Sauseschritt wrote:
Why, thanks for your answer ... but since when does field curvature matter for portraiture ?
You didn't say anything about portraits in your last post. And it of course depends on the shooting distance. Not all portraits are shot close enough to mask curvature of field.
It matters for stuff like document reproduction, sure - but for that I'd pick my AF 60mm f2.8 micro instead anyway.
It matters for any shot where you want background blur at a bit of distance. Unless you like the borders to be sharp while the middle is out of focus.
Personally, I'd choose a GF lens over any adapted lens that gives the slightest curvature of field. But then as I said earlier, I don't see the point in having so much background blur that you can't even see what's in the background.
Edit: You can see curvature of field in the last of the images above. It's much lesser than with many other lenses, but the borders are still less out of focus than the middle of the background.
I take some landscape tomorrow WO (not that anyone would shoot like that normally), but I'm impressed for $500 adapted FF lens. They marked these down originally from the $1,000 price point because only cinematographer and some studio portrait photogs were using them. I thought it was like budget faster otus 85 which I used to adapt to sony (color, bokeh and CA not quite as good but it's like 8th of the price, lighter, and the rendering is still nice).
I thought I'd show an image that is shot at a distance where a lens with curvature of field really would have messed up the results. This is the GF 110/2 @ f/2. If it's too large for your screen, just click on it and it will fit the screen.
Here you can also see that the GF 110 isn't "perfect". The bokeh is quite busy at distance, compared to some similar lenses. But OTOH it can separate subjects from the background very, very well.
I have the GF 110 as well, so I will try to compare them side by side. For most usage, I would prefer the native lenses for more reliability, just that there isn't a 1.2 atm the moment for the specific semi-distant context portrait shot combo (though you could blur for in post for the 110).
So, I didn't get a chance to go out and compare the two yet, but I sold my A7R4 and had the Laowa 9mm FF left over...and I noticed it kind of fit instead of the mount of the GFX. I know that the flange distance won't let it get focus, but if you used electronic shutter and retrofitted the mount so it fits kinda inside the shutter square I almost think it might work?
Thanks a lot .-)
It is a pity not to be able to see or add Canon EF and Zeiss ZE lenses, to obtain the Diameter Image Field which in the case of Zeiss is 43mm (Zeiss Classic/Milvus/Otus lens Data Sheet). ZEISS Otus 1.4/28 is the only one with 43,3mm.
Canon MP-E65mm macro f2.8, 40mm (macro) f2.8 and 100mm L macro f2.8 are missing. Can´t find info... ,-(
The Canon 40mm 2.8 STM covers it very well (it's only 130g by itself and 260g with a smart adapter, AF is good) compared to 50mm 3.5 which is lightest GFX lens at 335g (negligible but it's a little more compact too)
ftllens wrote:
The Canon 40mm 2.8 STM covers it very well (it's only 130g by itself and 260g with a smart adapter, AF is good) compared to 50mm 3.5 which is lightest GFX lens at 335g (negligible but it's a little more compact too)
Thank you so much for your message and picture .-)
You get a good image with a slight vignette that you can correct on the computer; right?
If you use GFX's Full Frame mode, don't you have any vignettes?
And it is still 45 megapixels in a 3:2 format; correct?
Do you see any difference from the same Canon 40mm when used on this sensor and on a Canon Full Frame sensor?
Does anything change here on the GFX (I mean the aesthetic aspect of the image)?
I just used it in 4:3 MF mode, maybe there is slight vignette? I didn't notice it though. I'll bring it with me when I do the Samyang 85 1.2 XP test vs 110 to the beach.
If you use FF mode, I doubt there is any vignetting at all.
Yeah the aesthetic difference is that it looks bad on the Canon sensor and amazing on the GFX sensor
I'm kidding, but not really. The extra FOV at same distance gives it a nice environmental while keeping the natural perspective of 40mm. Plus I got mine for $80 USD.
This is actually too close for MFD (I gave the camera to a non-photographer to show how easy it was to use the gfx), but you can see at even ISO 12800 it looks pretty good, despite not being in focus (at f4) DSFS1492 by Visual Novel, on Flickr
ftllens wrote:
I just used it in 4:3 MF mode, maybe there is slight vignette? I didn't notice it though. I'll bring it with me when I do the Samyang 85 1.2 XP test vs 110 to the beach.
If you use FF mode, I doubt there is any vignetting at all.
Yeah the aesthetic difference is that it looks bad on the Canon sensor and amazing on the GFX sensor
I'm kidding, but not really. The extra FOV at same distance gives it a nice environmental while keeping the natural perspective of 40mm. Plus I got mine for $80 USD.
I hope you´re not kiding .-)
With a FF35mm lens you do not get the Medium Format Look but something must be different from a FF sensor to a MF sensor using the same 40mm lens?
Makten wrote:
I thought I'd show an image that is shot at a distance where a lens with curvature of field really would have messed up the results. This is the GF 110/2 @ f/2. If it's too large for your screen, just click on it and it will fit the screen.
Here you can also see that the GF 110 isn't "perfect". The bokeh is quite busy at distance, compared to some similar lenses. But OTOH it can separate subjects from the background very, very well.
That's a nice photo you posted, but I don't like the bokeh, especially the hard lines of houses in the lower right quarter.
ftllens wrote:
The Canon 40mm 2.8 STM covers it very well (it's only 130g by itself and 260g with a smart adapter, AF is good) compared to 50mm 3.5 which is lightest GFX lens at 335g (negligible but it's a little more compact too)
The Steelsring, Techart, and Kipon all seem to work well (maybe better than Fotodiox).
Note that the Fotodiox does not pick up reliably the Samyang XP under 2.8. It kind of sucks, so I have to glitch it WO first then lock it to use it like that. Normal EF lenses seem fine.
The Steelsring, Techart, and Kipon all seem to work well (maybe better than Fotodiox).
Note that the Fotodiox does not pick up reliably the Samyang XP under 2.8. It kind of sucks, so I have to glitch it WO first then lock it to use it like that. Normal EF lenses seem fine.
I think Viltrox is probably similar. Other members can probably chime in. I have a feeling a lot of these adapters are manufactured by same factory, aside from maybe Techart.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
That's a nice photo you posted, but I don't like the bokeh, especially the hard lines of houses in the lower right quarter.
I agree, and this shows how people are exaggerating the performance of the 110/2 just because it suits them and their use of it. At closer distance the bokeh is very nice, but the transition zone is still a lot harsher than with many other lenses. It applies to the GF 63 and 45 as well, but not the GF 50 that renders much nicer.
I think Fuji has deliberately chosen lens designs for "wow" performance, with lots of "3D pop" and good separation even at large distances, which of course will make some other characteristics not so pleasant.
Now, the point with that image was to show a photo that would have looked horrible with an adapted lens with backwards curvature of field. Again; not everyone shoot portraits at <2 meters and when we almost only see such examples, it's easy to get fooled that almost any lens is "perfect" on the GFX.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Because hobbyists rarely have studios ...
... also, a good background with lots of different colors can be a very pleasant background when being completely out of focus.
Fair enough, but many photos shot at f/1.4 would be "better" if the photographer wasn't obsessed with getting the shortest possible DOF. There is no right or wrong here since taste applies, but I think it's worth thinking about why you'd "need" faster lenses than f/2.8 on 33x44.
And it of course depends on the shooting distance. Not all portraits are shot close enough to mask curvature of field. 
