Peter Figen wrote:
Yep. That's my experience too. Quite good by 5.6 or f/8 but then why have a 1.4 lens unless you really like that soft focus look. I don't think this lens is going to get any better by slapping in on a GFX camera but some might like it.
My feeling is this; If you're running a 135 system and the GFX and can afford whatever adapters you need, there's no reason not to explore what the 135 lenses can do on the GFX. At worst, you've still got a 30MP 36x24 crop you can make in post. Being satisfied with them is a matter of tolerances.
What I wouldn't do is buy a GFX with the idea that I'll use only adapted 135 lenses. To me, that's akin to ignoring all the options that offer good coverage on a 135 FF, and buying nothing but APS-C lenses for an a7rIV/R5/Z7II.
I have thousands of images with the 50f1.4 and I wouldn't call it soft focus. For whatever reason canon really struggled with their 50mm offerings and I actually find the cheap 1.8 much better than the 1.4
george malamis wrote:
I have thousands of images with the 50f1.4 and I wouldn't call it soft focus. For whatever reason canon really struggled with their 50mm offerings and I actually find the cheap 1.8 much better than the 1.4
Stopped down it's very very good. Wide open, pretty soft. Two lenses in one.
freaklikeme wrote:
My feeling is this; If you're running a 135 system and the GFX and can afford whatever adapters you need, there's no reason not to explore what the 135 lenses can do on the GFX. At worst, you've still got a 30MP 36x24 crop you can make in post. Being satisfied with them is a matter of tolerances.
What I wouldn't do is buy a GFX with the idea that I'll use only adapted 135 lenses. To me, that's akin to ignoring all the options that offer good coverage on a 135 FF, and buying nothing but APS-C lenses for an a7rIV/R5/Z7II. ...Show more →
Well, on the 100 and 100s you get a 60mpx cropped file which works pretty well as well. I don't think anyone here has been advocating a one hundred percent adapted lens system, but it's nice to know that *some* of your 35mm lenses are going to work and some are going to kick ass. Part of what makes this system so intriguing.
freaklikeme wrote:
My feeling is this; If you're running a 135 system and the GFX and can afford whatever adapters you need, there's no reason not to explore what the 135 lenses can do on the GFX. At worst, you've still got a 30MP 36x24 crop you can make in post. Being satisfied with them is a matter of tolerances.
What I wouldn't do is buy a GFX with the idea that I'll use only adapted 135 lenses. To me, that's akin to ignoring all the options that offer good coverage on a 135 FF, and buying nothing but APS-C lenses for an a7rIV/R5/Z7II. ...Show more →
Depends on the needs. If one needs fast lenses besides 80mm f1.7 and 110mm f2, there are no other native options. Pentax or whatever MF lenses are not going to cut it as they too slow IMHO, not to mention being manual focus only. Some of the 135mm glass works quite good.
bobby350z wrote:
Depends on the needs. If one needs fast lenses besides 80mm f1.7 and 110mm f2, there are no other native options. Pentax or whatever MF lenses are not going to cut it as they too slow IMHO, not to mention being manual focus only. Some of the 135mm glass works quite good.
There are two native mount options... the Mitikon 65/1.4 and the IRIX 45/1.4. They're manual, but they are native.
bobby350z wrote:
Depends on the needs. If one needs fast lenses besides 80mm f1.7 and 110mm f2, there are no other native options. Pentax or whatever MF lenses are not going to cut it as they too slow IMHO, not to mention being manual focus only. Some of the 135mm glass works quite good.
And many of us already have the wonderful Canon 85mm 1.4 L which just happens to work very well on the GFX.
I would argue that the "need" for fast lenses (or large sensors, or high resolution, or sharp lenses) in most cases is desire. Not need.
Seriously, how many photographers really "need" f/1.4 with a large, ridiculously low noise sensor (and IBIS, if your subject is stationary)? How many truly great images have you seen that wouldn't cut it if they were shot with a slower lens?
Personally I want a bit of separation at several meters distance with a shortish standard lens, so I will most likely buy the 55/1.7. If it's not too large and heavy. But I certainly don't "need" it.
Adapted FF lenses in that focal length gives way too much mechanical vignetting, curvature of field and other aberrations to be considered an alternative. Then I much rather stick to f/2.8 or use a smaller sensor.
does any compared sharpness ef40/2.8 vs gf45/2.8 wide open? i think they will be same in 2/3 senser,except gf45 will be a bit more sharper in corners? ?
leonasj wrote:
jpeg from camera,via techart adapter.full sensor
1)canon ef50/1.4usm
2)canon ef40/2.8stm
3) samyang xp 50 1.2 exif shows PPP 35mm full cover gfx sensor -no vigneting,bokeh nice
Remember many lens cover at close distances and not long distances and what "cover" means is also subjective. Different people will have different ideas about how good the performance has to be to say that the lens "covers" the outer part of the frame on the 44 X 33 sensor. Suffice it to say I am still not convince the Samyang XP 50 f/1.2 covers the full 44 X 33 sensor, but it is fine if you are convinced it does.
Does anyone here still keep any of these four 35mm DSLR lenses, adapted to the GFX?
Zeiss Classic Distagon 2.8/21mm T*
Zeiss Classic Distagon 2/35mm T*
Zeiss Classic Planar 1.4/50mm T*
Zeiss Classic Planar 1.4/85mm. T*
Thanks.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Remember many lens cover at close distances and not long distances and what "cover" means is also subjective. Different people will have different ideas about how good the performance has to be to say that the lens "covers" the outer part of the frame on the 44 X 33 sensor. Suffice it to say I am still not convince the Samyang XP 50 f/1.2 covers the full 44 X 33 sensor, but it is fine if you are convinced it does.
xp 50 at infinity no vigneting too.sharp corner to corner even at f1.2 ,but im dont like manual lenses,so no keep this lens. dont have this. canon 50/1.4 dont like usm sound.no keep. keeper,same sharp as gf50 is 40/2.8stm,fast focus,silent motor. a bit slower focus then gf50.
That 50mm 1.4 sure has an interesting distortion pattern going on. Never seen that anywhere. Normally that lens has what one would call a symmetrical barrel distortion but this one has a freaking wave.
leonasj wrote:
xp 50 at infinity no vigneting too.sharp corner to corner even at f1.2 ,but im dont like manual lenses,so no keep this lens. dont have this. canon 50/1.4 dont like usm sound.no keep. keeper,same sharp as gf50 is 40/2.8stm,fast focus,silent motor. a bit slower focus then gf50.
Well, even on the shot you posted at very close range I don't particularly like the look of the upper right corner. Personally, I would not find that acceptable or call it full coverage of the 44 X 33 frame. That is me, however, as always YMMV. My point is that there can and will be subjective differences of opinion on what is and is not full coverage.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, even on the shot you posted at very close range I don't particularly like the look of the upper right corner. Personally, I would not find that acceptable or call it full coverage of the 44 X 33 frame. That is me, however, as always YMMV. My point is that there can and will be subjective differences of opinion on what is and is not full coverage.
there is dark coner from dark room ,there is no windows i right side room.ef40 very good cover gfx sensor,and xp 50 far better vs ef40 even lower vigneting 2.8 vs 1.2,,,, xp50 is top of the line lens,free from CA,free from vigneting and same sharpness shows corner to corner even at 1.2,impressive performance
Peter Figen wrote:
That 50mm 1.4 sure has an interesting distortion pattern going on. Never seen that anywhere. Normally that lens has what one would call a symmetrical barrel distortion but this one has a freaking wave.
yes,you are right,somethink maybe wrong with lens,im bought on ebay it to try how works on gfx body,usable sharpness is only from f2.8 for me,so no need 290gr lens to use at 2.8, im sent back to seller yesterday that lens.
Luis Cunha wrote:
Does anyone here still keep any of these four 35mm DSLR lenses, adapted to the GFX?
Zeiss Classic Distagon 2.8/21mm T*
Zeiss Classic Distagon 2/35mm T*
Zeiss Classic Planar 1.4/50mm T*
Zeiss Classic Planar 1.4/85mm. T*
Thanks.
that heavy lens,and AF lenses better get fast focus on gfx body.canon ef lenses better to use
leonasj wrote:
that heavy lens,and AF lenses better get fast focus on gfx body.canon ef lenses better to use
Yes, they are somewhat heavy lenses, manual only and with a very precise focus. All produce some vignetting on the GFX, but the 85mm produces minimal vignetting. Only the 21mm produces an incorrigible vignette, so I use it in the GFX's "35mm Mode" or with a Crop.
From what I understand, in your opinion you prefer autofocus lenses .-) Fair.
full cover gfx sensor -no vigneting,bokeh nice
