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 →
beardedspoooon wrote:
Minolta MC ROKKOR-PF 58/1.4, 50R, processed to taste, didn't do anything with the corners, both at 1.4.
Looks good! But, at that short distance almost every ~50-60 mm standard lens will cover the sensor. You only know which of them that truly covers if you focus at least 3 meters away or so. Usually a ton of aberrations suddenly appear along with horrible curvature of field.
Edit: But of course that doesn't matter if you only use the lens for closeups.
Yeah, I've read that. I gave a try with my Vivitar 28/2.8, the close focus one. Very slight vignette when focusing super close, pretty cool FOV, hard vignette and smeary kind of edges when focused out to any distance.
I don't see myself using these old fast fifties for anything other than portrait type stuff though. Well, strike that, I took it out to an event last night lol.
Makten wrote:
Looks good! But, at that short distance almost every ~50-60 mm standard lens will cover the sensor. You only know which of them that truly covers if you focus at least 3 meters away or so. Usually a ton of aberrations suddenly appear along with horrible curvature of field.
Edit: But of course that doesn't matter if you only use the lens for closeups.
Steve Spencer wrote:
For a portrait type lens the Mamiya 110 f/2.8 is pretty good as well
Interesting, the one I had was merely fine. Certainly not remotely comparable to the 150 A or even 55 N. I hadn't thought about it being a poor sample.
Also, I could never let go of my 100AME and I'm trying to spend more responsibly; nevertheless I remain tempted to try the 120.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Interesting, the one I had was merely fine. Certainly not remotely comparable to the 150 A or even 55 N. I hadn't thought about it being a poor sample.
Also, I could never let go of my 100AME and I'm trying to spend more responsibly; nevertheless I remain tempted to try the 120.
Hi Lee,
I wouldn't say mine was excellent or anything, but it was pretty good and took nice portraits. For a lens that can be bought for $150 if you are patient, I considered that a good value. In the end, I upgraded to a fast lens with better color correction, but for someone starting out on a budget I think it is a quite viable option.
rbf_ wrote:
If you want some reach you can get Pentax 645 150-300/5.6 for around $200 if you look. It's fairly light, easy to carry and gets the job done.
I would have overlooked this lens. The user reviews over at the Pentaxforums are usually quite reliable -- where "reliable" means "I agree with them" The top-level summary rating is really bad (see link below). But digging deeper into the reviews, there are a bunch of people who really like it, and one person who gave it a 1/10 (a rating I've never before seen on the forum); that rating killed the average.
rdeloe wrote:
I would have overlooked this lens. The user reviews over at the Pentaxforums are usually quite reliable -- where "reliable" means "I agree with them" The top-level summary rating is really bad (see link below). But digging deeper into the reviews, there are a bunch of people who really like it, and one person who gave it a 1/10 (a rating I've never before seen on the forum); that rating killed the average.
Yeah I noticed that too! I do like it, in fact I like it a lot and the Pentax glass in general can be had at some very nice prices. I see that you've been happy with it as well. Nice option to have for the GFX while people save up for more GF glass
I'm looking for sample photos, focused near infinity, of the Summicron-R 50mm, Summicron-R 90mm, Summilux-R 50mm E60 on the GFX. If anyone has some to share I'll be grateful.
I've used all these lenses before on 135 formats and know their performance and characters well. I am curious specifically about their coverage on 44x33 at distant focus (not closeup).
The Summicron-R 50 has corners that aren't acceptably sharp at f/8, and a notable vignette. It's a completely usable lens on the GFX but not outstanding, unlike most GFX lenses.
sirimiri wrote:
The Summicron-R 50 has corners that aren't acceptably sharp at f/8, and a notable vignette. It's a completely usable lens on the GFX but not outstanding, unlike most GFX lenses.
I have a Summicron-R 50 in a leitax mount for Canon EF that I've used on the GFX 50R via a Kipon AF adapter. No problems with vignetting or sharpness and makes a nice MF lens for walkabout shooting.
If you've got some old Minolta/Sony A-mount lenses, I can make these reports with Fotodiox adapter on the 50r:
Minolta 85mm 1.4 (original) -- very slight vignetting wide open
Minolta 500mm 8.0 mirror -- some vignetting
Konica/Minolta 17-35mm f/2.8-4 -- vignetting from 17 to 28, none from 28 to 35
Sigma 50mm 1.4 non-Art -- some vignetting
Minolta 100-300 4.5-5.6 APO -- vignettes at ends, but no vignette between about 135 and 225mm
Minolta 28-135 4-4.5 -- vignettes in various ways at all focal lengths
Minolta 50mm 1.7 -- some vignetting
A few EF-mount lenses with the Kipon EF-GFX AF adapter:
Canon 50mm 1.2L -- some vignetting, AF fine if somewhat slow
Sigma 150mm 2.8 OS macro -- no vignetting, but unless the subject is high contrast, AF is chittery and often not accurate (in three shots of same subject, it will get the focus right once). OS does work.
Sigma 120-300 2.8 (first version) -- no vignetting, AF often OK at 120, but gets less accurate as you zoom to 300
Canon 135mm 2.8 Soft Focus -- no vignetting, but absolutely refuses to AF accurately
Still waiting on my Minolta MD -GFX adapter to play with my manual focus lenses.
Wow.
BOTH of my old M42 mount lens work with NO vignetting.
- Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Primoplan 58/1.9
- Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100/2.8 (soap bubble king)
Cool, have to play this weekend.
buggz wrote:
Wow.
BOTH of my old M42 mount lens work with NO vignetting.
- Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Primoplan 58/1.9
- Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan 100/2.8 (soap bubble king)
Cool, have to play this weekend.
Your definition of vignetting is probably not the same as mine then, since the 58/1.9 vignettes pretty heavily already on 24x36 mm.
It's extremely confusing that one persons "heavy vignetting" is another persons "no vignetting". Vignetting to me is lesser exposure towards the corners, which every single lens has even on its native format. It can be so small that it's not visible though, but it will be there as long as the exit pupil isn't at infinity.
Makten wrote:
Your definition of vignetting is probably not the same as mine then, since the 58/1.9 vignettes pretty heavily already on 24x36 mm.
It's extremely confusing that one persons "heavy vignetting" is another persons "no vignetting". Vignetting to me is lesser exposure towards the corners, which every single lens has even on its native format. It can be so small that it's not visible though, but it will be there as long as the exit pupil isn't at infinity.
Yes, everyone no doubt has different tastes/definitions/standards.
I haven't tested heavily, I guess the best would be a bright day.
But, a quick play last night, they definitely do not show the vignettes of my other lenses, Minolta SR mounts, CYZ mounts, Canon EOS mounts, Canon FD mounts, etc...
Just now briefly "tested" my old Spiratone 135/1.8 YS mount (T2), no discernible vignette, not noted like the other mounts listed above.
More serious testing is needed for ALL of them, just drilling through them as fast as I can for rough categorization.
Going through all these old lenses is like rediscovering treasure.
I have many left to try, but limited time, today was playing Santa's helper...
So, I'm about to become a member of GFX family as well. I'd like to ask for some suggestions on adapting lenses.
I have a whole bunch of vintage lenses in various mount that I'd love to try them on the GFX.
Through the years, I've acquired a variety of adapters to adapt them to Leica M mount and either use the Techart AF adapter or the Novoflex LM-FE adapter (if I felt like MF) to use on Sony A7x with great results.
My question is, will it be wise to just continue the same strategy? As in only having to get a good LM-GFX adapter and I'm basically set instead of investing into another set of adapters.
Only concern is vignetting... as it's already going to be a problem adapting 135 lenses onto the larger sensor area. I wouldn't want adapters to be adding any extra vignetting.
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 →
azenis wrote:
So, I'm about to become a member of GFX family as well. I'd like to ask for some suggestions on adapting lenses.
I have a whole bunch of vintage lenses in various mount that I'd love to try them on the GFX.
Through the years, I've acquired a variety of adapters to adapt them to Leica M mount and either use the Techart AF adapter or the Novoflex LM-FE adapter (if I felt like MF) to use on Sony A7x with great results.
My question is, will it be wise to just continue the same strategy? As in only having to get a good LM-GFX adapter and I'm basically set instead of investing into another set of adapters.
Only concern is vignetting... as it's already going to be a problem adapting 135 lenses onto the larger sensor area. I wouldn't want adapters to be adding any extra vignetting....Show more →
My plan is to do that for some of my lenses. If you look at the LM-GFX adapter, it's super thin. I doubt that it would exacerbate any vignette. I could be completely wrong though!
The top-level summary rating is really bad (see link below). But digging deeper into the reviews, there are a bunch of people who really like it, and one person who gave it a 1/10 (a rating I've never before seen on the forum); that rating killed the average.