned.
The Leica M adapter for the GFX is very thin which makes it a little tricky to design. This is one case where I think it is worth springing for the Novoflex adapter. It is really easy to change Leica M lenses with the Novoflex.
I now find, it's actually NOT the fault of the adapter.
The diameter of the barrel on the LM mount modified Canon RF 50/0.95 is huge compared to the only two other LM mount lens I have:
- Voigtlander Heliar 75mm f/1.8
works good, just some slight vignetting and dark corners that should be easily corrected.
- Voigtlander Nokton Classic 40mm f/1.4 SC
hard vignette in the corners, not much soft vignette, still usable.
buggz wrote:
No, not Fotodiox, some cheap Chinese deal.
The release is on the INSIDE, BETWEEN the gap of the lens and the adapter.
Through perseverance, I got it off using thin blade right angle tweezers.
Wow! What an ordeal!
This time a quick test of Contax Yashica Ziess lens with a Canon EOS-EF adapter.
Oh, using the TechArt Pro EF-GFX adapter, I also have a Kipon GFX-EF adapter, maybe I should use that one with the manual lenses?
Dunno if that would make any difference?
- 35/1.4 CYZ - very slight soft vignette,
this lens is also amazing close focus on the 50R.
I see this one is going to be another rediscovered treasure gem.
Sure to be used often.
- 35-70/3.4 Macro CYZ - Starts vignetting anything lower than 50mm.
Progresses to total tunnel vision super hard at 35mm.
However in macro mode, NO vignette, amazing, also amazing close focus in macro mode.
- 100/2 CYZ - non macro model - imperceptible vignette, if any?
Peter_S wrote:
Interesting discussion. Does anyone have sample images or experience with the VM Ultron 21mm f/1.8 on the GFX50?
I don't have experience with the lens, but I would be very surprised if it didn't have a much smaller image circle than needed to cover the GFX sensor and it likely is at least somewhat affected by the cover glass on the GFX 50s as well. It would be very wide on the GFX (somewhere between a 15mm and 17mm angle of view FF 35mm equivalent depending on the aspect ratio you choose).
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I got one recently for my S1R, so of course I also tried it on the GFX50S. It's not really usable; it has substantial hard vignetting.
I made a shot of our house with my Hartblei Super Rotator rise-fall 10mm and then stitched it in Affinity Photo. I used the Fotodiox GFX -> Mamiya adapter.
This lens is about 12 years old, I bought it new. Quality wise it's not as good as Fuji glass, these seem to be based on old Zeiss designs optically. Wide open performance is not so pretty, but stopped down to f11 used as a shift lens it seems fine, and 45mm is a good focal length for interiors. Also Capture One works wonders with the aberration corrections.
While I am still trying to understand the aspect ratios, I am also wondering about the simple "equivalencies" math.
I notice that my Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 is MUCH winder in NON 35mm mode than it it is in 35mm mode.
So, this result is now confusing me with information I find on the web:
"Multiply the GFX lens x .79 to get a FF equivalent.
Divide a FF lens by .79 to get a GFX equivalent.
Just to point out for those who are more artistic than mathematical,
the references to 0.79x and 1.27x are basically describing the same relationship,
just going in opposite directions.
0.79 = 1 / 1.27
and
1.27 = 1 / 0.79
If you have a GFX lens and want to know what would be the equivalent 'full frame' lens,
you can either multiply the focal length and/or aperture by 0.79 or you can divide by 1.27.
If you have a 'full-frame' lens and want to know what would be the equivalent GFX lens,
you can either multiply by 1.27 or divide by 0.79."
buggz wrote:
While I am still trying to understand the aspect ratios, I am also wondering about the simple "equivalencies" math.
I notice that my Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 is MUCH winder in NON 35mm mode than it it is in 35mm mode.
So, this result is now confusing me with information I find on the web:
"Multiply the GFX lens x .79 to get a FF equivalent.
Divide a FF lens by .79 to get a GFX equivalent.
Just to point out for those who are more artistic than mathematical,
the references to 0.79x and 1.27x are basically describing the same relationship,
just going in opposite directions.
0.79 = 1 / 1.27
and
1.27 = 1 / 0.79
If you have a GFX lens and want to know what would be the equivalent 'full frame' lens,
you can either multiply the focal length and/or aperture by 0.79 or you can divide by 1.27.
If you have a 'full-frame' lens and want to know what would be the equivalent GFX lens,
you can either multiply by 1.27 or divide by 0.79." ...Show more →
If I can add a little more complication to the math, then I think we can get close to what things actually look like and keep it simple.
If you are shooting 4 X 3 or squarer (e.g., 4 X 5; 1 X 1; or 7 X 6), then multiply a FF focal length by .73 and realize you will have about a stop wider aperture in terms of depth of field. So a 100mm f/2 FF lens will be about like a 73mm f/1.4 FF lens on the GFX.
If you like more rectangular aspect ratios like 3 X 2 (e.g., 16 X 9, or panorama), then multiply the FF focal length by .82 and realize you will have about half a stop wider aperture in terms of depth of field. So a 100mm f/2 FF lens will be about like an 82mm f/1.7 lens on the GFX.
You can do the same thing if you want to know what Fuji GF lenses would look like in terms of FF 35mm shooting.
So, in a 4 X 3 or squarer aspect ratio, the Fuji GF 100 will be much like an 80 f/1.4 lens on FF, and if you use a 3 X 2 or more rectangular aspect ration it will be much like a 90 f/1.7 lens on FF.
I am just trying to calculate and decide BEFORE shoots without having to cycle through lenses.
.79 is most widely used, including by Fujifilm themselves, since most of us use the full 35mm frame when shooting 35mm and the full 44x33 frame when shooting the GFX. There are those that prefer one ratio over the other regardless of sensor size, so for that crowd, the other calculations are important.
Quick question about GFX-EF adapters-- is the AF generally acceptable for tripod-based landscape work? Any general issues with these?
Traditionally I have used EOS R/A7r2 and a variety of good primes and zooms. After a lot of research it seems that most of my favorite lenses would adequately cover the 44x33 sensor (35L II, 135 APO, etc.).
I would love to be able to lighten my load slightly by having some lenses play double duty with the reverse FF crop factor.
I generally crop to 4:3 or squarer anyway so definitely interested in the IQ benefits as well!
So, for those who have tried M-glass on the GFX: How are the areas that are fully covered?
Lets say you crop to "FF" format, how does that look compared to the output from an M/SL? I imagine the different sensor stack thickness makes this a compromise at best.
