Steve Spencer wrote:
Some of the longer M lenses work pretty well too. The Leica M 90 f/2 AA needs to be cropped, but once cropped is lovely on the GFX and it covers the sensor for a 4 X 5 or 3 X 2 crop of the full sensor (i.e., using the full short side and just cropping the long side to get the aspect ratio). The Leica M 135 f/3.4 APO is very nice as well and makes a very nice 100 f/2.5 equivalent. On the GFX that lens has the bokeh and speed that it doesn't have on the Leica M (and it focusses much easier). In general, however, I agree with your assessment that M lenses just work better on a Leica M camera.
P.S. - I just got the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 in M mount and I hope to test it soon on the GFX. I have pretty high hopes for that lens....Show more →
Let us know how that works Steve! I was curious about that myself. I tried my Lux 75 and it has some hard vignetting, though I know the R 80 does not. In general, most of my m-lenses I tried just weren't that well matched for the GFX. The CV 35 1.7 did cover the whole frame, the 75 1.3 Sonnetar worked wonderfully and the Pentax 31 ltd was awesome.
I do have a Minolta 100/2 (AF) that I used on my GFX (sold) with only minor hard vignetting and the IQ was gorgeous. They can be acquired for $300-400 and it fabulous, very cheap for a 75mm-ish f1.5 in GFX terms.
Does anyone know how the ZM 35 1.4 fares? I know the CY 35 1.4 offers pretty decent (though not perfect) coverage at most distances.
Picked up a 50S to go along with our existing H5D40, in large part because of the H adapter and not having a single source of repair, etc., for both our MF cameras.
Impressed.
Using it with the H adapter and our HC/D glass is all but effortless. Nice to be able to get 1/800 sync at tap of a button our conversely 1/4000 max shutter. That said, the grip or heavier L-plate like the SmallRig unit will be necessary when using the longer H glass for better balance.
As we par-down some of our H glass we don't use as much, we'll fill-in any gaps we need with GF or adapted glass.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Let us know how that works Steve! I was curious about that myself. I tried my Lux 75 and it has some hard vignetting, though I know the R 80 does not. In general, most of my m-lenses I tried just weren't that well matched for the GFX. The CV 35 1.7 did cover the whole frame, the 75 1.3 Sonnetar worked wonderfully and the Pentax 31 ltd was awesome.
I do have a Minolta 100/2 (AF) that I used on my GFX (sold) with only minor hard vignetting and the IQ was gorgeous. They can be acquired for $300-400 and it fabulous, very cheap for a 75mm-ish f1.5 in GFX terms.
Does anyone know how the ZM 35 1.4 fares? I know the CY 35 1.4 offers pretty decent (though not perfect) coverage at most distances.
Another 100mm lens that works quite well on the GFX is the Olympus OM 100 f/2. It is a very nice lens with quite nice bokeh, a nice short .7M MFD, a floating element, and 2 ED elements, so decent control of axial CA. Makes a wonderful 100 f/1.5 FF 35mm equivalent that is still quite small (500g plus adapter) and has an excellent MF feel.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Let us know how that works Steve! I was curious about that myself. I tried my Lux 75 and it has some hard vignetting, though I know the R 80 does not. In general, most of my m-lenses I tried just weren't that well matched for the GFX. The CV 35 1.7 did cover the whole frame, the 75 1.3 Sonnetar worked wonderfully and the Pentax 31 ltd was awesome.
I do have a Minolta 100/2 (AF) that I used on my GFX (sold) with only minor hard vignetting and the IQ was gorgeous. They can be acquired for $300-400 and it fabulous, very cheap for a 75mm-ish f1.5 in GFX terms.
Does anyone know how the ZM 35 1.4 fares? I know the CY 35 1.4 offers pretty decent (though not perfect) coverage at most distances.
At all distances, CZ 100 f/2 is the equal of the GF 110 (perhaps exceeds it if you prefer Zeiss rendering to GF) – full coverage with minimal vignetting plus sharp to the edges at all distances and apertures. Not the same price range as the Minolta, but it's certainly a bargain if you don't need autofocus.
If it doesn't have to be 100mm, the Minolta 85mm 2.8 Varisoft has full coverage with no hard corners from MFD to infinity. Sharpness is not as flat-field as the CZ 100 f/2 so it needs to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 or f/8 at infinity. Has a wonderful Leica-esque tonal range and aesthetic.
I wouldn't bother with ZM 35 1.4 since to date I've never seen an example where an M-mount lens exceeded a similar design for another mount, at least with regard to coverage and edge performance. I would stick with the ZE/ZF or CZ unless there is a reason to choose the ZM for a unique rendering.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Another 100mm lens that works quite well on the GFX is the Olympus OM 100 f/2. It is a very nice lens with quite nice bokeh, a nice short .7M MFD, a floating element, and 2 ED elements, so decent control of axial CA. Makes a wonderful 100 f/1.5 FF 35mm equivalent that is still quite small (500g plus adapter) and has an excellent MF feel.
I had an Olympus 100, CY 100/2 MMJ, Minolta 100/2 and ZF 100. I only kept one, and it ended up being the Mino 100. I really enjoyed the bokeh of the Oly 100/2, but the colors were blah for me and the focus throw was long. ZF was large, clinical and fringed like crazy though it was a clinically razor. The CY 100/2 was my favorite of the bunch with it's Sonnar bokeh and CY colors and contrast, but it was pretty large and I found a little slow/hard to focus for moving stuff. The Minolta 100 f2 was my second favorite, and it was the smallest and lightest. Though the bokeh is overall good, the other 3 all have exceptional bokeh. I think the Mino has the worse ergo, but best size and is still quite manageable to use, and cheap. Great rendering too.
highdesertmesa wrote:
At all distances, CZ 100 f/2 is the equal of the GF 110 (perhaps exceeds it if you prefer Zeiss rendering to GF) – full coverage with minimal vignetting plus sharp to the edges at all distances and apertures. Not the same price range as the Minolta, but it's certainly a bargain if you don't need autofocus.
If it doesn't have to be 100mm, the Minolta 85mm 2.8 Varisoft has full coverage with no hard corners from MFD to infinity. Sharpness is not as flat-field as the CZ 100 f/2 so it needs to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 or f/8 at infinity. Has a wonderful Leica-esque tonal range and aesthetic.
I wouldn't bother with ZM 35 1.4 since to date I've never seen an example where an M-mount lens exceeded a similar design for another mount, at least with regard to coverage and edge performance. I would stick with the ZE/ZF or CZ unless there is a reason to choose the ZM for a unique rendering....Show more →
Yeah, I was asking more out of curiosity honestly. I never like the 35 ZF draw as much as the other Zeiss 35mm's. And the size of SLR lenses is much larger, though more in line with GFX size.
I do love the CY 100/2. I am sure I would prefer it over Fuji's 110 (which looks like a great lens too, just way different).
I've tried a bunch of 50-58 mm lenses and the only one that actually has decent coverage at all apertures and distances, is the Nikkor 50/2. It draws very much like an old 35/1.4 for rangefinders. Sharp but a bit "glowy" and funky wide open. Sharp to the corners at f/8-11.
buggz wrote:
Wow, is that an old F mount Nikkor?
Pre-AI?
Sadly, I don't know much about Nikon lenses.
It's F mount of the latest iteration, which is AI. I believe the optics were the same between 1959 and 1979, but probably with improved AR coatings on later models.
Someone in the GFX group on Facebook showed samples from the later Nikkor 50/1.8 and while also being good, it looked like it gives a lot more smeared corners. I've tried the 50/1.4 AI-S and it sucked badly, and everything I've seen indicates that slower lenses are more likely to cover the sensor. Or at least they don't give as obvious curvature of field (or increased DOF towards the corners).
Makten wrote:
It's F mount of the latest iteration, which is AI. I believe the optics were the same between 1959 and 1979, but probably with improved AR coatings on later models.
Someone in the GFX group on Facebook showed samples from the later Nikkor 50/1.8 and while also being good, it looked like it gives a lot more smeared corners. I've tried the 50/1.4 AI-S and it sucked badly, and everything I've seen indicates that slower lenses are more likely to cover the sensor. Or at least they don't give as obvious curvature of field (or increased DOF towards the corners). ...Show more →
As far as nikkors, I used my 50/1.8 AI "longnose" quite a bit on aps about a year ago. I can't speak to coverage, but it was very sharp, if you adjusted for focus shift. However even on aps the corners weren't good at f/4, so it needs to be stopped down further. But I was really happy with it, and used it at f/11-16 near mfd a lot. Thinking stopping down increases coverage?
Seemed quite sharp near mfd, used it + M tube (27.5mm I think.) I'd think it should cover 33x44 with tube.
The 50/1.2 AIS seemed really good on film. Not bad wide open, even. Not sure about corners really regret selling it though. 28/2 AIS seemed excellent as well. I really like the photosynthesis site you posted a link to.
Just sold all my Fuji X gear to acquire a 50S and the GF23. The plan is to add few more GF lenses later and use adapted lenses to bridge until then. I do have two m42 lenses (CZJ 35/2.4 and 135/3.5)I got very cheap but are decent optics (on FF and FX). I placed and order for a K&F m42-GFX adapter I will hopefully receive next week.
I'm wondering about cheap but good lenses. Much of the GFX/X1D discussion is expensive glass, Leica APO, Otus etc. Understandable since many have those already in their bag.
Any m42 lenses I should be taking a look at? How about old and chap MF glass? Pentacon 6, Bronica etc? Lenses for less than $500.
I will report how the Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 & 135/3.5 will work when I receive the adapter.
hauxon wrote:
Just sold all my Fuji X gear to acquire a 50S and the GF23. The plan is to add few more GF lenses later and use adapted lenses to bridge until then. I do have two m42 lenses (CZJ 35/2.4 and 135/3.5)I got very cheap but are decent optics (on FF and FX). I placed and order for a K&F m42-GFX adapter I will hopefully receive next week.
I'm wondering about cheap but good lenses. Much of the GFX/X1D discussion is expensive glass, Leica APO, Otus etc. Understandable since many have those already in their bag.
Any m42 lenses I should be taking a look at? How about old and chap MF glass? Pentacon 6, Bronica etc? Lenses for less than $500.
I will report how the Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 & 135/3.5 will work when I receive the adapter.
A really good place to start is Mamiya 645 MF lenses. The 55 f/2.8 is very nice and very inexpensive as is the 120 f/4A macro. There 35 f/3.5 isn't too bad and can usually be found for a decent price as well. For a portrait type lens the Mamiya 110 f/2.8 is pretty good as well, but the Olympus OM 100 f/2 is one of my favorites and you should be able to get it for less than $500 if you are patient. If you added the Mamiya 35, 55, and 120 macro if you need macro to the Olympus OM 100 f/2 that would make a really nice bridging kit for the GFX.
I always seem to have some Pentax lenses regardless of what I'm using for a camera. I also like Honda Civic cars, so you can probably see where I'm coming from...
SMC Pentax-A 645 lenses are (mostly) very good performers, modestly sized, mechanically very nice, and not too expensive. I'm currently using the SMC Pentax-A 645 35mm f/3.5 on my GFX 50R setup; it's an extremely good lens. The 45mm 645 is not very good -- skip that one. The 55mm is a nice, compact lens that performs quite well. And the 75mm is very tiny and very good. The old SMC Pentax-A 645 45-85mm zoom lens is not a light weight, but it's inexpensive and very good. When I shot it on an A7R, I concluded that the 45-85mm zoom was as good or better than the corresponding prime lenses I had in my kit.
You didn't mention that you need the ability to shift, but if you do the P645 lenses allow for useful amount of shift on the GFX sensor. I get 8mm of good quality shift with the P645 35mm.
hauxon wrote:
Just sold all my Fuji X gear to acquire a 50S and the GF23. The plan is to add few more GF lenses later and use adapted lenses to bridge until then. I do have two m42 lenses (CZJ 35/2.4 and 135/3.5)I got very cheap but are decent optics (on FF and FX). I placed and order for a K&F m42-GFX adapter I will hopefully receive next week.
I'm wondering about cheap but good lenses. Much of the GFX/X1D discussion is expensive glass, Leica APO, Otus etc. Understandable since many have those already in their bag.
Any m42 lenses I should be taking a look at? How about old and chap MF glass? Pentacon 6, Bronica etc? Lenses for less than $500.
I will report how the Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4 & 135/3.5 will work when I receive the adapter.
Steve Spencer wrote:
the Olympus OM 100 f/2 is one of my favorites and you should be able to get it for less than $500 if you are patient.
Steve, to cover the GFX sensor without vignetting, your OM 100/2 must have a massive image circle. That's surprising (in a good way). None of the OMs I use on my APS-C tilt-shift outfit have image circles that large.
But now you have me wondering how my OM 50/2 and OM 90/2 would do on a GFX. They're exceptionally good lenses, with angles of view that I use a lot.
I already know the image circle on OM 50/2 (and probably 90/2) won't be large enough to cover the GFX sensor fully. However, for occasional use I could live with using only a portion of the sensor area until I get around to picking up a Fuji 50/3.5.
Have you tried OM 90/2 and/or OM 50/2 on your GFX?
Also, what adapter are you using? I see all the usual suspects on the Internet (Kipon, etc.).
rdeloe wrote:
Steve, to cover the GFX sensor without vignetting, your OM 100/2 must have a massive image circle. That's surprising (in a good way). None of the OMs I use on my APS-C tilt-shift outfit have image circles that large.
But now you have me wondering how my OM 50/2 and OM 90/2 would do on a GFX. They're exceptionally good lenses, with angles of view that I use a lot.
I already know the image circle on OM 50/2 (and probably 90/2) won't be large enough to cover the GFX sensor fully. However, for occasional use I could live with using only a portion of the sensor area until I get around to picking up a Fuji 50/3.5.
Have you tried OM 90/2 and/or OM 50/2 on your GFX?
Also, what adapter are you using? I see all the usual suspects on the Internet (Kipon, etc.). ...Show more →
I haven't tried the OM 90/2 or 50 f/2 and they are both really nice lenses. I should qualify that the OM 100 f/2 I have only tested at close focussing (i.e., portrait distances) it might not cover at infinity focus. It also has soft vignette which I still find acceptable at 4 X 3 but I prefer to shoot it at 4 X 5. Others might feel differently about the image at 4 X 3, but I doubt hardly anyone would have issues with the portrait images at 4 X 5. I use a Fotodiox pro adapter.
hauxon wrote:
I'm wondering about cheap but good lenses.
The Samyang 135/2 is an absolute bargain, and since it's fully manual you can use "dumb" (and cheap) adapters.
There is some slight vignetting wide open at infinity, but it's so negligible that I usually don't correct for it at all. And I'm very picky with excessive vignetting compared to many other people here, so...
The Samyang 85/1.4 (first version) is one of few lenses that truly covers the sensor. I mean, like if it was made for it. But, it's not very sharp and gives a ton of LoCA. Fun to play with for those wanting the shortest possible DOF though.
Since I'm not a paying member I can't post examples, unfortunately. I have loads of stuff that isn't good enough for Flickr, but could be used just to show how lenses perform.
Steve Spencer wrote:
A really good place to start is Mamiya 645 MF lenses. The 55 f/2.8 is very nice and very inexpensive as is the 120 f/4A macro. There 35 f/3.5 isn't too bad and can usually be found for a decent price as well. For a portrait type lens the Mamiya 110 f/2.8 is pretty good as well, but the Olympus OM 100 f/2 is one of my favorites and you should be able to get it for less than $500 if you are patient. If you added the Mamiya 35, 55, and 120 macro if you need macro to the Olympus OM 100 f/2 that would make a really nice bridging kit for the GFX....Show more →
Be aware that there are two different optical designs for the Mamiya 645 55mm f/2.8. The older C version is 9 elements in 6 groups and the newer N version is 8 elements in 6 groups.
The Mamiya 45mm f/2.8 N is also a great one to consider!
I have a Mamiya 645 80/1.9 that I love using for flowers, and can be had for $400 or a little more. It's a bit soft wide open, much better at 2.8, and razor sharp at 4. I've heard that there's some variation in this and that some copies are sharper wide open, but I only have experience with this single copy, which has lovely rendering.
Congrats Hrannar! The Pentax 645 80-160/4.5 can be found in good condition and fairly cheap if you’re looking for that focal range. Heard good things about the Pentax 645 120/4 macro as well. The Contax Zeiss CY 50/1.4 can be found cheap as well and there are plenty of beautiful images from it in the image thread
