joakim wrote:
There are many 90mm Leica M lenses, are you thinking about any special or just 90mm in general?
I have a Leica Summicron 90mm 2.0 pre-Asph
prashant wrote:
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 used the CV 40/1.2 (m mount) and there is hard vignetting at near and mid distance. Not really better/different than using it on an FF camera. The CV 35/1.7 offered better (full) coverage of the GFX sensor, though the draw is different and the vignetting is massive (though not hard).
thrice wrote:
How would one mount these two on GFX when the flange focal distance is longer on GFX than sony FE mount? Unless one intends to use them for macro.
I have yet to see a FF lens on GFX that performs anywhere near the GF lenses in the corners. I think there are a couple of telephoto exceptions. I think we're better off petitioning manufacturers like Voigtlander, Samyang, TTArtisans, 7 Artisans, Tamron and Sigma to make the lenses we desire for our GFX cameras than trying to shoehorn anything wider than 50mm onto these cameras because it always ends in disappointment.
I say this as someone who was a VERY avid adapter of lenses to the Sony system, going so far as modifying my only Sony FF camera to work ideally with M-mount lenses.
EDIT: I'm also not a crazy person about corner performance, but everything I've seen both in my own and other shots is next level smeary and vignetted.
thrice wrote:
I have yet to see a FF lens on GFX that performs anywhere near the GF lenses in the corners. I think there are a couple of telephoto exceptions. I think we're better off petitioning manufacturers like Voigtlander, Samyang, TTArtisans, 7 Artisans, Tamron and Sigma to make the lenses we desire for our GFX cameras than trying to shoehorn anything wider than 50mm onto these cameras because it always ends in disappointment.
I say this as someone who was a VERY avid adapter of lenses to the Sony system, going so far as modifying my only Sony FF camera to work ideally with M-mount lenses.
EDIT: I'm also not a crazy person about corner performance, but everything I've seen both in my own and other shots is next level smeary and vignetted....Show more →
I think the only FF lenses below ~100mm that hold up in the corners at infinity are some tilt/shift lenses when used in a non-TS position, most notably the Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II.
That said, many full frame lenses of 50mm or wider are acceptable at infinity if cropped to ratios that avoid the far corners: 65:24, 16:9, 1:1 square – sometimes 5:4 – or left as 4:3 but cropped down somewhere between full 44x33 and full frame.
But overall, I see zero reason to use adapted full frame lenses for landscape when the GF lenses are so high IQ and easier to use. Adapted full frame lenses better serve portrait/object shooters using wide apertures.
If you shoot wide open then the corners usually arent in focus anyway, so excuse me if I dont really care about super corner sharpness wide open that much.
The practical question is merely can I buy a GFX body and use my old 35mm film lenses per adapter and get sufficient image quality out of them for this slightly larger sensor. Without having to also immediately buy medium format lenses as well.
Sauseschritt wrote:
If you shoot wide open then the corners usually arent in focus anyway, so excuse me if I dont really care about super corner sharpness wide open that much.
The practical question is merely can I buy a GFX body and use my old 35mm film lenses per adapter and get sufficient image quality out of them for this slightly larger sensor. Without having to also immediately buy medium format lenses as well.
And that seems to be the case quite often.
My experience is that it really depends on what you expect quality wise. As others have suggested - you might do well enough by cropping slightly. Native is ofcourse going to win, but a good middle ground can be found in Pentax and Mamiya 645 lenses. Many of them perform quite well and obviously have no problem with the smaller sensor size (comparef to 120 film). They can often be found quite cheap.
I regularly shoot the 35mm and 120 macro in Pentax 645 mount as well as the 50mm shift in Mamiya 645 mount. Among others also quite a few Nikon lenses. I love the character out of those.
thrice wrote:
I have yet to see a FF lens on GFX that performs anywhere near the GF lenses in the corners. I think there are a couple of telephoto exceptions. I think we're better off petitioning manufacturers like Voigtlander, Samyang, TTArtisans, 7 Artisans, Tamron and Sigma to make the lenses we desire for our GFX cameras than trying to shoehorn anything wider than 50mm onto these cameras because it always ends in disappointment.
I say this as someone who was a VERY avid adapter of lenses to the Sony system, going so far as modifying my only Sony FF camera to work ideally with M-mount lenses.
EDIT: I'm also not a crazy person about corner performance, but everything I've seen both in my own and other shots is next level smeary and vignetted....Show more →
I'm still trying to understand the logic of all of this. The attraction of the GFX system is the larger sensor and the potential IQ advantages it provides, but if that's the case how is it a good thing to use lenses that compromise IQ in the corners and in some cases restrict you from using the entire frame? Doesn't that at last partially negate the value of the larger sensor?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm still trying to understand the logic of all of this. The attraction of the GFX system is the larger sensor and the potential IQ advantages it provides, but if that's the case how is it a good thing to use lenses that compromise IQ in the corners and in some cases restrict you from using the entire frame? Doesn't that at last partially negate the value of the larger sensor?
This is why I decided to augment my GF lenses with Pentax & Contax MF lenses which are really good and can be had for some very reasonable prices. I do think that for some types of photography where central sharpness is important but corner sharpness is not 35mm FF lenses would be a good option. I've also seen some great corner to corner sharp images made with 35mm FF lenses on miniMF 44x33 sensors (I don't know how they were post processed though). Just tradeoffs in my opinion.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I think the only FF lenses below ~100mm that hold up in the corners at infinity are some tilt/shift lenses when used in a non-TS position, most notably the Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II.
That said, many full frame lenses of 50mm or wider are acceptable at infinity if cropped to ratios that avoid the far corners: 65:24, 16:9, 1:1 square – sometimes 5:4 – or left as 4:3 but cropped down somewhere between full 44x33 and full frame.
But overall, I see zero reason to use adapted full frame lenses for landscape when the GF lenses are so high IQ and easier to use. Adapted full frame lenses better serve portrait/object shooters using wide apertures....Show more →
The newest Canon TSE lenses, the 50 f/2.8L, 90 f/2.8L, and 135 f/4L are the real stars if you want to adapt them. If you want to get the best IQ they are even a little better than the GF lenses, but they don't come cheap.
At longer focal lengths some the MF lenses really shine. One of my favorite lenses on the Fuji GFX is the Contax 250 f/5.6 Super Achromat. A totally distinct look and I think very beautiful. It is very sharp with less CA than I have seen on any lens but lower micro contrast than some modern lenses. I really like the look.
Older FF 35mm lenses can also impart quite different looks than the GF lenses and if the application is for example portraiture in which the corners don't matter and rendering does there are some excellent options. For example one of my favorite lenses on the GFX is the Leica R 80 f/1.4. Renders beautifully and makes a fantastic slightly longer than normal portrait lens. Nothing really comes close to the beauty of this lens on the Fuji GFX in FF 35mm lens. The new GF 80 f/1.7, however, so many would simply choose that for it convenience. At 135mm I think the Sony 135 f/1.8 in A mount is a lovely choice that renders beautifully and would work well for portraits as well. It is a little longer than any current GF lens as well.
With the growth of GF lenses there has been less need to adapt lenses, but for some people and their specific applications and preferences for rendering it can still make a lot of sense.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm still trying to understand the logic of all of this. The attraction of the GFX system is the larger sensor and the potential IQ advantages it provides, but if that's the case how is it a good thing to use lenses that compromise IQ in the corners and in some cases restrict you from using the entire frame? Doesn't that at last partially negate the value of the larger sensor?
I agree with thrice's comments, but note he says "anything wider than 50mm." That is key. As I described above I think the very best performing lenses for the GFX cameras (if you want to go after that sort of thing) are the new Canon TSE lens. The 50 f/2.8L, 90 f/2.8L, and 135 f/4L fully cover the 44 X 33 sensor and are well worth adapting if you don't want any compromise in IQ. I suspect some other long lenses are without compromise and cover the whole sensor as well. Still the GF lenses provide such very nice options many people will feel no need to adapt lenses, but it is possible to both adapt lenses and do so without compromising IQ.
Are the newest generation of Canon tilt shift lenses adapted to GFX also very good when shifted and tilted?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree with thrice's comments, but note he says "anything wider than 50mm." That is key. As I described above I think the very best performing lenses for the GFX cameras (if you want to go after that sort of thing) are the new Canon TSE lens. The 50 f/2.8L, 90 f/2.8L, and 135 f/4L fully cover the 44 X 33 sensor and are well worth adapting if you don't want any compromise in IQ. I suspect some other long lenses are without compromise and cover the whole sensor as well. Still the GF lenses provide such very nice options many people will feel no need to adapt lenses, but it is possible to both adapt lenses and do so without compromising IQ....Show more →
alexands wrote:
Are the newest generation of Canon tilt shift lenses adapted to GFX also very good when shifted and tilted?
You can tilt and shift them a bit, they have a wider image circle than the 55mm needed for the 44 X 33 sensor, and they are quite good all the way to the edge of their image circle. Here is a nice article on them:
I have posted these before. Here is focus stack using GF 120mm f4 macro. It was 45 or so shots, and sorry I forgot to include the last few so that's why bottle at the end is not sharp 20210311_Focus_Bracket_0001_Merged by Vishi A, on Flickr
Here is 1 shots from 90mm TSE II and I didn't spend much time to make it any better. Taken at f4 20210311_Focus_Bracket_0047 by Vishi A, on Flickr
rbf_ wrote:
This is why I decided to augment my GF lenses with Pentax & Contax MF lenses which are really good and can be had for some very reasonable prices. I do think that for some types of photography where central sharpness is important but corner sharpness is not 35mm FF lenses would be a good option. I've also seen some great corner to corner sharp images made with 35mm FF lenses on miniMF 44x33 sensors (I don't know how they were post processed though). Just tradeoffs in my opinion.
Using those MF lenses makes sense to me. I use one of them on a Mirex adapter on my FF system and they are pretty fine lenses in general, plus on miniMF they would have more than enough image circle.
I'm also not quite getting the appeal of having to use TS lenses to get full coverage if that comes at the expense of full use of the TS functionality.
To me, this goes to the need for Fujifilm to offer lenses that offer the functionality that users are only able to find by adapting gear made for other cameras.
Here I used my 24mm TSE-II on GFX100s. I could have used my GF 23mm f4 but would need to fix it in post and would not be able to include everything the way I was able to get with the TSE lens. I couldn't change my shooting position but with the TSE lens I could decide how much of the river and how much of the sky. I can also stitch the shifted shots for wider view. Now it is not as sharp as the GF lens. Some of it could be my mistake too. Manual focussing even with GFX100s is not as easy. Like Steve mentioned, the newer canon's 50mm, 90mm and 135mm are much better. Canon is rumored to release version III of these lenses with RF mount. I just hope Fuji releases their 30mm f4 TSE like they said. 20211031_Yosemite_0936 by Vishi A, on Flickr
