Creative Edge wrote:
Bobby, great shot, love this image
Thanks. It is hard for me to walk far, this field of flowers is near a road. But it had rained the the day before so all muddy. Took me a while to clean up the the mess. I wish I could down the hills to shoot better locations maybe in the next life.
bobby350z wrote:
Thanks. It is hard for me to walk far, this field of flowers is near a road. But it had rained the the day before so all muddy. Took me a while to clean up the the mess. I wish I could down the hills to shoot better locations maybe in the next life.
bobby350z wrote:
I like this shot. I was thinking of buying it but read on some forums that it isn't a sharp copy so hesitated.
Thanks.
The Mamiya 50mm shift is a good lens. You're right, it's soft wide open but has a pleasing sharpness closed down.
Mine had a major light leak caused by a loose barrel fitting, the seller was gracious enough to take it back.
So now I've bought Pentax 645 lenses with a Kipon T/S adapter. Waiting for those to arrive.
im found good price on techart af ef-gfx adapter. does it worth to buy for my gfx50r body ?i have ef50/1.4 and ef40/2.8 lenses,samyang xp 50. i read not very good posts on web about this adapter. maybe better to see at fringer ,steelsring or another?how good is no name af adapters from china ef-gfx?
leonasj wrote:
im found good price on techart af ef-gfx adapter. does it worth to buy for my gfx50r body ?i have ef50/1.4 and ef40/2.8 lenses,samyang xp 50. i read not very good posts on web about this adapter. maybe better to see at fringer ,steelsring or another?how good is no name af adapters from china ef-gfx?
If you want fast focus, then Fringer is better but 50r is contrast based so not sure how much Fringer will help. I haven't tested Fringer on my GFX50s. I have TechArt too and it works fine on my GFX50s. People say you need to press that silver button everytime you power on, sometime I forget and i haven't seen any adverse issues with the lens profile. I use C1.
bobby350z wrote:
If you want fast focus, then Fringer is better but 50r is contrast based so not sure how much Fringer will help. I haven't tested Fringer on my GFX50s. I have TechArt too and it works fine on my GFX50s. People say you need to press that silver button everytime you power on, sometime I forget and i haven't seen any adverse issues with the lens profile. I use C1.
no,i dont need speed.hobby use only.static objects shooting only.
does any tried manual nikon ais lens on gfx?how they covers gfx sensor?im see at ais 28mm 2.8 nikkor lens as it was very sharp and i had it many years ago. but maybe it was sharpest 2decades ago,now modern lens is far sharper and no need look back?
leonasj wrote:
does any tried manual nikon ais lens on gfx?how they covers gfx sensor?im see at ais 28mm 2.8 nikkor lens as it was very sharp and i had it many years ago. but maybe it was sharpest 2decades ago,now modern lens is far sharper and no need look back?
The 28/2.8 doesn't fully cover the sensor. At f/11 you might be able to use 6:7 ratio if you manually dodge the extreme corners a bit, and I think 1:1 is fine. The 24/2.8 has more but softer vignetting. Both are pretty sharp in the middle though.
Edit: There is a Nikkor 28/3.5 shift that will cover the sensor though, but it's probably not nearly as sharp.
Never had the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 but did have three or four versions of the 24mm 2.8 over the years. Haven't tried one of those that I still have on the GFX but it was never good anywhere except in the middle even on 35mm film. Soft on the edges and a shit-ton of field curvature to boot. Most of the Nikon wide angles from that generation were pretty mediocre with the 28's and 35's being the exception.
Peter Figen wrote:
Never had the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 but did have three or four versions of the 24mm 2.8 over the years. Haven't tried one of those that I still have on the GFX but it was never good anywhere except in the middle even on 35mm film. Soft on the edges and a shit-ton of field curvature to boot. Most of the Nikon wide angles from that generation were pretty mediocre with the 28's and 35's being the exception.
The 24/2.8 AI-S has CRC, which means the adapter must have perfect length to get proper performance. I think I got pretty decent results from it on the a7 II at least. Stopped down, of course.
Note that the older 24/2.8 AI does not have the same optical design.
Makten wrote:
The 24/2.8 AI-S has CRC, which means the adapter must have perfect length to get proper performance. I think I got pretty decent results from it on the a7 II at least. Stopped down, of course.
Note that the older 24/2.8 AI does not have the same optical design.
All of the AI's had the floating elements. Big sales pitch on that going back to the late 70's from what I remember. But I'm talking about using that lens directly on Nikon cameras. No adapters, and at infinity, which a hard infinity on all of those lenses. There are times when you could use the field curvature to you advantage but most of the time it would just bite you on the ass. I also used it on my Canon's with the expensive and correctly spaced adapters from the Voitlander dude, and while those Nikon 24mm's were sharper in the center than anything Canon had at the time, and that was great for industrial people shots, that resolution rapidly fell off toward the edges. And ALL of the AI wide angles were CRC. They were using the floating elements prior to AI and you could always tell by focusing the lens off the camera where you could see the rear element group moving more than than the front.
leonasj wrote:
from what i see better see at canon lenses or ef mount lens to use on gfx.
You only have to go on a lens by lens basis. It all depends on whether there's enough image circle, that that image circle has not been impeded by something physical like a shade or baffle, and that the optical performance of the lens continues far enough past the normal 35mm frame to be useful on the larger Fuji sensor. Not directly related to lens quality but more generally associated with the fact that longer lenses tend to have larger image circles, with some notable exceptions.
Peter Figen wrote:
All of the AI's had the floating elements.
Seems correct, but they don't all have the same optical design. Early AI was 9 elements in 7 groups, while late AI and AI-S were 9 elements in 9 groups. Then there could of course be other tweaks as well over the years.
Big sales pitch on that going back to the late 70's from what I remember. But I'm talking about using that lens directly on Nikon cameras. No adapters, and at infinity, which a hard infinity on all of those lenses. There are times when you could use the field curvature to you advantage but most of the time it would just bite you on the ass. I also used it on my Canon's with the expensive and correctly spaced adapters from the Voitlander dude, and while those Nikon 24mm's were sharper in the center than anything Canon had at the time, and that was great for industrial people shots, that resolution rapidly fell off toward the edges. And ALL of the AI wide angles were CRC. They were using the floating elements prior to AI and you could always tell by focusing the lens off the camera where you could see the rear element group moving more than than the front....Show more →
Your description doesn't at all match my experience, which, if you had the early AI or pre-AI versions, might indicate that the AI-S is better.
