leonasj wrote: DES-1 wroteleonasj wrotecanon ef 40/2.8 full cover gfx sensor.Are you sure about that? Try shooting below f/8. I did with a fringer adapter. I suppose if you write yourself a note you can remember the myriad of shooting exclusions for adapted EF lenses. From my trial every one of them had limited range of acceptable performance. At first, I thought the 40 was completely acceptable, but it is not. My opinion, it's a good stopgap until you can get a native lens.i have gf50,gf120 but need somethink very light ,wide 28-35mm and fast f1.8-2.0 for gfx
bobby350z wrote: leonasj wroteDES-1 wroteleonasj wrotecanon ef 40/2.8 full cover gfx sensor.Are you sure about that? Try shooting below f/8. I did with a fringer adapter. I suppose if you write yourself a note you can remember the myriad of shooting exclusions for adapted EF lenses. From my trial every one of them had limited range of acceptable performance. At first, I thought the 40 was completely acceptable, but it is not. My opinion, it's a good stopgap until you can get a native lens.i have gf50,gf120 but need somethink very light ,wide 28-35mm and fast f1.8-2.0 for gfxTamron 35mm f1.8
canon ef28/1.8,ef 28/2.8is, ef35/2is, ef35/2 works on gfx?
thrice wrote:
Wow I'm shocked the 31 limited covers 44x33, it's rather small lens even by 36x24 standards.
Likewise!
Due to their small size, fast apertures (which are useful for composing and focusing for the nighttime photography I prefer, even if I never photographed with them more open than f8) and great reputation, I tried using all three of the Limited series lenses as shift lenses with an earlier A7R / FrankenKamera combo.
While they generally performed very well, the image circles they projected weren't large enough to provide a sufficient range of rise / fall movement -- IIRC, only 3-4 mm was available -- to be useful for my purposes.
Of course, this was several years ago and it's possible their designs were slightly revised when production moved to Vietnam, hence a possible reason why they might perform differently today.
leonasj wrote: bobby350z wroteleonasj wroteDES-1 wroteleonasj wrotecanon ef 40/2.8 full cover gfx sensor.Are you sure about that? Try shooting below f/8. I did with a fringer adapter. I suppose if you write yourself a note you can remember the myriad of shooting exclusions for adapted EF lenses. From my trial every one of them had limited range of acceptable performance. At first, I thought the 40 was completely acceptable, but it is not. My opinion, it's a good stopgap until you can get a native lens.i have gf50,gf120 but need somethink very light ,wide 28-35mm and fast f1.8-2.0 for gfxTamron 35mm f1.8canon ef28/1.8,ef 28/2.8is, ef35/2is, ef35/2 works on gfx?
If you have them try it yourself and post results here.
bobby350z wrote: leonasj wrotebobby350z wroteleonasj wroteDES-1 wroteleonasj wrotecanon ef 40/2.8 full cover gfx sensor.Are you sure about that? Try shooting below f/8. I did with a fringer adapter. I suppose if you write yourself a note you can remember the myriad of shooting exclusions for adapted EF lenses. From my trial every one of them had limited range of acceptable performance. At first, I thought the 40 was completely acceptable, but it is not. My opinion, it's a good stopgap until you can get a native lens.i have gf50,gf120 but need somethink very light ,wide 28-35mm and fast f1.8-2.0 for gfxTamron 35mm f1.8canon ef28/1.8,ef 28/2.8is, ef35/2is, ef35/2 works on gfx?If you have them try it yourself and post results here.
im dont have those.ordered canon ef 40/2.8, but still waiting ef-gfx adapter.
I looked through this thread and didn't see any mention of the Hasselblad 250mm CF or newer Superachromat lens... has anyone tested this compared to the Fuji lens?
Obviously, there is a OIS benefit of the Fuji GF lens, but that isn't really much of a concern since I use it on a tripod pretty much all the time anyway.
I have a growing Hasselblad system and currently have the normal 250mm Sonnar which is pretty inexpensive but the thought occurred to me that it might make a lot of sense to spring for the Superachromat version and sell the GF lens. The Zeiss is smaller, lighter, and if it performs really well, it wouldn't be any reduction in quality and I would be able to use it on either camera.
It's too expensive for me to just drop the coin on it without having a decent idea that it will be excellent.
Unfortunately, the one set of comments I have seen were pretty sparse on detail and there was no comparision with the GF lens at all (Kasson).
mjm6 wrote:
I looked through this thread and didn't see any mention of the Hasselblad 250mm CF or newer Superachromat lens... has anyone tested this compared to the Fuji lens?
Obviously, there is a OIS benefit of the Fuji GF lens, but that isn't really much of a concern since I use it on a tripod pretty much all the time anyway.
I have a growing Hasselblad system and currently have the normal 250mm Sonnar which is pretty inexpensive but the thought occurred to me that it might make a lot of sense to spring for the Superachromat version and sell the GF lens. The Zeiss is smaller, lighter, and if it performs really well, it wouldn't be any reduction in quality and I would be able to use it on either camera.
It's too expensive for me to just drop the coin on it without having a decent idea that it will be excellent.
Unfortunately, the one set of comments I have seen were pretty sparse on detail and there was no comparision with the GF lens at all (Kasson).
I have a copy of Hasselblad 250mm f/5.6 CF Superachromat and use it on my GFX 50S. I really like this lens and it can be adapted to Fuji, Hasselblad XD and Leica S mini MF bodies. The lens not that heavy and I have used it handheld with good results. It may be worth mention that lens is single coated so its color is pretty neutral, not saturated.
I just got my Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art. Looks nice. Front element is wow and it is smaller/lighter than the Sigma 105mm f1.4 I used to own. Now I need to find some models for a test shoot.
ocean2059 wrote: mjm6 wroteI looked through this thread and didn't see any mention of the Hasselblad 250mm CF or newer Superachromat lens... has anyone tested this compared to the Fuji lens?
Obviously, there is a OIS benefit of the Fuji GF lens, but that isn't really much of a concern since I use it on a tripod pretty much all the time anyway.
I have a growing Hasselblad system and currently have the normal 250mm Sonnar which is pretty inexpensive but the thought occurred to me that it might make a lot of sense to spring for the Superachromat version and sell the GF lens. The Zeiss is smaller, lighter, and if it performs really well, it wouldn't be any reduction in quality and I would be able to use it on either camera.
It's too expensive for me to just drop the coin on it without having a decent idea that it will be excellent.
Unfortunately, the one set of comments I have seen were pretty sparse on detail and there was no comparision with the GF lens at all (Kasson).
Thanks, ---MichaelI have a copy of Hasselblad 250mm f/5.6 CF Superachromat and use it on my GFX 50S. I really like this lens and it can be adapted to Fuji, Hasselblad XD and Leica S mini MF bodies. The lens not that heavy and I have used it handheld with good results. It may be worth mention that lens is single coated so its color is pretty neutral, not saturated.
Yes, I saw that it is single coated. I am mostly a B&W shooter anyway, so that isn't really a concern for me, but if I were a color shooter (and also commercial chooter), I'd probably be inclined to stick with the Fuji GF lens to maintain some color consistency in the shots. If it is as sharp as the 250 GF lens, then I will have to start looking around for one to try out.
mjm6 wrote: ocean2059 wrotemjm6 wroteI looked through this thread and didn't see any mention of the Hasselblad 250mm CF or newer Superachromat lens... has anyone tested this compared to the Fuji lens?
Obviously, there is a OIS benefit of the Fuji GF lens, but that isn't really much of a concern since I use it on a tripod pretty much all the time anyway.
I have a growing Hasselblad system and currently have the normal 250mm Sonnar which is pretty inexpensive but the thought occurred to me that it might make a lot of sense to spring for the Superachromat version and sell the GF lens. The Zeiss is smaller, lighter, and if it performs really well, it wouldn't be any reduction in quality and I would be able to use it on either camera.
It's too expensive for me to just drop the coin on it without having a decent idea that it will be excellent.
Unfortunately, the one set of comments I have seen were pretty sparse on detail and there was no comparision with the GF lens at all (Kasson).
Thanks, ---MichaelI have a copy of Hasselblad 250mm f/5.6 CF Superachromat and use it on my GFX 50S. I really like this lens and it can be adapted to Fuji, Hasselblad XD and Leica S mini MF bodies. The lens not that heavy and I have used it handheld with good results. It may be worth mention that lens is single coated so its color is pretty neutral, not saturated.Yes, I saw that it is single coated. I am mostly a B&W shooter anyway, so that isn't really a concern for me, but if I were a color shooter (and also commercial chooter), I'd probably be inclined to stick with the Fuji GF lens to maintain some color consistency in the shots. If it is as sharp as the 250 GF lens, then I will have to start looking around for one to try out.
I find that the sharpness of the lens is good enough for my user cases. I can't comment on the comparison with the Fuji GF250 since I have not used that Fuji lens. But if you read the MTF diagrams of both lenses, the GF250 should be sharper by a good margin,
Still finding the Mamiya 150/3.5 a very enjoyable short tele for GFX. It's not super sharp (at least not until stopped well down), but the rendering is great, and it's pretty small and light weight. Contrast and saturation is on the low side and there is a bit of (nice) glow at f/3.5.
bobby350z wrote:
I just got my Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art. Looks nice. Front element is wow and it is smaller/lighter than the Sigma 105mm f1.4 I used to own. Now I need to find some models for a test shoot.
Bobby, that is my favorite lens on the 100s, sold my gf110 f2 once I started using the 135 Art 1.8
leonasj wrote:
does gfx body corrects vigneting and chromatic aberation adapted lenses if shoot jpeg?
This is a simple no. You can do some manual correction in post processing if you shoot RAW, but nothing automatic. You might be able to select the lens profile for some lenses manually (that will depend on the lens and your software), but even that profile will be for the native camera. That might work fine, but it might not.
I actually think there is some automatic correction of CA going on even with adapted lenses, because sometimes the raw looks worse in that regard.
I seem to be the only one that absolutely hate the vignetting correction of JPG's when using native lenses. Kind of ironic. Could have used JPG for almost everything if it wasn't for useless auto WB and that I'm not allowed to turn off the vignetting correction.
bobby350z wrote:
I just got my Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art. Looks nice. Front element is wow and it is smaller/lighter than the Sigma 105mm f1.4 I used to own. Now I need to find some models for a test shoot.
EF mount, correct? Please post your impressions after your try-out.
DES-1 wrote: bobby350z wroteI just got my Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art. Looks nice. Front element is wow and it is smaller/lighter than the Sigma 105mm f1.4 I used to own. Now I need to find some models for a test shoot.EF mount, correct? Please post your impressions after your try-out.
Yes EF mount to be used with the Fringer Pro adapter.
Could have used JPG for almost everything if it wasn't for useless auto WB and that I'm not allowed to turn off the vignetting correction. 
