rdeloe wrote:
I do love those OM lenses! I built a whole tilt-shift system using Olympus OM lenses on a Fuji X-T2. I've since moved on to a tilt-shift setup I built for the GFX 50R, but I still have most of the OM lenses I used.
In building out my system, I tried one copy of OM 28/2, but found it to be totally unacceptable as a shift lens. So I'm surprised (and pleased for you) that your copy works well. I actually thought there might be something wrong with the OM 28/2 I tried; it has a very good reputation and should have done better. Your test supports the conclusion that I had a dud....Show more →
It's not too strange since the demands on the lens will be higher with a small APS-C sensor since you magnify any aberration more. And if you shift, you'll probably use the whole ~43 mm image circle. On the GFX my corners are at an image circle of ~51 mm at 16:9, but with much lower magnification.
I do think that the OM 28/2 has floating elements, so check if your hit infinity at the mark or close to it. If not, shimming the adapter (or lens) might make the results better.
Your post inspired me to quickly try some of my OM lenses on my GFX 50R, using my Toyo VX23D outfit, to see where they vignette. I tested at f/11 at just over 1 metre to the subject.
* OM 24/2.8 vignettes hard, but using a 4:3 crop leaves you with a usable image of roughly 5,200 x 6,931 pixels.
* OM 35/2.8 is interesting. It doesn't vignette hard over the sensor area (just a bit of darkening in the corners). However, the usable area isn't bigger than OM 24/2.8. Outside of the roughly 5,200 x 6,931 pixel area the image is a blurry mess.
* OM 50/2 is a really nice and well regarded lens in the Olympus lineup. It vignettes hard, but not as far in the frame as OM 24/2.8. A 4:3 crop of 7,400 x 5,550 pixels looked to have even illumination. From my testing of OM 50/1.4, I know that the faster 50 has a slightly larger image circle and will give a larger usable area.
* OM 90/2 is another star in the Olympus OM lineup. It covers the whole GFX 50R sensor with no vignetting at all that I could see.
I have to be careful about offering conclusions about image quality because my test setup wasn't ideal. However, just judging by the centre of each image, where I'm more confident that the lenses were at their best, I wouldn't run out and buy an OM to GFX adapter to use these lenses (with the possible exception of OM 90/2, but I have good choices at that focal length already). I have better alternatives for everything up to 35mm. After that I don't have any lenses that work (but I find 35mm on the GFX sensor is almost wide enough for me, so I can live with this gap). ...Show more →
I actually find the OM 35/2.8 quite useful at 33x44 mm. Yes, the corners will be smeared, but there is virtually no vignetting at all and at f/11-16 it's pretty sharp over the entire area except for the extreme corners.
The 50/1.8 requires a slight crop and I find the Nikkor 50/2 a better lens. It vignettes less, is sharper and has nicer character. Stopped down or reasonably close, there's no need to crop at all.
I'll keep an eye open for the 90, but it's a bit too expensive for just playing around, I think.
Makten wrote:
It's not too strange since the demands on the lens will be higher with a small APS-C sensor since you magnify any aberration more. And if you shift, you'll probably use the whole ~43 mm image circle. On the GFX my corners are at an image circle of ~51 mm at 16:9, but with much lower magnification.
I do think that the OM 28/2 has floating elements, so check if your hit infinity at the mark or close to it. If not, shimming the adapter (or lens) might make the results better.
For my APS-C setup I tested a lot of OM and OM-mount lenses. https://www.robdeloephotography.com/Pages/Tiltshift-on-APSC Many worked extremely well, so I believe the adapter was fine. Honestly, in the case of the OM 28/2, it was definitely not as described... It went back to the seller and I got a refund. I was quite happy with my OM 28/3.5 for the few times I used that focal length, so I never bothered getting a second OM 28/2.
I did find though that due to the age of the lenses, there was an enormous amount of variation from copy-to-copy. In some cases I had to try 3-4 to find one that satisfied me for a particular focal length.
I actually find the OM 35/2.8 quite useful at 33x44 mm. Yes, the corners will be smeared, but there is virtually no vignetting at all and at f/11-16 it's pretty sharp over the entire area except for the extreme corners.
This is one of the OM lenses that had a so-so reputation in the OM community back in the day. But when I found a copy I liked, it was excellent at f/11. In fact, my OM 35/2.8 performed better as a shift lens than a nice copy of a Canon FD 35/2.8 Tilt-shift lens I also used.
I'll keep an eye open for the 90, but it's a bit too expensive for just playing around, I think.
It is a magnificent lens. If you ever get one at a good price, you won't be sorry. It's excellent at long distances, and superb at 1:2. I used it to "camera scan" 4x5 negatives last year. At the distances I was shooting the negatives, it was better than the stellar OM 80/4 Macro lens (which is remarkably because the OM 80/4 is outstanding).
There's a "sleeper" you might want to watch out for. The OM 28-48/4 is a very tiny and very nice little zoom lens. It's best in the middle; I used it as a shift lens at 35mm until I replaced it with the OM 35/2.8 -- and I only replaced it because I prefer primes to zooms. It was also very good at 28mm, but had more distortion. What I found quite remarkable about this lens is that the image quality was very good wide open, and became excellent at f/5.6.
Canon EF mount lenses with Kipon AF adapter on GFX 100, not in 35mm mode:
Canon 400mm 5.6L -- slight vignetting
Tamron 35mm 1.8 -- no obvious vignette, but some light falloff in corners, mostly correctable in camera settings
Sigma 135mm 1.8 -- no vignette
As others have observed, Canon 40mm 2.8 STM -- no vignette
Betacamman wrote:
Minolta SR lenses with Fotodiox adapter on the GFX100, not 35mm mode:
Vivitar 17mm f/3.5 -- hard vignette
Minolta MD 24-35 f/4 -- hard (but varied) vignette at all focal lengths
Minolta MD 50-135 f/3.5 -- hard vignette at all focal lengths
Minolta MD 100-300 f/5.6 -- as above
Minolta MD 50mm 1.2 -- slight, but hard vignette
Minolta MC 100mm 2.5 -- no vignette
Minolta MC 250mm mirror 5.6 -- no vignette
Crosspost from a thread on the lens itself; Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28/2.8 @ f/8 and 7 mm of vertical shift on full GFX sensor (the second image is cropped 1-2 mm on the left side in PP).
I bought it thinking I wouldn't be able to use any shift at all, but it's a lot better than I thought!
I have read most of this thread. I haver a GFX 50R and 23mm, 32-64mm and 100-200mm Fuji lenses. I will be 83 in February, and carrying this out fit is too heavy for me. I did adapt a soft camera interior to a small wheeled carry on Luggage bag. It works fine. But sometimes I want to leave the kit in the car, and use a "walk around" lens. Ideally the new Fuji 50mm f3.5 would fill the bill, but it is $1,000. Someone posted that the Canon 40mm f2.8 STM "Pancake" style lens covers the GFX sensor with little on no vignetting. How do you think that lens would behave on a "smart" adapter? Anyone try it? Does auto focus work? I now have a bit of an issue trying to manual focus lately, because I am partially blind in my left (dominate) eye. I do seascapes, and I make big prints (24"x32" from medium format).
Thanks in advance.
Dave in NJ
www.modernpictorials.com
dgurtch wrote:
I have read most of this thread. I haver a GFX 50R and 23mm, 32-64mm and 100-200mm Fuji lenses. I will be 83 in February, and carrying this out fit is too heavy for me. I did adapt a soft camera interior to a small wheeled carry on Luggage bag. It works fine. But sometimes I want to leave the kit in the car, and use a "walk around" lens. Ideally the new Fuji 50mm f3.5 would fill the bill, but it is $1,000. Someone posted that the Canon 40mm f2.8 STM "Pancake" style lens covers the GFX sensor with little on no vignetting. How do you think that lens would behave on a "smart" adapter? Anyone try it? Does auto focus work? I now have a bit of an issue trying to manual focus lately, because I am partially blind in my left (dominate) eye. I do seascapes, and I make big prints (24"x32" from medium format).
Thanks in advance.
Dave in NJ
www.modernpictorials.com ...Show more →
Is there really a point in lugging the GFX with a lens that perhaps doesn't cut it? I'd say it's more convenient to get a smaller camera with a nice prime for those times when you want to carry less weight. Also, don't forget that the adapters add siginficant weight! In my case, the minimal Nikkor 50/2 with adapter only weighs ~100 gram less than the 63/2.8, and even if it's one of the best adapted lenses I've tried, it's nowhere close to as good as the 63.
The results I've seen from the Canon 40/2.8 indicates that it has to be stopped down A LOT to get decent borders and corners. Which sort of defeats the whole idea of it, in my opinion.
Does anyone know a smallish ~180/4 prime that covers GFX without noticeable vignetting? A couple of stops wide open is OK, but I'd like it to be free of vignetting at f/8 or so.
My current adapters are Nikon F, Olympus OM and C/Y, so I'd prefer one of those mounts.
Makten wrote:
Does anyone know a smallish ~180/4 prime that covers GFX without noticeable vignetting? A couple of stops wide open is OK, but I'd like it to be free of vignetting at f/8 or so.
My current adapters are Nikon F, Olympus OM and C/Y, so I'd prefer one of those mounts.
A while ago I tested the CV 180 APO-Lanthar on the Ar7r with a shift adapter, and the vignetting was not very bad. If you want to try it, I am going to Stockholm in february. Beware that I might not be willing to sell it though
The 50/1.8 is okay, I didn't bother testing The 40, sold the 50 for what I paid. As Makten says though, probably be better off with a smaller camera than to settle for a lesser lens. 😀
dgurtch wrote:
I have read most of this thread. I haver a GFX 50R and 23mm, 32-64mm and 100-200mm Fuji lenses. I will be 83 in February, and carrying this out fit is too heavy for me. I did adapt a soft camera interior to a small wheeled carry on Luggage bag. It works fine. But sometimes I want to leave the kit in the car, and use a "walk around" lens. Ideally the new Fuji 50mm f3.5 would fill the bill, but it is $1,000. Someone posted that the Canon 40mm f2.8 STM "Pancake" style lens covers the GFX sensor with little on no vignetting. How do you think that lens would behave on a "smart" adapter? Anyone try it? Does auto focus work? I now have a bit of an issue trying to manual focus lately, because I am partially blind in my left (dominate) eye. I do seascapes, and I make big prints (24"x32" from medium format).
Thanks in advance.
Dave in NJ
www.modernpictorials.com ...Show more →
The image circle allows cinematographers to use not only on full frame sensors (Size = 43.14mm), but also able to fill the Vista Vision sensors on RED Monstro and the sensor on Arri Alexa LF (Size @ open-gate = 44.7mm) fully. The lens is also ideal for Super35-sized camera owners with the ultra-wide 17mm equivalent field of view and its future-proof decision when cinematographers need to upgrade to large format cameras.
The image circle allows cinematographers to use not only on full frame sensors (Size = 43.14mm), but also able to fill the Vista Vision sensors on RED Monstro and the sensor on Arri Alexa LF (Size @ open-gate = 44.7mm) fully. The lens is also ideal for Super35-sized camera owners with the ultra-wide 17mm equivalent field of view and its future-proof decision when cinematographers need to upgrade to large format cameras.
The answer here is a pretty clear no. This lens can be bought as their 12mm f/2.8 zero D and can be used on the GFX with their magic format converter as a 17mm lens. It is also exactly the same lens with the magic format converter built in that they offer as their GF mount 17 f/4 lens. So, yes it is an interesting lens and you can use it on the GFX in multiple ways (including as their 17mm f/4 GF mount lens), but, no, it won't cover the whole image circle without some optics to widen the image circle. Comments on FM seem it indicate the performance is alright to decent, but not excellent. If you wanted the Cine lens housing then buying it in the EF mount and using the magic format converter would probably be the way to go.
Original MOG Trioplan 100/2.8, minimum focus distance, edited to taste except no crop, no vignette correction. Didn't bother testing at another distance.
Makten wrote:
Does anyone know a smallish ~180/4 prime that covers GFX without noticeable vignetting? A couple of stops wide open is OK, but I'd like it to be free of vignetting at f/8 or so.
My current adapters are Nikon F, Olympus OM and C/Y, so I'd prefer one of those mounts.
I find the CV Apo Lanthar 180/4 to be very acceptable across the full frame on my GFX 50R from about F/8 - its a great little lens if you don't want to lug the much bigger GF alternatives...
envydd wrote:
Just got myself a 50R and wondering what are the best brands to adapt. Anyone tried Contax/Zeiss 35mm primes e.g. 50/1.7 or the 135/2 or the 100/2?
So many choices! This thread is a cornucopia of ideas.
On my 50R, I'm adapting SMC Pentax-A 645 lenses (along with a bunch of oddballs like enlarger lenses). Pentax 645 lenses are really good, and ridiculously cheap. I highly recommend the following:
1. SMC Pentax-A 645 35mm f/3.5. The very latest digital version is supposed to be better, but I'm extremely pleased with the results I get from this lens, which is plenty wide for me on the 50R.
2. SMC Pentax-A 645 45-85mm f/4.5. This is a big old zoom (just a bit over 800 grams). It's regularly overlooked, which is unfortunate because it is an excellent performer. It's sharper than all the comparable primes (45mm, 55mm, 75mm). The FA version uses the same optics, but provides autofocus on a Pentax 645 body.
3. SMC Pentax-A 645 150mm f/3.5. This small, light telephoto is very good -- also highly recommended.
I've also owned the 55mm and 75mm SMC Pentax-A 645 primes and they are very good. It's generally agreed that the 45mm is the weak link in the chain.
