Luis Cunha wrote:
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.
Does anyone still use these lenses on the GFX?
do you tried use on gfx olympus om 35/2 ?
Luis Cunha wrote:
Does anyone still use these lenses on the GFX?
Yes, I occasionally use the ZF 50/1.4. It doesn't vignette much, but gives backwards curvature of field that is sometimes kind of awful if you shoot at a bit of distance.
IMO it's too soft wide open unless you want a glowy look. Personally I find it sort of acceptable from f/2.4 and with 6:7 crop. Stopping down more improves the corners but they never clear up completely. The minor vignetting is also mostly affecting the extreme corners, which makes it harder to correct with decent results.
However, this lens gives a very unique (and to me, pleasant) rendering. The closer you focus and the larger aperture you use, the more chaotic the bokeh gets. Stopped down a bit and at a few meters distance, it gives incredible "3D" rendering with very soft bokeh.
So, it's certainly useable, but not without major flaws.
there is no autofocus in 35mm mode gfx50r with techart ef-gfx adapter focus just hunting front back. is this normal? at full sensor fast and quisk focus with ef40/2.8stm
Makten wrote:
Yes, I occasionally use the ZF 50/1.4. It doesn't vignette much, but gives backwards curvature of field that is sometimes kind of awful if you shoot at a bit of distance.
IMO it's too soft wide open unless you want a glowy look. Personally I find it sort of acceptable from f/2.4 and with 6:7 crop. Stopping down more improves the corners but they never clear up completely. The minor vignetting is also mostly affecting the extreme corners, which makes it harder to correct with decent results.
However, this lens gives a very unique (and to me, pleasant) rendering. The closer you focus and the larger aperture you use, the more chaotic the bokeh gets. Stopped down a bit and at a few meters distance, it gives incredible "3D" rendering with very soft bokeh.
So, it's certainly useable, but not without major flaws. ...Show more →
Agree.
But nothing you can't get with GF lenses; or rather, with GF lenses the results both at maximum apertures and at optimal apertures are always better than with these old 35mm lenses.
It's frustrating to have these Zeiss lenses with apertures of f/1.4, which no GF lens has (maybe the GF 1.7/80mm is close) and not being able to take advantage of it because the performance only starts to be decent when you stop f /2.8 onwards on these Planar Zeiss.
Luis Cunha wrote:
Agree.
But nothing you can't get with GF lenses; or rather, with GF lenses the results both at maximum apertures and at optimal apertures are always better than with these old 35mm lenses.
It's frustrating to have these Zeiss lenses with apertures of f/1.4, which no GF lens has (maybe the GF 1.7/80mm is close) and not being able to take advantage of it because the performance only starts to be decent when you stop f /2.8 onwards on these Planar Zeiss.
gf lenses shows high performance as they slow lenses f2.8-f4, so fast any brand lenses f1.4-f2 stopped to f2.8-f4 will be same performance, but natove gf lenses anyway shows more details in pictures vs non gf lenses on gfx body
leonasj wrote:
gf lenses shows high performance as they slow lenses f2.8-f4, so fast any brand lenses f1.4-f2 at apertures f2.8-f4 will be same performance
I think this in general this is not true. Keep in mind FF 35mm lenses are made for a 43mm image circle and you need a 55mm image circle to cover the 44 X 33 sensor, so many if not most FF 35mm lenses will show diminished performance in the corners on the GFX even when stopped down
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think this in general this is not true. Keep in mind FF 35mm lenses are made for a 43mm image circle and you need a 55mm image circle to cover the 44 X 33 sensor, so many if not most FF 35mm lenses will show diminished performance in the corners on the GFX even when stopped down
Luis Cunha wrote:
Agree.
But nothing you can't get with GF lenses; or rather, with GF lenses the results both at maximum apertures and at optimal apertures are always better than with these old 35mm lenses.
It's frustrating to have these Zeiss lenses with apertures of f/1.4, which no GF lens has (maybe the GF 1.7/80mm is close) and not being able to take advantage of it because the performance only starts to be decent when you stop f /2.8 onwards on these Planar Zeiss.
Well, it depends on what you want from a lens. :-) If you want some sort of "old school" look, the 50 Planar could suffice.
One of the reasons for the poor performance of the 50 is the very thick sensor stack of the GFX sensor, I think. It performs pretty badly even on Sony cameras. This is not only affecting the corners; at wide apertures you get increased spherical aberration even in the middle of the frame.
But, don't forget that you can use many (most) FF lenses in square mode. 33x33 mm is still larger than 24x36, not to mention 24x24.
Apologies if it's been mentioned already but the Minolta 58mm f/1.2 is great lens for the GFX. Kinda soft wide open (naturally!), but sharp at f/4 on down. Some light vignetting, easily corrected.
A nice copy can be had for about $300, and a dumb adapter from K&F is ~$40.
Makten wrote:
Well, it depends on what you want from a lens. :-) If you want some sort of "old school" look, the 50 Planar could suffice.
One of the reasons for the poor performance of the 50 is the very thick sensor stack of the GFX sensor, I think. It performs pretty badly even on Sony cameras. This is not only affecting the corners; at wide apertures you get increased spherical aberration even in the middle of the frame.
But, don't forget that you can use many (most) FF lenses in square mode. 33x33 mm is still larger than 24x36, not to mention 24x24. ...Show more →
On that aspect of the very thick sensor stack of the GFX and Sony sensors: Does this mean that my Zeiss ZE being for Canon Fit, could they behave better adapted to a Canon R5 than a GFX?
Luis Cunha wrote:
On that aspect of the very thick sensor stack of the GFX and Sony sensors: Does this mean that my Zeiss ZE being for Canon Fit, could they behave better adapted to a Canon R5 than a GFX?
If the Canon has thinner sensor stack, yes. I have no idea of if it has.
It doesn't matter that the lens is in EF mount; all the Z* versions are the same optically and probably not optimized for any sensor stack at all (film). On older dSLR's the stack was often thinner than on mirrorless, for some unknown reason. And of course resolution was lower, so it was less of an issue overall.
Makten wrote:
If the Canon has thinner sensor stack, yes. I have no idea of if it has.
It doesn't matter that the lens is in EF mount; all the Z* versions are the same optically and probably not optimized for any sensor stack at all (film). On older dSLR's the stack was often thinner than on mirrorless, for some unknown reason. And of course resolution was lower, so it was less of an issue overall.
I think the no-compromise solution for those looking for bright lenses and accentuated bokeh in the GFX system is to opt for the GF f1.7/80mm (f1.3/63mm) GF2/110mm (f1.6/87mm), GF4/120mm (f3.2/95mm), and in 2023 the GF1.7/55mm. The equivalence for the usual 35mm is in (.../...).
I include the GF 120mm here, not being the brightest, because it's macro. I have this lens and it allows for closer approximations and therefore a unique bokeh.
GF f3.5 lenses are equivalent to f/2.8 in Full Frame. Some produce an interesting boken like the GF3.5/50mm and the GF3.5/30mm; the latter allows for even more closeup.
They are all high quality lenses from the first aperture and generally have an absolute peak performance at f5.6, but they are flexible.
Adapted 35mm lenses will never have this type of behavior, however there are those who like limitations, errors, deviations, aberrations, etc, for experimental or artistic uses (I hate this term), as is often my case. Sometimes I need absolute quality and in other cases the margin to use and assimilate defects is total and even sought and exploited for work.
I forgot about the GF f4/250mm which seems to produce a unique bokeh too, even for the focal length it presents and the separation it allows, but this one unfortunately I never tested.
Luis Cunha wrote:
I think the no-compromise solution for those looking for bright lenses and accentuated bokeh in the GFX system is to opt for the GF f1.7/80mm (f1.3/63mm) GF2/110mm (f1.6/87mm), GF4/120mm (f3.2/95mm), and in 2023 the GF1.7/55mm. The equivalence for the usual 35mm is in (.../...).
I include the GF 120mm here, not being the brightest, because it's macro. I have this lens and it allows for closer approximations and therefore a unique bokeh.
GF f3.5 lenses are equivalent to f/2.8 in Full Frame. Some produce an interesting boken like the GF3.5/50mm and the GF3.5/30mm; the latter allows for even more closeup.
They are all high quality lenses from the first aperture and generally have an absolute peak performance at f5.6, but they are flexible.
Adapted 35mm lenses will never have this type of behavior, however there are those who like limitations, errors, deviations, aberrations, etc, for experimental or artistic uses (I hate this term), as is often my case. Sometimes I need absolute quality and in other cases the margin to use and assimilate defects is total and even sought and exploited for work....Show more →
The question I think one should ask, is why do you want faster lenses, "better" bokeh, more unique bokeh, and so on?
I believe that 9 out of 10 people that seek the fastest lenses don't need the speed. Actually, I think most of them are only obsessed with shallow DOF. Which is fine, but it's probably good to ask yourself what exactly it does to your images.
Do they get "better"? Probably not. They might in fact even get worse, by obscuring large parts of the scene in total blur. "But those parts were not interesting!" Sure, but then maybe one should work a bit more on choosing interesting scenes instead?
Don't get me wrong; I'm to some extent also obsessed with technical performance. Sharpness, colors, accutance, and bokeh. Of course, otherwise I'd never buy into GFX. But at least I try not to pretend that I "need" it.
Makten wrote:
The question I think one should ask, is why do you want faster lenses, "better" bokeh, more unique bokeh, and so on?
I believe that 9 out of 10 people that seek the fastest lenses don't need the speed. Actually, I think most of them are only obsessed with shallow DOF. Which is fine, but it's probably good to ask yourself what exactly it does to your images.
Do they get "better"? Probably not. They might in fact even get worse, by obscuring large parts of the scene in total blur. "But those parts were not interesting!" Sure, but then maybe one should work a bit more on choosing interesting scenes instead?
Don't get me wrong; I'm to some extent also obsessed with technical performance. Sharpness, colors, accutance, and bokeh. Of course, otherwise I'd never buy into GFX. But at least I try not to pretend that I "need" it. ...Show more →
I don't pretend I need it, I need it and I use it; I have used these capabilities of luminous lenses in my work for many years.
