Okay here goes. Whatever plans I had for GF23, they are gone now. I have an UWA with proper shift now. Samyang 24mm T/S.
Few samples and explanations:
1) F/8, 9mm shift, 2 degrees of swing, and two stacked 82mm filters (CPL + ND400), cropped to 5:4. Vignetting is mainly caused by the stacked filters.
2) F/11, 9mm shift and 1 degrees of swing + 82mm CPL filter, full sensor capture without cropping.
3) F/11, 9mm shift, no tilt/swing + 82mm CPL, full sensor capture without cropping.
And now comes the fun part. 100% crops.
1) Foreground stairs at the bottom edge of frame:
2) Main door of the building:
3) Tower part of the upper edge:
4) Badumm Tishh! Far right edge of the shifted frame, upper part:
There is your pocket rocket T/S lens for GFX. I paid few hundred euros for it used and 20€ for the Pentax K -> GFX adapter. It is not any worse than the Canon 24mm TS-E mk2 but actually seems to do better. Just stop it to f/8 or f/11. Without movements it is not any worse than GF30 in sharpness and takes two stacked filters.
The issue here is distortion for architecture stuff but one can always fix it. Another problem may be finding a good copy of Samyang / Rokinon lens which is *very* hard.
Looks good, I was looking for a 24 TS without electronic diaphragm so I could use a dumb adapter (GFX registers FL anyway with the custom adapter setting).
Gonna be looking for one of these.
MJKoski wrote:
Okay here goes. Whatever plans I had for GF23, they are gone now. I have an UWA with proper shift now. Samyang 24mm T/S.
Few samples and explanations:
1) F/8, 9mm shift, 2 degrees of swing, and two stacked 82mm filters (CPL + ND400), cropped to 5:4. Vignetting is mainly caused by the stacked filters.
There is your pocket rocket T/S lens for GFX. I paid few hundred euros for it used and 20€ for the Pentax K -> GFX adapter. It is not any worse than the Canon 24mm TS-E mk2 but actually seems to do better. Just stop it to f/8 or f/11. Without movements it is not any worse than GF30 in sharpness and takes two stacked filters.
The issue here is distortion for architecture stuff but one can always fix it. Another problem may be finding a good copy of Samyang / Rokinon lens which is *very* hard....Show more →
I use the Samyang 24 PC (shift mechanism removed and adapted to Contax 645 + IQ180), the Fuji 23f4 and the Canon EF 24f3.5 L II TSE (with Steel adapter) on Fuji GFX.
Regarding out-of-center sharpness, CA and distortion, the ranking of these three lenses is acc. my experience very obvious. The Fuji is exceptional, the Canon is good and the Samyang is average.
Apart from the strong moustache distortion - which is very difficult to correct in post - and the decreasing sharpness towards the image corners, my main issue is the color: As also can be seen in Koski's pics, there is always a yellowish, hazy cast, the sky is never clear and blue, I really dislike that behaviour, it's quite impossible to remove/adjust it in post, so I seldom use it.
Do you have a sample of the Canon 24mm TS-E shifted taken with GFX? I think Samyang does fine here considering that color cast can be user corrected and distortion fixed. I put some warmth there in post and could have made it look cooler. Very easy these days with camera raw color grading tools.
Also, we had lots of pollen yesterday in the air which made it look hazy during the sunset when looking at a distant object.
grasmuc wrote:
Yes I have.
but seems no longer possible to upload pics free of charge
You can link to them for free, however, if you have them stored somewhere on the internet where people can easily view them (e.g., flikr, smugmug, etc.)
I think the last three should perform pretty well given the flat MTF lines with a few stop-down. The first appears to be ok for portrait, but would suffer from smeared edges.
Does anyone have any good recommendation in 35-50mm range good manual lens for GFX that can also do landscape? I really want compact size if possible. The final choice evidently is the native 45mm f/2.8.
grasmuc wrote:
I use the Samyang 24 PC (shift mechanism removed and adapted to Contax 645 + IQ180), the Fuji 23f4 and the Canon EF 24f3.5 L II TSE (with Steel adapter) on Fuji GFX.
Regarding out-of-center sharpness, CA and distortion, the ranking of these three lenses is acc. my experience very obvious. The Fuji is exceptional, the Canon is good and the Samyang is average.
Apart from the strong moustache distortion - which is very difficult to correct in post - and the decreasing sharpness towards the image corners, my main issue is the color: As also can be seen in Koski's pics, there is always a yellowish, hazy cast, the sky is never clear and blue, I really dislike that behaviour, it's quite impossible to remove/adjust it in post, so I seldom use it....Show more →
That same color cast/shift is also the main (only?) drawback with the otherwise stellar Samyang 135/2.
I've been very sceptical about lens colors actually doing a visible difference after PP, but lately I've found some lenses really hard to get great colors out of. For example, Nikon lenses (at least old ones) also give some sort of greenish color that I don't like. You can probably correct for it, but not with a simple white balance shift.
And it doesn't get better when the GFX (50R in my case) is heavily weighted towards green. All the film simulations look like crap if I don't force the WB towards red. In C1, the "film standard" profile is actually much better at giving decent colors. But for some reason it gives a lot lower DR with totally blown highlights. Works fine for low DR scenes though.
kopuschenfredm wrote:
Does anyone have any good recommendation in 35-50mm range good manual lens for GFX that can also do landscape? I really want compact size if possible. The final choice evidently is the native 45mm f/2.8.
Look no further than the GF 50/3.5 if you want corner to corner sharpness and small size. It's actually shorter than most adapted 50 mm lenses because of the adapter. Rangefinder lenses will of course be smaller on the camera, but I haven't seen one that doesn't perform like crap towards the borders and corners.
The only 50 mm lens I've tried myself that is usable on 33x44 mm is the Nikkor 50/2. At f/8-11 even the corners are pretty sharp. But it's an old lens (even the latest version) with inferior coatings and a bit dull colors. There is no way in hell I'd choose it over the GF 50.
Here's the Nikkor 50/2, probably at f/8 or thereabout. SOOC, only downsampled and sharpened a tiny bit.
You can see a tiny darkening of the far corners as well as a bit of mush there, as well as CA along the horizon. This performance is way worse than any half-decent 35-40 mm lens on FF and IMO defeats the whole point of using the GFX system.
kopuschenfredm wrote:
I wish every lens has measured MTF just like Zeiss did. Basically I selected a few Contax Zeiss lens based on their MTF (esp. towards edge).
I think the last three should perform pretty well given the flat MTF lines with a few stop-down. The first appears to be ok for portrait, but would suffer from smeared edges.
Does anyone have any good recommendation in 35-50mm range good manual lens for GFX that can also do landscape? I really want compact size if possible. The final choice evidently is the native 45mm f/2.8....Show more →
The 100-300 has an unusable corners on 44x33 – examples you will see here have been cropped. Seems to be useful cropped somewhere between 35mm and 44x33.
The CZ 100 f/2 is the equal of the GF 110 at every distance, even wide open – at least on the 50mp 50S/R.
The 35 1.4 does indeed have smeared corners at distance, but it's beautiful closer up wide open.
I haven't tried the CZ 65 and 85, but I doubt they are perfect at infinity for landscape – better off with the GF 63 and 80.
The only full frame lens I have in the 35-50 range that works for me at infinity is the Minolta 58 1.2 MD Rokkor – but it has very small hard corners at infinity that require a slight crop. But sharpness is on par with the GF 63 out to that hard corner. This performance is surprising to me given this lens is typically used only for portraits, where at f/1.2 is has a soft glow. As others have said, in the 35-50 range, you're a million times better off with a native lens: GF 30/45/50. The only exceptions IMO would be higher-end full frame tilt/shift lenses (Canon 24 TS-E II for example), but by then you've spent more than you would have on GF glass and still don't have that last ounce of IQ you get with a GF.
kopuschenfredm wrote:
I wish every lens has measured MTF just like Zeiss did. Basically I selected a few Contax Zeiss lens based on their MTF (esp. towards edge).
I think the last three should perform pretty well given the flat MTF lines with a few stop-down. The first appears to be ok for portrait, but would suffer from smeared edges.
Does anyone have any good recommendation in 35-50mm range good manual lens for GFX that can also do landscape? I really want compact size if possible. The final choice evidently is the native 45mm f/2.8....Show more →
If you want good coverage wider than 55mm, then I think the Fuji GF lenses are really the way to go. If you want smaller and cheaper one really good option is the Mamiya 645 55 f/2.8N. It is made for MF film, so easily covers the image circle. It is small, light, cheap, and good which is a rare combo. I think the best non-Fuji alternative wider than that is the Contax 645 35 f/3.5 (and if you get this lens and the adapter consider the 55 f/3.5 which is even better than the Mamiya). This is a Zeiss made lens, so you can look up the MTFs. I have had the lens and it is very good but not great on the GFX.
Keep in mind when looking at FF 35mm lenses even when you look at the MTF at the edge that will only be the mid frame on the Fuji GFX. You don't even get MTF all the way to long edge and you certainly have no idea how the lens will perform in the corners. The C/Y mount Zeiss 35 f/1.4 really starts to fall apart near the FF 35mm edge, so you know it won't be doing well at all at the 33 X 44 edge and likely terrible in the 33 X 44 corners.
By the way Zeiss does not make a 65 f/2.8 macro for C/Y mount. They do make 2 60 f/2.8 macros, however. One is fairly large and can do 1 to 1 magnification. One is quite small and can "only" do 1 to 2 magnification. Both are good lenses, but I have no idea how they perform on a Fuji GFX.
The C/Y Zeiss 85 f/1.4 performs very well stopped down, but struggles wide open, IMO, and that is on FF 35mm (it is confirmed by the MTFs as well). I don't know how it adapts to the Fuji GFX, but with many options at the focal length it would not be my first choice. For small and very high performance, I would consider the Hasselblad C 100 f/3.5, which is for 6 X 6 MF, so lots of coverage and is a great performer. It is also made by Zeiss so you can again see the MTFs. It too is small, light, cheap, and an excellent performer.
kopuschenfredm wrote:
Thanks for the info! Kinda expected and somehow knew the hope was slim. Although I have to say that Nikkor 50mm f/2 looks really good at f/8!
Yeah, it's remarkably good for what it is. But still, if you don't need f/2 you're much better off with the GF 50 as a compact lens with stellar image quality.
Maybe there are adaptable, small lenses that actually cover the sensor properly, but they will probably be slow too. Because for some reason, fast lenses tend to hard-vignette stopped down more often than slower lenses do. And even if you find such a lens, it will most likely give backwards curvature of field due to the thick sensor filter stack.
ShootPDX wrote:
I haven’t had a chance to read the entire thread, but has anyone adapted the Minolta MD 50/2?
Super cheap and corners don't get fully sharp on full frame until f/8. Examples at f/2 close distance suggest quite a bit of mechanical vignetting going by the bokeh shapes in the outer frame. But for $25-$50, why not order one and let us know? The ones for sale on eBay right now look pretty rough, though. Not a single mint with box example.
