I am using the fringer as well as the photodiox fusion. I am shooting in medium format mode, not 35mm and have nothing close to what des-1 has shooting wide open. Someone posted a link for a spreadsheet for many adapted lenses. I don't have it handy but for anyone looking to adapt lenses it is a good resource.
george malamis wrote:
I am using the fringer as well as the photodiox fusion. I am shooting in medium format mode, not 35mm and have nothing close to what des-1 has shooting wide open. Someone posted a link for a spreadsheet for many adapted lenses. I don't have it handy but for anyone looking to adapt lenses it is a good resource.
highdesertmesa wrote:
It even has vignetting wide open on the native 35mm sensor, so not sure what they're talking about saying no vignetting wide open on 44x33. "Correctable vignetting", perhaps.
I have to wonder how many people have their GFX 35mm mode set to "Auto" and are shooting with electronic adapters in crop mode.
correct,im bought medium sensor for use full medium sensor.
george malamis wrote:
I am using the fringer as well as the photodiox fusion. I am shooting in medium format mode, not 35mm and have nothing close to what des-1 has shooting wide open. Someone posted a link for a spreadsheet for many adapted lenses. I don't have it handy but for anyone looking to adapt lenses it is a good resource.
That spreadsheet is only full of personal opinions, unfortunately. A lot of the "no vignetting" lenses causes severe (and to me totally unacceptable) vignetting.
Are you focusing much closer with the EF 40/2.8 than the example on the last page? In that case it will give less vignetting because it's a unit focusing lens, which means the image circle gets larger the closer you focus. This is also one of many reasons that the data in the spreadsheet is useless; some people only shoot closeups and thus report "no vignetting" on lenses that give heavy vignetting at infinity.
Makten wrote:
That spreadsheet is only full of personal opinions, unfortunately. A lot of the "no vignetting" lenses causes severe (and to me totally unacceptable) vignetting.
Are you focusing much closer with the EF 40/2.8 than the example on the last page? In that case it will give less vignetting because it's a unit focusing lens, which means the image circle gets larger the closer you focus. This is also one of many reasons that the data in the spreadsheet is useless; some people only shoot closeups and thus report "no vignetting" on lenses that give heavy vignetting at infinity.
I think Makten is right in his views about the spreadsheet. It is just a summary of a bunch of people's opinions, so take it for what it is and don't consider it definitive. I certainly wouldn't buy a lens based on the recommendations there. Keep in mind you can also search this thread, which has a lot of discussion and pictures with a lot of different lenses. As usual at FM it is often better to use a google search than the internal search. Just try a search with something like, "Fred Miranda Adapting lenses to Fuji GFX Canon 40 f/2.8" and you should get quite a few links to discussion of that lens in this thread often including pictures.
He is also right about unit focussing lenses often working well for closer distances but having heavy vignetting at infinity focus. As one example, I had and used extensively with the Leica R 80 f/1.4. I was quite happy with its performance for portraits, but I vignetted considerably at infinity focus.
One last comment comment for those interested in the Canon 40 f/2.8, I think it is certainly worth considering the Fuji GF 50 f/3.5. It is not that different in focal length (basically the difference between 28mm and 35mm on FF 35mm) and it is Fuji's cheapest and smallest lens for the GFX. Despite its relatively low price it has quite strong performance, IMO.
I’ve shot the canon 40 and had decent results for a sub $100 lens. I don’t test lenses which is why I posted a video of someone else’s experience. There is another video below. If it doesn’t work for you it didn’t cost much to try it out.
george malamis wrote:
I’ve shot the canon 40 and had decent results for a sub $100 lens. I don’t test lenses which is why I posted a video of someone else’s experience. There is another video below. If it doesn’t work for you it didn’t cost much to try it out.
If you have the lens and/or the adapter, then I think that makes sense. If you don't have the lens or an adapter, however, the lens and a good adapter is going to put your price really close to a used GF 50 f/3.5 and that lens is not really any larger than the Canon lens plus an adapter and the GF lens is a great performer.
I bought the adapter to use with the canon 24TSEII which i really like. If you’ve already dipped your toe into adapted lenses then it makes sense to try out what else can work knowing they weren’t designed to. If you’re coming from another system you can adapt your old lenses until you get what you want. I already have the gf45f2.8 but I would rather have some fun with the canon 40 than sell it. If I could sum up the 40 it would be low cost, low expectations, pleasantly surprised (not at all blown away).
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think Makten is right in his views about the spreadsheet. It is just a summary of a bunch of people's opinions, so take it for what it is and don't consider it definitive. I certainly wouldn't buy a lens based on the recommendations there. Keep in mind you can also search this thread, which has a lot of discussion and pictures with a lot of different lenses. As usual at FM it is often better to use a google search than the internal search. Just try a search with something like, "Fred Miranda Adapting lenses to Fuji GFX Canon 40 f/2.8" and you should get quite a few links to discussion of that lens in this thread often including pictures.
He is also right about unit focussing lenses often working well for closer distances but having heavy vignetting at infinity focus. As one example, I had and used extensively with the Leica R 80 f/1.4. I was quite happy with its performance for portraits, but I vignetted considerably at infinity focus.
One last comment comment for those interested in the Canon 40 f/2.8, I think it is certainly worth considering the Fuji GF 50 f/3.5. It is not that different in focal length (basically the difference between 28mm and 35mm on FF 35mm) and it is Fuji's cheapest and smallest lens for the GFX. Despite its relatively low price it has quite strong performance, IMO....Show more →
Personally I would buy 40mm f2.8 and try it. It is $100 lens. If you like it, keep it. If not sell it. So not sure what the issue is. 50mm f3.5 still goes used for $750.
Steve Spencer wrote:
If you have the lens and/or the adapter, then I think that makes sense. If you don't have the lens or an adapter, however, the lens and a good adapter is going to put your price really close to a used GF 50 f/3.5 and that lens is not really any larger than the Canon lens plus an adapter and the GF lens is a great performer.
One adapter can be used with any lens. If you need to play the adapted lens game, you can need to have the adapter but it is one time cost. You can save a lot more (if money is the objective) by using adapted lenses even with the cost of $500 Fringer adapter.
Steve Spencer wrote:
He is also right about unit focussing lenses often working well for closer distances but having heavy vignetting at infinity focus. As one example, I had and used extensively with the Leica R 80 f/1.4. I was quite happy with its performance for portraits, but I vignetted considerably at infinity focus.
This point about unit focusing lenses and image circles is interesting. My understanding is that the circle of illumination at 1:1 is twice the size of the circle at infinity -- on any lens. I've never previously seen the idea that the lens design (i.e., whether unit focusing or not) affects this. So I did some testing to check this out.
Most of the lenses I use are unit focusing (lens moves as a single unit when you change focus with the focus ring). In fact many of my lenses don't even have a focusing helical; they are focused by rail on my camera. I do have a couple that use a floating element design, which means one or more lens groups moves at a different rate than the others when you change focus. On my outfit, I have to position these lenses at the correct flange distance and focus them using their helical (rather than the focus knob on the rail) to get best performance at the edges and corners at close focusing distances.
I put my SMC Pentax-A 645 35/3.5 on my Toyo VX23D. It has a floating element design. If I treat it as a unit focusing lens (i.e., set it at infinity and focus by rail), image quality is unaffected at any aperture and distance until around 1m; closer than 1m, the corners and edges are terrible if it's used as a unit focusing lens. The floating elements are designed to fix the edges and corners at < 1m. This makes it a good lens for this test.
1. At f/22 at infinity, the circle of illumination is 87mm. It's the same for both focusing scenarios because for infinity focus, the lens sits in the same position on the rail whether focused with lens focus ring or rail focus knob.
2. At f/22 at minimum focus distance using the lens focus ring, the circle of illumination increases to 94mm (as expected because it gets bigger as we approach 1:1). It's also 94mm when the lens is focused as if it's a unit focusing lens.
3. Increasing magnification to 1:1 by focusing using the rail, at f/22 the circle of illumination doubles as expected.
I repeated the test using one of my unit focusing lenses. At infinity, the circle of illumination is 1/2 the diameter it is at 1:1 -- as expected.
So for what it's worth, I think this little experiment shows that whether a lens is unit focusing or not does not affect the size of the circle of illumination, and thus the circle of good definition.
In other words, any lens that has a too small image circle for the sensor or film size will vignette less at close distances than it will at infinity because the size of the circle of illumination is twice at 1:1 what it is at infinity.
One last comment comment for those interested in the Canon 40 f/2.8, I think it is certainly worth considering the Fuji GF 50 f/3.5. It is not that different in focal length (basically the difference between 28mm and 35mm on FF 35mm) and it is Fuji's cheapest and smallest lens for the GFX. Despite its relatively low price it has quite strong performance, IMO.
Sound advice. The GF 50/3.5 is small and excellent.
bobby350z wrote:
Personally I would buy 40mm f2.8 and try it. It is $100 lens. If you like it, keep it. If not sell it. So not sure what the issue is. 50mm f3.5 still goes used for $750.
If you like it and get some utility out of it, great. What I've learned is not to trust reviews and official looking spreadsheets, but to try it myself. Aside from the 11-24, which turns into a sweet if not heavy 11-15, native lenses are in my future.
bobby350z wrote:
Personally I would buy 40mm f2.8 and try it. It is $100 lens. If you like it, keep it. If not sell it. So not sure what the issue is. 50mm f3.5 still goes used for $750.
The Fuji GF 50 f/3.5 is regularly available for $600 if you shop carefully. Three have sold for that price on eBay in the last three months and one was available here for $625. The Fringer EF lens to GFX adapter is $474, so we are talking a really similar price. Personally, if I didn't have anything yet, I would go with the Fuji 50 f/3.5 unless I knew I was going to adapt other EF lenses.
DES-1 wrote:
If you like it and get some utility out of it, great. What I've learned is not to trust reviews and official looking spreadsheets, but to try it myself. Aside from the 11-24, which turns into a sweet if not heavy 11-15, native lenses are in my future.
Agree that's why I got 23mm f4, 45-100mm, 80mm f1.7, 110mm f2, 250mm f4. I had to sell my 32-64mm and 100-200mm to fund the 250mm. When new 20-35 comes I may sell the 23mm. And I will get the 50mm f1.7.
Adapted wise I have 24mm TSE-II, 90mm f2.8 TSE-II, Canon 200mm f2.8 and Tamron 35mm f1.8. I am thinking of getting Sigma 135mm f1.8 to make a poor man's 105mm f1.4 lens. I don't care corners for a fast lens.
Revisiting the Canon 35mm 1.4II on the 100s. It turns out that when used at infinity it vignettes the corners pretty hard but only when stopped down. Shooting wide open or close to it AND when focused fairly close - as in the type of situation where I would use this - for a head and shoulders environmental portrait the vignetting is negligible. For that type of use this lens is extraordinarily sharp even wide open with a beautiful out focus rendering. I'm looking forward to using it that way. At infinity and stopped down the vignette is hard but the image is critically sharp right up to the falloff. So, all in all, another really fabulous solution for a specific type of photography. And the AF is quick, accurate and snappy with the Fringer adapter. For other more standard types of images in this focal range, the 32-64 is a better choice. This contradicts the lens compatibility chart that's been linked several times here. And removing the lens shade made little if no difference. Still, very excited to see this one in action.
Peter Figen wrote:
Revisiting the Canon 35mm 1.4II on the 100s. It turns out that when used at infinity it vignettes the corners pretty hard but only when stopped down. Shooting wide open or close to it AND when focused fairly close - as in the type of situation where I would use this - for a head and shoulders environmental portrait the vignetting is negligible. For that type of use this lens is extraordinarily sharp even wide open with a beautiful out focus rendering. I'm looking forward to using it that way. At infinity and stopped down the vignette is hard but the image is critically sharp right up to the falloff. So, all in all, another really fabulous solution for a specific type of photography. And the AF is quick, accurate and snappy with the Fringer adapter. For other more standard types of images in this focal range, the 32-64 is a better choice. This contradicts the lens compatibility chart that's been linked several times here. And removing the lens shade made little if no difference. Still, very excited to see this one in action. ...Show more →
This is true with a lot of FF 35mm lenses. If you plan to use them for portraits (and especially portraits in which the edges and corners are blurred) and focus distance is around 10 ft (3M) then they work well with the Fuji GFX cameras. If you want to use them at infinity focus with critical focus across the frame, then most FF 35mm lens have pretty serious issues. A large number of FF 35mm lenses will work in some situations, but only a handful will work in a wide range of situations. This means it is easy to supplement your Fuji GF kit with FF 35mm lens, but if you shoot a wide range of things very difficult to develop your kit around FF 35mm lens except the ones that have larger image circles like the TSE lenses.
This is part of the reason that the spreadsheet mentioned recently in the thread can be confounding. A huge number of lenses work for some types of shooting and not for other types of shooting. Therefore when the spreadsheet says they "work," what does that mean? We don't know when they work and for what type of shooting they work and when they don't work and for what type of shooting they don't work. Even when the spreadsheet says the lens doesn't work we don't know what that means either. It may well work in some situation for some type of shooting.
rdeloe wrote:
So for what it's worth, I think this little experiment shows that whether a lens is unit focusing or not does not affect the size of the circle of illumination, and thus the circle of good definition.
I agree with your conclusion, except that in my experience, the circle of illumination and the circle of good definition are very rarely they same size, which is what it appears you're suggesting here.
With most lenses I've tested, the circle of good definition is smaller -- and sometimes a lot smaller! -- than the circle of illumination.
Absent a standard testing protocol that is scrupulously observed, this alone is a good reason why relying solely on internet guidance about the size of the image circle a lens project is potentially a very risky proposition. <shrug>
Audii-Dudii wrote:
I agree with your conclusion, except that in my experience, the circle of illumination and the circle of good definition are very rarely they same size, which is what it appears you're suggesting here.
With most lenses I've tested, the circle of good definition is smaller -- and sometimes a lot smaller! -- than the circle of illumination.
Absent a standard testing protocol that is scrupulously observed, this alone is a good reason why relying solely on internet guidance about the size of the image circle a lens project is potentially a very risky proposition. <shrug>
That's a helpful clarification. I shouldn't have assumed that everyone knows the circle of good definition is smaller (perhaps a lot smaller!) than the circle of illumination!
