Peter Figen wrote:
I didn't know they were identical lenses. Good to know I guess, but the mounts, I believe are different.
Indeed. The mount of the Mamiya 7 lens is quite a bit larger.
It's a shame the Mamiya 6 lenses were orphaned. I have the 50mm and the 150mm. Both are superb. The 50mm is terrific from wide open, and easily as good as the Fuji GF 50/3.5, which itself is an excellent lens.
Unfortunately, to adapt the Mamiya 6 lenses I had to destroy them for Mamiya 6. There's a technician in Nevada that works on them, and I had him lock the leaf shutters open. I had to remove the cables and the baffle on the 150, and build replacement bayonet mounts. Well worth it though.
At least the Mamiya 7 lenses can be controlled from that Fotodiox adapter (in theory anyway). Honestly though, I'm not sure what the point is. I use my two Mamiya 6 lenses for their large image circles, which give me all the shift and tilt room I need. But I wouldn't buy Mamiya 7 lenses to use "straight" on a GFX camera. They still cost a load. I guess if you have a set of Mamiya 7 lenses and want to use them, it's a good option.
The 150s are among the cheapest. I imagine they're not as good a match for the rangefinder experience.
I'd like to get a 75mm G lens one of these days, to have the set, but the prices are ridiculous, especially considering that almost all of the ones I've seen for sale have issues with the optics (haze/fog, fungus, separation). It's bizarre: people are asking $650 and up for clearly defective optics.
I paid $650 for the "7" 65mm about twenty years ago from eBay. It arrived in three days from Japan and had never been used. Fabulous lens. Looks like they're asking $1000-$1100 on eBay for mint examples now. Hell, it looks like all the focal lengths I have are all around the same price.
rdeloe wrote:
The 150s are among the cheapest. I imagine they're not as good a match for the rangefinder experience.
I'd like to get a 75mm G lens one of these days, to have the set, but the prices are ridiculous, especially considering that almost all of the ones I've seen for sale have issues with the optics (haze/fog, fungus, separation). It's bizarre: people are asking $650 and up for clearly defective optics.
Have you considered the P67 75/4.5? It was the sharpest lens when I shot 6x7, but I haven't bothered to try it on the GFX because of its size, strange focal length and not-so-fast aperture. While it is large, it's not very heavy.
The 50mm for the Mamiya 6 (a 28mm on full frame) was very special, as was the 65mm (a 32mm) for the 7. I found the 150mm hard to use well. All of them beautifully made, but if buying the wider lenses look closely at the rear element - it is so close to the surround that many users damage the coatings - or worse.
Makten wrote:
Have you considered the P67 75/4.5? It was the sharpest lens when I shot 6x7, but I haven't bothered to try it on the GFX because of its size, strange focal length and not-so-fast aperture. While it is large, it's not very heavy.
I have tried that one. It's a very good performer. However, I didn't keep it because the 75/2.8 from the 645 line was just as good, but also faster and very tiny.
The star of the 67 lineup, for me, is the third generation 55mm. It's an outstanding lens. However, it's also a huge porker of a lens.
philip_pj wrote:
The 50mm for the Mamiya 6 (a 28mm on full frame) was very special, as was the 65mm (a 32mm) for the 7. I found the 150mm hard to use well. All of them beautifully made, but if buying the wider lenses look closely at the rear element - it is so close to the surround that many users damage the coatings - or worse.
The 50mm really is a wonderful lens. Trying it was a high risk venture for me because adapting it was a one street. Had it not worked out, I would have been the proud owner of a very expensive paper weight.
I was very pleasantly surprised that it did work out because it's a near symmetrical design, and anything wider than 60mm that is symmetrical produces nasty lens cast when shifted on my GFX 50R + VX23D outfit. However, there's no lens cast at all with this one. I would have used it anyway with lens correction frames if necessary; I'm delighted that I don't have to .
It also fits very nicely on my "walking around" adapter. The lens has a focusing helicoid, but it's a bit stiff and on my VX23D I focus from the rail anyway, so on this adapter I focus with the helicoid (which has the added benefit of giving me a shorter minimum focus distance).
Makten wrote:
Interesting! Do Mamiya 6 and 7 use different mounts?
Yes, totally different. The Mamiya 6 is a 6x6 where the Mamiya 7 is a 6x7. To accommodate the larger negative size, they enlarged the Mamiya 7 mount. If you put a Mamiya 6 150 next to a Mamiya 7 150, you'll see the body looks about the same size, but the base is larger on the 7 lens.
I've heard good things about the Mamiya 7 43mm on GFX, but to use it as a tilt-shift lens on my outfit, I'd have to design a whole new replacement mount system (which is not worth the bother for me).
rdeloe wrote:
Yes, totally different. The Mamiya 6 is a 6x6 where the Mamiya 7 is a 6x7. To accommodate the larger negative size, they enlarged the Mamiya 7 mount. If you put a Mamiya 6 150 next to a Mamiya 7 150, you'll see the body looks about the same size, but the base is larger on the 7 lens.
I've heard good things about the Mamiya 7 43mm on GFX, but to use it as a tilt-shift lens on my outfit, I'd have to design a whole new replacement mount system (which is not worth the bother for me).
Thanks, that makes sense. I think the solution with the 150 might be a bit too complicated for me, and it's still ~half a kilo. Considering that the tiny OM 135/3.5 weighs only 290 grams and still covers the sensor reasonably well, there should be something in between these sizes that fulfill my needs. The question is what. Many (most?) 135 mm lenses seem to cover very well for some reason, so maybe I just have to try a few ones.
This is a lens that hasn't received consistently good reviews over at the Pentax Forums. It's not uncommon for a good lens to get misrepresented if there are few reviews. A case in point is the Pentax FA 645 150-300, which is a very good lens that received a very bad early review.
Are you happy with your 33-55mm Shawn? I notice that you shifted it. Is it good towards the edge of the image circle?
This is a lens that hasn't received consistently good reviews over at the Pentax Forums. It's not uncommon for a good lens to get misrepresented if there are few reviews. A case in point is the Pentax FA 645 150-300, which is a very good lens that received a very bad early review.
Are you happy with your 33-55mm Shawn? I notice that you shifted it. Is it good towards the edge of the image circle?
I have really just started using it but so far it looks good. Lots of people 'know' it is a bad lens but from most of the posts it seems they were not based on first hand knowledge. I found a few that actually had the lens and they were generally positive about it. I found this one mint in box for about $250 so I was willing to give it a try. Hoping for it to be a nice walk around lens, just a bit slow. I also grabbed the 55-110 for a similar reason. No impressions on that one yet besides the pair is nice and light.
I suspect as an adapted lens the adapter being the proper length is going to be very important for best quality. I'm using the Kipon shift adapter which is a little closer than the Fotodiox adapter but still a little shorter than it should be.
I just shot a roll of film too on a 645N but haven't processed it yet.
Can't really answer the shift question yet. Top corners were pretty empty so not much to judge on. I think at full shift vertically (Kipon is 12 or 15 degrees) top shifted corners are going to suffer a little. Full shift horizontally will vignette.
sfogg wrote:
I have really just started using it but so far it looks good. Lots of people 'know' it is a bad lens but from most of the posts it seems they were not based on first hand knowledge. I found a few that actually had the lens and they were generally positive about it. I found this one mint in box for about $250 so I was willing to give it a try. Hoping for it to be a nice walk around lens, just a bit slow. I also grabbed the 55-110 for a similar reason. No impressions on that one yet besides the pair is nice and light.
I suspect as an adapted lens the adapter being the proper length is going to be very important for best quality. I'm using the Kipon shift adapter which is a little closer than the Fotodiox adapter but still a little shorter than it should be.
I just shot a roll of film too on a 645N but haven't processed it yet.
Can't really answer the shift question yet. Top corners were pretty empty so not much to judge on. I think at full shift vertically (Kipon is 12 or 15 degrees) top shifted corners are going to suffer a little. Full shift horizontally will vignette.
You got a steal. Those typically sell for a couple hundred more.
My widest Pentax lens on my GFX 50R + VX23D outfit currently is the A 645 35/3.5. That lens is excellent, even by GFX standards. I never moved on a 33-55 because it's not significantly wider than my 35mm. What I'd really like is a 28mm option that shifts, but no dice. I did try an old Nikkor PC-E and it didn't cut it. I had to go to 24mm with a Samyang T/S lens that I remounted for my outfit.
Yeah, at that price I figured I could easily get my money back if it didn't work out. It is also nice on the 645N since it is quite a bit wider.
How do you like the Samyang? I've seen so many different opinions. A 24mm that covers the entire sensor would be nice. I use a Nikon 24mm f2.8 AIS which is great in 1:1 or 65:24 (very sharp) but vignettes in 4x3.
I have the earlier Nikkor 28mm f3.5 PC and it can shift a couple of degrees but beyond 4 or 5 degrees the corners suffer.
sfogg wrote:
Yeah, at that price I figured I could easily get my money back if it didn't work out. It is also nice on the 645N since it is quite a bit wider.
How do you like the Samyang? I've seen so many different opinions. A 24mm that covers the entire sensor would be nice. I use a Nikon 24mm f2.8 AIS which is great in 1:1 or 65:24 (very sharp) but vignettes in 4x3.
I have the earlier Nikkor 28mm f3.5 PC and it can shift a couple of degrees but beyond 4 or 5 degrees the corners suffer.
Shawn
I'd describe the Samyang as "much better than I was expecting" Even that's a bit unfair. When it's set up properly, it's actually a good lens at the apertures where you would use a lens like this, meaning f/8 or f/11. I suspect that some of the bad press is due to a combination of bad mounts and user error.
I published a deep dive review over at DPreview earlier this year: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4577550 There are lots of RAW samples in addition to the images I posted in the review.
what a useful thread and discussion. Had anyone used the following lenses on the GFX?
1. 21mm Loxia
2. 50mm Loxia
3. 40mm/1.2 Voigtlander
4. 90mm Leica M
I think the solution with the 150 might be a bit too complicated for me, and it's still ~half a kilo. Considering that the tiny OM 135/3.5 weighs only 290 grams and still covers the sensor reasonably well, there should be something in between these sizes that fulfill my needs. The question is what. Many (most?) 135 mm lenses seem to cover very well for some reason, so maybe I just have to try a few ones. 
Even that's a bit unfair. When it's set up properly, it's actually a good lens at the apertures where you would use a lens like this, meaning f/8 or f/11. I suspect that some of the bad press is due to a combination of bad mounts and user error. 