freaklikeme wrote:
I'm betting the only problem you'll have with the CFE 40 is that you'll run out of IC if you try to use it with full shift and rise or fall. The CF didn't give a lot of room beyond the 80mm IC necessary for the intended 6x6 frame, so, even with the a7, I could hit the edge. It'll be interesting to see if the CFE has a larger IC.
The 120 is a tiny little gem, but it's not going to be much of a macro lens on the standard Actus, since you need 236mm flange-to-sensor for 1:1. If that matters to you, you'll want to look at the 300mm rail and longer bellows or using extension tubes between the Actus and GFX. I will say the part of the IC I've been able to use on digital cameras is sharp and richly detailed for landscapes as well as being the finest macro lens I own.
It would be very cool if someone came up with a way to use your H lenses on the Actus. Even your 24 would give you some room to shift, certainly enough to make it worth using. ...Show more →
Hi Brad,
I meant to comment on this but forgot. Yes, I will have to buy the longer rail and bellows if I get the macro, but I think it will be worth it. I have always wanted to combine tilt/shift with macro and that GFX, Cambo Actus, and the Rodenstock 120 seem like a great way to do it. I have my doubts anyone including Cambo will come up with a solution for H lenses on the Cambo Actus. It would take an adapter like their one for Canon lenses as you would need electronic control of the aperture. I don't know if the market is there for such an adapter, but it they did then the HCD 24 has a 62mm image circle so could work pretty well for tilt/shift work, but it wouldn't really have more room to shift than the Canon 24 f/3.5L II. I think it might be a bit better in the tilt area, but I don't know if the market is there. I don't think the Hassy 1.5X tilt shift adapter works with the GFX and the H adapter or that would be an interesting option for something close to a 28mm FF 35mm equivalent with the Hassy HCD 24mm as well and would allow a lot more tilt and shift. For me, I think I will be happy with tilt/shift starting at 40mm on the GFX (about a 30mm FF 35mm equivalent) and with the Hassy CFE IF 40 f/4 I will get a 78mm image circle which will give me lots of room for tilt and shift.
Shot some soccer tonight at my son's game with the GFX and the Hassy HC 300 f/4.5. They are four and five year olds, so I could mostly keep up even with manual focus. I was pleased with the performance of the lens and shooting it on a monopod I didn't even miss image stabilization.
A friend told me recently that Leica 35/1.4 fle worked reasonably well with GFX. However, I loaned my fle to a friend so I did not have a chance to try. However, I tried
35/1.4 AA with GFX and was quite surprise. At street photography distance, there is only a bit of vignette that is almost 100% correctable with vignette correction in PS.
However, there is some smearing near the edge but it should be acceptable for street photo unless you really want sharp corner. At near infinity distance, vignette is more pronounce though.
Thanks all of you for these tests I do appreciate a lot. After having bought the GFX50 I gave my Leica S2 to my grand daughter while keeping my auto Contax C 645 lenses .Albeit these lenses have an aperture ring, I can't set any aperture but f2,8. From some of the tests above I can see that the Nikon 12-24 and some Zeiss lenses without aperture ring have been used. How is this possible , I mean how do you choose the aperture and what do you suggest to apply to the Contax ( the only alternative I Know is the pricey Fringer adapter !!!). Thanks for your help . Regards.
andreleon wrote:
Thanks all of you for these tests I do appreciate a lot. After having bought the GFX50 I gave my Leica S2 to my grand daughter while keeping my auto Contax C 645 lenses .Albeit these lenses have an aperture ring, I can't set any aperture but f2,8. From some of the tests above I can see that the Nikon 12-24 and some Zeiss lenses without aperture ring have been used. How is this possible , I mean how do you choose the aperture and what do you suggest to apply to the Contax ( the only alternative I Know is the pricey Fringer adapter !!!). Thanks for your help . Regards. ...Show more →
Nikon G lens have aperture level which have mechanical coupling. Contax 645 is similar to Canon EF as well as latest Nikon E lens are electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism require power to open up or close down for shooting.
andreleon wrote:
Thanks all of you for these tests I do appreciate a lot. After having bought the GFX50 I gave my Leica S2 to my grand daughter while keeping my auto Contax C 645 lenses .Albeit these lenses have an aperture ring, I can't set any aperture but f2,8. From some of the tests above I can see that the Nikon 12-24 and some Zeiss lenses without aperture ring have been used. How is this possible , I mean how do you choose the aperture and what do you suggest to apply to the Contax ( the only alternative I Know is the pricey Fringer adapter !!!). Thanks for your help . Regards. ...Show more →
Zeiss ZF.2 mount (Nikon F mount) all have aperture ring so you use that. Nikon adapter to GFX has a lever that control aperture on Nikon G lens but if you use the more recent E lenses then you are stuck wide open.
andreleon wrote:
OK too bad for me . Thanks anyway . Cheers
You can always use the off-camera method, which is to mount the lens on a native body, stop down to the desired aperture, then press the DoF preview button and release the lens from the body, which has the effect of locking the aperture setting wherever it was set.
For daylight photography, it's usually possible to simply leave the lens at whatever aperture you've chosen and just focus and compose with the lens stopped down, letting the EVF compensate for the reduced amount of light that's reaching the sensor.
Of course, this means you will need either a Contax 645 body or some other solution to adjust the aperture setting, which may or may be not an issue (FYI, I have used a Contax N1 body and NAM-1 adapter, as well as the Fringer adapter for my Sony A7R. Unfortunately, given the demand for NAM-1 adapters, the Fringer adapter is probably the less costly option these days, unless you already have a NAM-1 on hand, as I did.)
Although a bit clunky, this is how I use my Contax 645 lenses on all of my technical and view cameras whenever I need their larger image circles as compared to the Sigma Art lenses I normally use with my A7R.
For giggles and grins, here's a photo of the 35mm/f3.5 on my (modified) Toyo VX23D:
andreleon wrote:
OK too bad for me . Thanks anyway . Cheers
No, not exactly out of luck. Fringer has an adapter for Contax 645 lenses on the GFX that will let you use these lenses on the GFX. It is pricey, but I plan to get one.
Audii-Dudii wrote:
You can always use the off-camera method, which is to mount the lens on a native body, stop down to the desired aperture, then press the DoF preview button and release the lens from the body, which has the effect of locking the aperture setting wherever it was set.
Are there really not lenses with aperture rings that are good enough to make this procedure not worthwhile??
Lloyd referred to Otus as awful on GFX - if that can't work I'm surprised if anything else can. Keep in mind that Lloyd is super critical and rarely happy with anything
For all of these adapted lenses I assume you might get nice rendering but never achieve the sharpness they are designed for. I'm curious to know how the native lenses stand up to their 35mm counterparts.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Are there really not lenses with aperture rings that are good enough to make this procedure not worthwhile??
When expenditures rise to this level, I don't think the issue is solely a question of what is "good enough," but also must take into account a potential buyer's individual taste and preferences, too.
For example, I very much like the way that Contax 645 lenses render images and I have happily used them across several platforms accordingly.
I also tend to work slowly, usually from a tripod, so a complicated workaround procedure to change the aperture is an annoyance, to be sure, but not a huge or even insurmountable issue for me.
davewolfs wrote:
Lloyd referred to Otus as awful on GFX - if that can't work I'm surprised if anything else can. Keep in mind that Lloyd is super critical and rarely happy with anything
For all of these adapted lenses I assume you might get nice rendering but never achieve the sharpness they are designed for. I'm curious to know how the native lenses stand up to their 35mm counterparts.
While I don't pixel peep very much, I would say that Fuji 32-64/4 is an excellent zoom that can rival some of the best 35mm prime in its range. 23/4 compares favorably with Batis 18/2.8
and 110/2 is a phenomenal lens that certainly does not give up anything to Nikon 105/1.4e or Otus 85/1.4, I would say. 63/2.8 tends to be the runt of Fuji lens but I find its rendering very pleasing but it is not super sharp like the other lenses, I guess. Overall, I am not disappointed with any of the GFX lenses that I have at all.
I have not notice any significant deterioration of sharpness when using 35mm format lenses.
Smearing seems to be an issue with Leica M lenses but I find dslr lenses very usable but vignette can be annoying on some lenses.
davewolfs wrote:
Lloyd referred to Otus as awful on GFX - if that can't work I'm surprised if anything else can. Keep in mind that Lloyd is super critical and rarely happy with anything
For all of these adapted lenses I assume you might get nice rendering but never achieve the sharpness they are designed for. I'm curious to know how the native lenses stand up to their 35mm counterparts.
Lloyd was exaggerating and I don't think he had the proper expectations. The GFX has thick cover glass it would seem about 3mm, that means you would expect for lenses faster than f/2 a bit of decreased performance in the centre, but that will only be at apertures faster than f/2, by f/2 this affect should and does go away. For portraits a little decreased sharpness is not that big of a deal and for some might even be preferred. That is the extent of the decreased performance of the Otus 55 at least as I can see. The Otus 28 does not have a big enough image circle and in my view really should not be used on the GFX. I don't have the Otus 85, but from all I have seen it is exactly like the Otus 55. So, in my view I think the Otus 55 and 85 can be used for portraits on the GFX. Don't expect full sharpness wide open and expect vignetting even stopped down but for 4 X 5 portraits I think they are an interesting option.
I would not use any of the Otus lenses for landscapes as the performance does deteriorate towards the edge of the GFX image circle. For other uses I haven't tested them, but as I see it, portraits are probably the best use case for the Otus lenses on the GFX.
