Makten wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Yeah, but I think "portraits at <2 meters" is more what the 110/2 is intended for
Lee Saxon wrote:
Yeah, but I think "portraits at <2 meters" is more what the 110/2 is intended for
Not sure about that. At 2 meters you don't "need" more than like f/4 to get a lot of background blur, and for hand holding in low light, the 120/4 is probably a better choice with the stabilization.
Also, what the lens was intended for doesn't really matter. It can focus to infinity and will be used for all sorts of stuff.
I have both 120mm and 110mm and for portraits I prefer 110mm but then I like shooting at f2 more than f4. Maybe I should try 120mm f4. I don't see any issues with shooting 110mm without IS at 1/125 and I have shaky hands. Surprisingly, I need much faster speeds with my Sigma 105mm f1.4 when used on A7rIV which has IBIS.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Wait, what ? Surely you must be doing something wrong ?
Nope. Just small/lighter Sony body with a front heavier lens and IBIS not doing the magic that lot of people think it does. Personally I take lens IS over IBIS. On GFX, my max sync is only 1/125 and most of my shots at that ss and I see no issues with focus, sharpness. When I had canon, I needed 1/200 or higher for my 85L. On Sony with that Sigma I need 1/300, more like 1/500. This with fancier eye AF of the Sony.
I am currently considering whether I should sell my Nikkor 105mm F2 DC lens and buy the Samyang 135mm F2 for it. Alternatively, I would also give my Minolta 135mm f2.8 because two 135mm lenses make no sense to me. Maybe I'll keep it too, I still don't know.
For me it is primarily about having a good adapted lens in the range of 80mm +. I'm torn. The Nikkor 105 is a great quality lens, but unfortunately it is heavy and a bit too soft in terms of imaging performance. Do you think it would be worth buying the Samyang 135mm? Or would you prefer a different lens?
I see another advantage in the newer/better color and contrast of the Samyang lens compared to the old one of the Minolta or that of the Nikkor.
Okay so i've tested the Nikkor 105mm F2 DC once again on my GFX50R and can say that it doesn't cover the sensor well at a distance of about 3m @f8 and above.
It is known that Laowa 17mm for GFX is 12/2.8 with integrated MFC part. Has anyone tried Zeiss 15mm Distagon with MFC on the GFX? Is there any reason it would not work?
I'm getting a wide angle of some sort for the 50R but have not decided exactly what. Laowa 17mm costs ~1500 euros here in Finland (ugh) and GF 30/3.5 is "only" 300€ more. Used Zeiss 15mm Distagon with Magic Format Converter (MFC) is in the same price class. So far GF30/3.5 sounds like the most rational purchase but really wide is really wide ;D
MJKoski wrote:
It is known that Laowa 17mm for GFX is 12/2.8 with integrated MFC part. Has anyone tried Zeiss 15mm Distagon with MFC on the GFX? Is there any reason it would not work?
I'm getting a wide angle of some sort for the 50R but have not decided exactly what. Laowa 17mm costs ~1500 euros here in Finland (ugh) and GF 30/3.5 is "only" 300€ more. Used Zeiss 15mm Distagon with Magic Format Converter (MFC) is in the same price class. So far GF30/3.5 sounds like the most rational purchase but really wide is really wide ;D
It should work reasonably well. I haven't tried the Zeiss 15mm, but I have tried the Zeiss Milvus 18 f/2.8 and it held up quite well on the MFC.
MJKoski wrote:
So I should be able to do some night shooting and expect acceptable IQ at large apertures? I did like 15mm Distagon paired to D810 very much.
I would think you should be able to do so. I was very happy with the results from the Milvus 18 f/2.8, but I didn't shoot night shots. I also didn't examine if the MFC introduced coma, so I can't say how well it will work for your application. I wish I could help more, but that wasn't my use for the MFC.
No worries. Thank you for your reply I did read few reviews about the MFC and was quite surprised that it actually worked quite well. Laowa 17mm itself is the proof already.
I put on my FD 500/4.5L some other clear night and got some captures of Jupiter and Saturn.
My neice and I, could see the rings of Saturn, and Jupiters moons.
This was both in the viewfinder, and expanding the captures.
I have yet to do anything with them, nor take the proper time to get really in to the exposures to capture the colors properly etc.
A proof of concept, worked out well.
Probably best to capture movie clips and stack those individual frames?
Awwwww yeahh, I was interested in the 7Artisans 28mm 1.4 summiclone so I bought it from a member (thanks Justin) and it covers the 33x44 sensor wonderfully! You can apply the Leica Summilux 28 1.4 profile in C1 and it'll correct the falloff etc great.
ftllens wrote:
Awwwww yeahh, I was interested in the 7Artisans 28mm 1.4 summiclone so I bought it from a member (thanks Justin) and it covers the 33x44 sensor wonderfully! You can apply the Leica Summilux 28 1.4 profile in C1 and it'll correct the falloff etc great.
I like the bokeh and CA is really not that bad
Would you mind doing an f/8 shot or two?
Sigma 40/1.4, it does a pretty good job of covering the sensor, not as good as the 135 IMO.
beardedspoooon wrote:
Would you mind doing an f/8 shot or two?
Sigma 40/1.4, it does a pretty good job of covering the sensor, not as good as the 135 IMO.
Yeah I can take some today. Do you want any specific shots? I'm just waiting for my Konica AR to LM adapter to come so I can test the 40mm 1.8 along with it.
I was going to get the Sigma 40 at one point because it's my favorite lens on other systems, but the 45-100 is so good that I just wanted a more compact faster wider prime and compact cheap lightweight manual pancake. (I know the 50mm is great). The EF 40mm 2.8 STM covered the sensor perfectly as well and was reasonable sharpness and I might get that again if the Konica is too soft or if the bokeh is too wild.
Anything at a distance to see how the corners do. A lot of lenses do fine when focusing on something close up. Sometimes stopped down and focused near infinity the vignette gets pretty hard. Not a big deal depending on what you're doing of course.
I grabbed the 40/1.4 to complement the Sigma 135/1.8 for portraits and the like on the GFX. I had the 50/1.8 STM, it too did pretty well on the GFX.
ftllens wrote:
Yeah I can take some today. Do you want any specific shots? I'm just waiting for my Konica AR to LM adapter to come so I can test the 40mm 1.8 along with it.
I was going to get the Sigma 40 at one point because it's my favorite lens on other systems, but the 45-100 is so good that I just wanted a more compact faster wider prime and compact cheap lightweight manual pancake. (I know the 50mm is great). The EF 40mm 2.8 STM covered the sensor perfectly as well and was reasonable sharpness and I might get that again if the Konica is too soft or if the bokeh is too wild.
