Maybe better just to get the 50 pancake or even 45 and crop in for the 50 ff fov.
You could try the 7artisans 35 5.6 pancake. It's fixed aperture at 5.6, needs to boost contrast in post, but coverage is decent. It has a little focus lever instead of a ring too, so I've used it for street.
The TTartisan 35 1.4 (and maybe the 7artisans 35 1.4 wen) is supposed to have good coverage, I might try one of those next.
Actually, highdesertmas said the CV 35 1.2 was decent except infinity. The Sigma 40 1.4 is the best I've seen in this range but it's bigger than the GF lenses lol
selahsean wrote:
Wondering if anyone has recommendations for an equivalent 50mm and 28mm lens. I really didn't like the GF 63mm and have been looking for a replacement. I rented the Metabones expander and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 art but didn't realize it didn't support autofocus. Looks like I could use a an autofocus adapter but then it's too close in FoV to the GF 45. I'm considering the CONTAX 65mm f2.8 but that would be manual focus only. I guess the Nikon 58 f1.4 would get me to a 45 FoV.
I've really grown to enjoy shooting with a 28mm as a walk around lens but not sure what the recommendations would be. Autofocus isn't really necessary since I tend to shoot at f8 or higher generally (at least on full frame). Appreciate any suggestions......Show more →
Replacing the 63 is gonna be very difficult, unless you accept poor performance. I would rethink the issues with it, because it doesn't seem like it's the optical performance you don't like. Any adapted AF lens will be even wonkier and if you're gonna focus manually, isn't that "worse" than the AF of the 63? It's a brilliant lens that will most likely beat any lens that you adapt, optically.
For a ~28 equivalent I'd try some older 35 mm shift lens. I have the Nikkor 35/2.8 PC and it's decent at f/8 with full coverage (plus shift possibilities). My copy needs relubing though and I haven't figured out how to take it apart, so for now it just sits.
Yeah had the 50mm F3.5 at one point and enjoyed the size/weight and the quick autofocus but there's just wasn't anything in the resulting images that really stood out to me. Similar to my experience with the 63mm. I think generally I like my 50's to be high resolution with some character. My favorite 50mm has been the Rigid Summicron which actually works pretty well on the GFX but the crop factor makes it a bit wider than I would prefer. I think the Nikon 58mm F1.4G with an adapter is probably the closest I could get but that's a bit of money to sink in for something that wouldn't necesarily get me something better than the 63. Guess I'll have to wait for Fuji or a 3rd party to bring a solution.
Will look into the TTArtisans 35mm. I tried the Light Lens Lab 8 element Summicron copy and unfortunately the corners are unusable. I haven't tried the Fuji 30mm but the images I've seen look great and it certainly would be easy to crop to a 28 FoV just surpised Fuji didn't cover the 28 FoV with a prime.
ftllens wrote:
. The Sigma 40 1.4 is the best I've seen in this range but it's bigger than the GF lenses lol
It is also much faster. I have the 40mm and I’ve been considering GF for several years. It’s a fantastic optic. It is my understanding based on samples that Sigma’s 2018 trio of huge lenses (28mm, 40mm, and 105mm) all cover 33x44mm without too much issue.
I think Sigma decided that the best way to make affordable lenses with corner-to-corner sharpness on 35mm was to give them a larger image circle (more weight being the penalty) so that the peripheral decay/smearing that all lenses have to some degree would occur somewhere in a MF image circle.
Does the 28 cover it? lol I just assumed since the otus 28 doesn't the sigma wouldn't either.
The 40 and 135 does cover really well.
In other news, the Metabones adapter sucks for opera. The build quality is nice and the box they give you is nice, but it doesn't even hit accurate AF in AF-S single smallest point. So steelsring v3 is the best for me rn.
I still haven't gone outside because heat waves and my skin don't mesh well.
bobby350z wrote:
Sigma 28mm f1.4 on FF. Or try Sigma 35mm f1.4 art through Canon to GF adapter.
Think the Sigma would give better IQ than the Pentax 645 35mm f3.5? I think Sigma might be heavier/longer...for walking around I'd like to find something smaller than the Pentax...
I tested the Laowa 24mm f/14 probe today and it has hard vignetting but usable for 1:1 (and mostly video, since you're gonna need to stabilize anyway even with a slider or gimbal).
I'm definitely not a "tele guy", but now and then I force myself to use a tele lens because it's fun to do something different. For that purpose I don't need anything expensive, but I still want something that makes the format justice.
Mamiya 210/4 Sekor-C is one of those lenses. It's dirt cheap and performs pretty well, at least in some areas. It seems sharpest at MFD (which is a whopping 2.5 meter) and I think it would be great with extension tubes. However, it never gets bitingly sharp and stopping down doesn't really increase its performance, that is uniform across the entire field already at f/4.
The best part is the bokeh and transition zone, that are pure gold. Except for a little bit of LoCA, I don't think I've seen any other lens that is so consistent and free from "funkiness" at any distance. The worst part is that it sucks infinitely against the light.
Edit: There is a quite pronounced "cats eye" effect though, which I personally like.
Here comes a few images from today and I will attach them in separate posts since I only got the upload permission to use for technical examples, and it only allows one image per post.
I'd estimate focus distance on the crane to ~100 meters and the background is probably at ~150 meters. Wide open again.
Edit: The image is straightened but not corrected for distortion, because there isn't any.
Edit 2: No, can't be that far away... Anyway, further than 50 & 100 meters at least.
Lastly, a comparsion of size with the GF 110/2. The Mamiya is much skinnier, but also longer. Especially with the adapter, with which the weight is ~930 grams. And it's pretty damn front heavy.
That's a nice find. I have to admit I really struggle with the 110mm f2 it's just a not a length I'm used to shooting at all...I think the 75mm Voigtlander is the longest focal length I use on any sort of regular basis. But having a cheap special purpose tele has always had some appeal. I have the Contax 100-300 in decent shape and that's been filling that spot for a while.
selahsean wrote:
That's a nice find. I have to admit I really struggle with the 110mm f2 it's just a not a length I'm used to shooting at all...I think the 75mm Voigtlander is the longest focal length I use on any sort of regular basis. But having a cheap special purpose tele has always had some appeal. I have the Contax 100-300 in decent shape and that's been filling that spot for a while.
Same here, and I regret buying the 110. It's fantastic but I have almost zero use for it. If I want longer than "normal" (63), I might as well just go much longer than 110. Always too narrow and I felt the same with 85 mm on FF.
The few occasions when I actually want to use it, it's at home because it's too heavy to lug around without knowing I will use it. I should probably get something very small and a lot slower, like a Contax 100/3.5 or similar.
The Mamiya isn't very useful either but at least it was only ~100 bucks, so it doesn't matter.
I like the 110 too, but there was an OIS version, I'd easier pay 500 more for it. 110 is perfect for cityscape and street especially at nighttime.
I'm reorganizing my kit for fall/winter travel and can't decide whether to readd the 45-100 or 110.
I still haven't gone outside to test the Opera, but I have a feeling it's a keeper. It reminds of me the Sony 50 1.4 ZA just with more bokeh (and noise from the sensor).
Native I have the 23 and 250 because there's no replacement for those (except maybe the TS-E 24)
Does the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 Nokton cover the sensor? I seem to find conflicting reports online. I know everyone has their own standards of what is acceptable. I'm looking for something in this range, and I much prefer manual focus over autofocus.
bradf35 wrote:
Does the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 Nokton cover the sensor? I seem to find conflicting reports online. I know everyone has their own standards of what is acceptable. I'm looking for something in this range, and I much prefer manual focus over autofocus.
It does at portrait distances if you remove the hood, use no filters and don't use the hood extension piece. The vignetting is severe though and I would not say it is acceptable. You can correct it but you're pushing 3-4 stops in the corners. The bokeh also looks pretty bad outside of the 43mm image circle so the outer 20% of the image has severe field curvature and bad bokeh.
thrice wrote:
It does at portrait distances if you remove the hood, use no filters and don't use the hood extension piece. The vignetting is severe though and I would not say it is acceptable. You can correct it but you're pushing 3-4 stops in the corners. The bokeh also looks pretty bad outside of the 43mm image circle so the outer 20% of the image has severe field curvature and bad bokeh.
The lens on full frame already has a very strong vignette and as you suggest works well for a portratit lens on GFX but doesn't have much use outside of that. To be fair I'm not sure what else I'd use it on full frame for either...
