kopuschenfredm wrote:
Has anyone tried and compared two Voigtlander lens: 50mm f/1.2 and the newer 50mm APO-LANTHAR f/2?
The MTF of latter seems very flat which gives me hope it may outperform 50mm f/1.2 in the corner?
Whoa. Thanks! I'm surprised that the 50mm f2 APO didn't perform well. As a matter of fact, I even doubt if that's the right lens, as the CA on the ruler doesn't seem to be well corrected even compared to those non APO lens.
The Zeiss 50mm 1.5 Sonnar IS a good surprise. I did hear about good coverage from 7artisan lens. Not sure how they look at infinity with smaller apertures (for landscape).
I am shocked at the coverage of the little ZM 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. Certainly a 'character' lens but the coverage is great.
Mind you, those images are still at pretty close distance. As usual I can't draw any conclusions for my own purposes with tests like this, but the TTArtisan 50/1.4 is the only lens of those that look even half decent to my eyes.
Center area sharpness is better than expected and bokeh is nice in subtle light. It's like upgraded Mitakon to me.
Not sure if I'll keep it yet because my Sammy XP 85mm I prefer so far FL wise.
Looks to me like it covers the 43mm of a FF 35mm image circle and nothing more. That will be fine if you crop, but looks to me like you need to crop with this lens. For my taste anyway.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Looks to me like it covers the 43mm of a FF 35mm image circle and nothing more. That will be fine if you crop, but looks to me like you need to crop with this lens. For my taste anyway.
+1, that's like as bad as vignetting ever gets. 100% unusable IMO. :P
Thanks for sharing the test results. It is interesting that stop down make it worse. I just verified that stop down definitely make it hard vignette. Interesting.
I actually think it is really doesn’t matter for its intended user case: close to mid distance wide open only. At longer distance, the bokeh get uglier, or stop down, there is nothing to write home about. ( there are hundreds 50 lens better out there) This pretty much also how I use it on M or adapt on other 35mm system. I will not discount it especially for Hasselblad format or 4X5 for GFX.
I have draw conclusion that I won’t buy 50noct Leica based on this one. It is too big and not reliable for focusing with rangefinder. However, if I have to have a 0.95 lens, this is it and the NIKON Z noct 58mm
zhangyue wrote:
Thanks for sharing the test results. It is interesting that stop down make it worse. I just verified that stop down definitely make it hard vignette. Interesting.
It's not that strange and very common actually. If you look into the front of the lens at an oblique angle and change the aperture, you'll see that at some point a small aperture is totally blocked, while a larger one isn't.
Makten wrote:
It's not that strange and very common actually. If you look into the front of the lens at an oblique angle and change the aperture, you'll see that at some point a small aperture is totally blocked, while a larger one isn't.
Yes, It makes sense.
This is also the way to determine cat eye, (aperture location matters) though in that case, it is not about if you can see the aperture but how how much you can see the aperture at oblique angle
My efforts to use a Canon 100-400 v2 or 70-200 v.3 on my GFX100s with a KIPON AF adapter always fail. I've followed the tip to have the lens set properly before turning on the camera. With the lens in AF I still see the MF scale in the viewer. AF tries to work and never finds focus. Both lenses, and all focal lengths. Anyone have success with this combo?
For those wondering what the Mamiya 80/1.9 looks like when not shot at close range. Wide open, JPG out of camera with a liiiiittle lowered mid tones in PS (gamma correction 0.96 instead of 1.00). No other corrections.
As you can see, the bokeh is quite busy but very uniform across the frame. No cats eyes, no vignetting what so ever and no curvature of field. This comes at the penalty of severe spherical aberration and low contrast, which I by far prefer over all 85 mm lenses for 24x36 I've seen so far. I actually like the glow, and it's gone already at f/2.8, where bokeh is also much smoother.
Focus was on the tree. Resolution is quite high but local contrast is very low. Massive spherical aberration makes it a challenge to focus, since the resolution peak does not coincide with the contrast peak.
lovinglife wrote:
I apologize if this question has been asked before, does anyone have opinions on adapting the Canon 300mm 2.8 II on the GFX?
I adapted the Canon nFD 300 f/2.8L and it worked very very well on the GFX. It covers the image circle quite well and had very nice performance. If you crop to 4 X 3 it is a lot like a 200 f/2 lens on FF 35mm. Better yet they are not that expensive for such a long and fast lens.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I adapted the Canon nFD 300 f/2.8L and it worked very very well on the GFX. It covers the image circle quite well and had very nice performance. If you crop to 4 X 3 it is a lot like a 200 f/2 lens on FF 35mm. Better yet they are not that expensive for such a long and fast lens.
I just tried my 300mm f2.8 IS I with GFX50s using my new Kipon adapter. Still very slow to AF. A little bit better than when I use TechArt. Maybe Ok for landscapes.
