MJKoski wrote:
Well, yeah, it's my T/S lens at the moment for 50R. Works for many scenes well if I remember to stop it down enough
Stopping down does help a lot. If you're looking at a boring evening with nothing else to do here's a post I just put up at DPReview about this lens on a 50R: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4577550
Maybe images with nothing in the corners isn't the best way to show the performance of a lens with possibly bad corners, though?
Edit: There is quite a bit of latheral chromatic aberration visible at the right edge in that image. I suppose it will be much worse towards the corners.
Man I like how some of you only see CA, lateral CA and stuff like that Maybe I should move to the camera group and then shoot test charts. Those get people excited.
The TSE lenses are good, I just like the native 23 for the easy focus stacking.
Also the andoer adapter seems to work but has a suspicious rattle and no IBIS support. The Steelsring III gen has weather sealing now, that would be perfect with the TSE.
I hope the Fringer has weather sealing, it would be perfect. (I know it has IBIS support)
bobby350z wrote:
Man I like how some of you only see CA, lateral CA and stuff like that Maybe I should move to the camera group and then shoot test charts. Those get people excited.
If you don't care about aberrations and general image quality, what's the point of using such a capable camera?
No need to shoot test charts, but I mean, this is a gear (sub) forum. And your particular post was supposed to show that the TS-E 24 isn't "as bad as some people think". Well, to me, that's worse than I'd expect from a lens with a large image circle and a relatively high price. And we're looking at borders at low resolution. Which is very good information, so thanks for that.
Edit: The difference to the native 32-64 is obvious even at this small size, which only further proves my point.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
Has anyone adapted the Leica 50mm Summicron-R lens to a GFX camera? If so, then how much does it cover the sensor?
From my tests using my Leica R 50mm f2 V2 Summicron and my Cambo Actus to check for shift capabilities to cover the GFX cameras it does not cover the sensor size at f2, and it probably does not cover the sensor at f8 or f11.
From my link, "Unfortunately for those hoping that theLeica R 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit lens would cover the 33mm X 44mm sensor it will not at f2 and probably also does not at f8 or f11." I believe this was a cut and past from the test above for the 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit and it should have read instead Leica R 50mm f2 Summicron.
naturephoto1 wrote:
From my tests using my Leica R 50mm f2 V2 Summicron and my Cambo Actus to check for shift capabilities to cover the GFX cameras it does not cover the sensor size at f2, and it probably does not cover the sensor at f8 or f11.
From my link, "Unfortunately for those hoping that theLeica R 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit lens would cover the 33mm X 44mm sensor it will not at f2 and probably also does not at f8 or f11." I believe this was a cut and past from the test above for the 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit and it should have read instead Leica R 50mm f2 Summicron.
Thank you for the link and your reference photos Rich! I have the 50 Cron-R, but no adapter for GFX and was curious if the lens had some impressive coverage on Fuji’s larger format sensor. Well, I can at least use the lens on my Nikon Z and film bodies (via Leitax adapter) though.
Does anyone maintain a list of lenses that adapt well, and/or a list of lenses that have performance issues? I have mostly Canon lenses and may grow weary of the wait for the high MP R1.
I just received my adapter and ran some quick tests with the GFX50R and the Canon 300mm F/2.8L II.
The results are magnificent. the Full medium format frame is covered without vignetting and sharp as a knife. This is the combination I have been wanting for a while, ever since I regretted selling my GF/250 :-) Will post pics shortly.
DES-1 wrote:
Does anyone maintain a list of lenses that adapt well, and/or a list of lenses that have performance issues? I have mostly Canon lenses and may grow weary of the wait for the high MP R1.
But, just as predicted, there are many lenses where the authors view isn't the same as mine, and therefore I find it useless. What someone think is "perfect" might be "totally unacceptable" to someone else.
If you would buy into the GFX system to get high resolution, I don't understand why you would want to adapt lenses that are made for a smaller format and therefore in most cases are crap towards borders and corners, even if they don't necessarily vignette very much.
Makten wrote:
If you would buy into the GFX system to get high resolution, I don't understand why you would want to adapt lenses that are made for a smaller format and therefore in most cases are crap towards borders and corners, even if they don't necessarily vignette very much.
One (non-Canon) example: all native GF 100mm options weigh about a kilogram, whereas something like a C/Y 100mm f/3.5 weighs 285g and could be a nice complement to a 32-64mm for landscapes
fjablo wrote:
One (non-Canon) example: all native GF 100mm options weigh about a kilogram, whereas something like a C/Y 100mm f/3.5 weighs 285g and could be a nice complement to a 32-64mm for landscapes
Btw does anyone know whether the C/Y 100mm 3.5 actually covers the sensor?
I'm eyeing that lens myself for the same particular reason. But I'm not interested in pure resolution, OTOH, and I don't even want a 100 mpix camera.
The MTF's look good, however 40 lp/mm is only equivalent to 1760 pixels on the wide side, so it doesn't say much about the lens' resolving power.
Makten wrote:
I'm eyeing that lens myself for the same particular reason. But I'm not interested in pure resolution, OTOH, and I don't even want a 100 mpix camera.
The MTF's look good, however 40 lp/mm is only equivalent to 1760 pixels on the wide side, so it doesn't say much about the lens' resolving power.
Makten wrote:
If you would buy into the GFX system to get high resolution, I don't understand why you would want to adapt lenses that are made for a smaller format and therefore in most cases are crap towards borders and corners, even if they don't necessarily vignette very much.
For me it’s really just a tactic so I can, from a financial perspective, incrementally try the body out before divesting myself of Canon. Also, I have 2 systems and don’t want an entire 3rd system.
You make a good point though. It probably makes more sense to just spend another ~$2k for a general purpose lens
at the time I get the body 👍🏻
here's a post I just put up at DPReview about this lens on a 50R: 
Too bad none of the images show the corner performance though, but it obviously covers the sensor perfectly.