fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  
  

FM ForumsFuji ForumJoin Upload & Sell
  

Archive 2017 · Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX
  
 
Makten
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Details
p.71 #1Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Luis Cunha wrote:
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wroteI 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.
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.
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.
Then GFX maybe isn't the best system for you.
Why .-)


Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.


May 18, 2022 at 02:36 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #2Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Makten wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wroteI 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.
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.
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.
Then GFX maybe isn't the best system for you.
Why .-)
Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.

I actually think once the 55 f/1.7 is available that the GFX system will be quite competitive with fast lenses. The 55 f/1.7, 80 f/1.7 and 110 f/2 will make a nice 3 lens combo for fast lenses.
May 18, 2022 at 03:00 PM
Luis Cunha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #3Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Makten wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wroteI 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.
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.
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.
Then GFX maybe isn't the best system for you.
Why .-)
Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.

They are quite good and enough for me and I use other apertures also ,-)
May 18, 2022 at 03:04 PM
Luis Cunha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #4Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Steve Spencer wrote:
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wroteThe 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.
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.
Then GFX maybe isn't the best system for you.
Why .-)
Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.
I actually think once the 55 f/1.7 is available that the GFX system will be quite competitive with fast lenses. The 55 f/1.7, 80 f/1.7 and 110 f/2 will make a nice 3 lens combo for fast lenses.

I agree with you. Fujifilm has built a very interesting and varied system in just a few years, from scratch. And of quality. Maybe it can improve menus and quality control, because I'm reading some complaints, but it's a good and affordable MF system; at last.
May 18, 2022 at 03:09 PM
leonasj
Offline
[X]
Details
p.71 #5Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


does one of the best,sharpest,lowest vigneting on gfx sensor is tamron sp 35/1.8 vc lens? even it has bonus image stabilization
May 19, 2022 at 02:18 AM
Makten
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Details
p.71 #6Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Luis Cunha wrote:
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wroteThe 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.
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.
Then GFX maybe isn't the best system for you.
Why .-)
Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.
They are quite good and enough for me and I use other apertures also ,-)

Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you meant that there are no or too few fast (enough) lenses for GFX.


May 19, 2022 at 04:53 AM
Luis Cunha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #7Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Makten wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wroteI 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.
Then GFX maybe isn't the best system for you.
Why .-)
Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.
They are quite good and enough for me and I use other apertures also ,-)
Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you meant that there are no or too few fast (enough) lenses for GFX.

No problem. Thinking about equivalence to 35mm, f/1.3, in the case of the GF f/1.7 lenses it's a very bright aperture, with the advantage of sharpness even at that aperture, which I can't get with my classic Zeiss, which are only sharp after they're closed. 2-3 stops (1.4/50mm and 1.4/85mm). After all, this topic is about adapted lenses ,-) So some adapt better than others. Not to mention the vignette, which can be residual or very strong, for example between the Planar 85mm and the Distagon 21mm.

My point is; is it worth keeping these Zeiss (21/35/50/85), since the GFs are superior, have no compromises and are already as bright as some of these Zeiss? The difference and the biggest impediment is the price ,-) But the return is quality and satisfaction without compromises.
May 19, 2022 at 05:08 AM
Makten
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Details
p.71 #8Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Luis Cunha wrote:
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wroteThen GFX maybe isn't the best system for you.
Why .-)
Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.
They are quite good and enough for me and I use other apertures also ,-)
Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you meant that there are no or too few fast (enough) lenses for GFX.
No problem. Thinking about equivalent to 35mm, f/1.3, in the case of the GF f/1.7 lenses it's a very bright aperture, with the advantage of sharpness even at that aperture, which I can't get with my classic Zeiss, which are only sharp after they're closed. 2-3 stops (1.4/50mm and 1.4/85mm). After all, this topic is about adapted lenses ,-) So some adapt better than others. Not to mention the vignette, which can be residual or very strong, for example between the Planar 85mm and the Distagon 21mm.

My point is; is it worth keeping these Zeiss (21/35/50/85), since the GFs...Show more →

Only you can decide! Personally I'm keeping the 50 (but I also have a Sony FF to use it with). However, performance wise I havent' tried any shortish lens that is even close (edit: on GFX) to the GF lenses. And performance is the main reason I shoot GFX, so...

Depending on what and how you shoot, the 85 can be nice. It has very little vignetting, but some curvature of field and astigmatism outside the middle of the frame. I found I wanted to stop it down to f/2.4 too, which made it kind of pointless. So I sold it.


May 19, 2022 at 05:25 AM
Luis Cunha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #9Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Makten wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wroteWhy .-)
Because there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.
They are quite good and enough for me and I use other apertures also ,-)
Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you meant that there are no or too few fast (enough) lenses for GFX.
No problem. Thinking about equivalent to 35mm, f/1.3, in the case of the GF f/1.7 lenses it's a very bright aperture, with the advantage of sharpness even at that aperture, which I can't get with my classic Zeiss, which are only sharp after they're closed. 2-3 stops (1.4/50mm and 1.4/85mm). After all, this topic is about adapted lenses ,-) So some adapt better than others. Not to mention the vignette, which can be residual or very strong, for example between the Planar 85mm and the Distagon 21mm.

My point is; is it worth keeping these Zeiss (21/35/50/85), since the GFs are superior, have no compromises and are already as bright as some of these Zeiss? The difference and the biggest impediment is the price ,-) But the return is quality and satisfaction without compromises.
Only you can decide! Personally I'm keeping the 50 (but I also have a Sony FF to use it with). However, performance wise I havent' tried any shortish lens that is even close (edit: on GFX) to the GF lenses. And performance is the main reason I shoot GFX, so...

Depending on what and how you shoot, the 85 can be nice. It has very little vignetting, but some curvature of field and astigmatism outside the middle of the frame. I found I wanted to stop it down to f/2.4 too, which made it kind of pointless. So I sold...Show more →

That's right.
For me it is a problem between the rational and the non-rational. I've had these lenses for many years with joy and I even like them as industrial design objects, but... Now that I'm on the GFX50R system, I have serious doubts. I have no other system. Maybe I'll still do a final test, which doesn't solve either the vignette, or the lack of sharpness of some of them, which is to use the new GFX50S II with IBIS to see if it improves the use especially of the 85mm that is the heaviest.
Of course, the matter for me is even more nebulous, because I also make sometimes an unconventional use of the equipment and the limitations are absorbed. The forking paths; quoting a great author ,-)
May 19, 2022 at 05:39 AM
Makten
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Details
p.71 #10Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Luis Cunha wrote:
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wroteBecause there are very few fast lenses for GFX, of course.
They are quite good and enough for me and I use other apertures also ,-)
Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you meant that there are no or too few fast (enough) lenses for GFX.
No problem. Thinking about equivalent to 35mm, f/1.3, in the case of the GF f/1.7 lenses it's a very bright aperture, with the advantage of sharpness even at that aperture, which I can't get with my classic Zeiss, which are only sharp after they're closed. 2-3 stops (1.4/50mm and 1.4/85mm). After all, this topic is about adapted lenses ,-) So some adapt better than others. Not to mention the vignette, which can be residual or very strong, for example between the Planar 85mm and the Distagon 21mm.

My point is; is it worth keeping these Zeiss (21/35/50/85), since the GFs are superior, have no compromises and are already as bright as some of these Zeiss? The difference and the biggest impediment is the price ,-) But the return is quality and satisfaction without compromises.
Only you can decide! Personally I'm keeping the 50 (but I also have a Sony FF to use it with). However, performance wise I havent' tried any shortish lens that is even close (edit: on GFX) to the GF lenses. And performance is the main reason I shoot GFX, so...

Depending on what and how you shoot, the 85 can be nice. It has very little vignetting, but some curvature of field and astigmatism outside the middle of the frame. I found I wanted to stop it down to f/2.4 too, which made it kind of pointless. So I sold it.
That's right.
For me it is a problem between the rational and the non-rational. I've had these lenses for many years with joy and I even like them as industrial design objects, but... Now that I'm on the GFX50R system, I have serious doubts. I have no other system. Maybe I'll still do a final test, which doesn't solve either the vignette, or the lack of sharpness of some of them, which is to use the new GFX50S II with IBIS to see if it improves the use especially of the 85mm that is the heaviest.
Of course, the matter for...Show more →

Don't forget that IBIS requires an even larger image circle! The sensor is "moving around" and will be outside the usual 55 mm diagonal now and then. You can end up with one black corner, which isn't very nice looking.


May 19, 2022 at 01:33 PM
Luis Cunha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #11Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Makten wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wrote
Makten wrote
Luis Cunha wroteThey are quite good and enough for me and I use other apertures also ,-)
Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you meant that there are no or too few fast (enough) lenses for GFX.
No problem. Thinking about equivalent to 35mm, f/1.3, in the case of the GF f/1.7 lenses it's a very bright aperture, with the advantage of sharpness even at that aperture, which I can't get with my classic Zeiss, which are only sharp after they're closed. 2-3 stops (1.4/50mm and 1.4/85mm). After all, this topic is about adapted lenses ,-) So some adapt better than others. Not to mention the vignette, which can be residual or very strong, for example between the Planar 85mm and the Distagon 21mm.

My point is; is it worth keeping these Zeiss (21/35/50/85), since the GFs are superior, have no compromises and are already as bright as some of these Zeiss? The difference and the biggest impediment is the price ,-) But the return is quality and satisfaction without compromises.
Only you can decide! Personally I'm keeping the 50 (but I also have a Sony FF to use it with). However, performance wise I havent' tried any shortish lens that is even close (edit: on GFX) to the GF lenses. And performance is the main reason I shoot GFX, so...

Depending on what and how you shoot, the 85 can be nice. It has very little vignetting, but some curvature of field and astigmatism outside the middle of the frame. I found I wanted to stop it down to f/2.4 too, which made it kind of pointless. So I sold it.
That's right.
For me it is a problem between the rational and the non-rational. I've had these lenses for many years with joy and I even like them as industrial design objects, but... Now that I'm on the GFX50R system, I have serious doubts. I have no other system. Maybe I'll still do a final test, which doesn't solve either the vignette, or the lack of sharpness of some of them, which is to use the new GFX50S II with IBIS to see if it improves the use especially of the 85mm that is the heaviest.
Of course, the matter for me is even more nebulous, because I also make sometimes an unconventional use of the equipment and the limitations are absorbed. The forking paths; quoting a great author ,-)
Don't forget that IBIS requires an even larger image circle! The sensor is "moving around" and will be outside the usual 55 mm diagonal now and then. You can end up with one black corner, which isn't very nice looking.

Good point! Thanks a lot.
May 19, 2022 at 01:39 PM
leonasj
Offline
[X]
Details
p.71 #12Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


does adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
May 25, 2022 at 02:55 AM
freaklikeme
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #13Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


leonasj wrote:
does adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?

It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.
May 25, 2022 at 04:55 AM
Luis Cunha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #14Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX




freaklikeme wrote:
leonasj wrotedoes adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.

No Loca or Laca corrections? Thanks.
May 25, 2022 at 04:58 AM
freaklikeme
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #15Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Luis Cunha wrote:
freaklikeme wrote
leonasj wrotedoes adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.
No Loca or Laca corrections? Thanks.

Not lens specific, no. From what I've seen comparing RAWs to TIFFs and JPEGs, there is some level of CA correction with the in-camera processing, but it's not as robust as LR or C1, and there's no user control for it.


May 25, 2022 at 05:30 AM
rdeloe
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #16Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


freaklikeme wrote:
leonasj wrotedoes adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.

I don't have that capability in the 50R. I can only provide focal length for adapted lenses. The other parameters are greyed out.
May 25, 2022 at 06:06 AM
Luis Cunha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #17Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


freaklikeme wrote:
Luis Cunha wrote
freaklikeme wrote
leonasj wrotedoes adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.
No Loca or Laca corrections? Thanks.
Not lens specific, no. From what I've seen comparing RAWs to TIFFs and JPEGs, there is some level of CA correction with the in-camera processing, but it's not as robust as LR or C1, and there's no user control for it.

Good to know. Thanks a lot.
May 25, 2022 at 06:07 AM
Makten
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Details
p.71 #18Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


rdeloe wrote:
freaklikeme wrote
leonasj wrotedoes adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.
I don't have that capability in the 50R. I can only provide focal length for adapted lenses. The other parameters are greyed out.

Same in the 50S II. I think it's only for Hassy lenses with electronic adapter, or something like that.


May 25, 2022 at 08:24 AM
rdeloe
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #19Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


Makten wrote:
rdeloe wrote
freaklikeme wrote
leonasj wrotedoes adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.
I don't have that capability in the 50R. I can only provide focal length for adapted lenses. The other parameters are greyed out.
Same in the 50S II. I think it's only for Hassy lenses with electronic adapter, or something like that.

I think you're exactly right -- just for Hasselblad V with Fuji's special Hassy to GFX adapter.

I wouldn't use it anyway because I don't shoot JPEG. However, I would love to be able to have the ability to enter actual lens names rather than just focal lengths. It's not a huge deal as I don't have that many lenses and I add the metadata with Lenstagger right away anyway.


May 25, 2022 at 09:19 AM
freaklikeme
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Details
p.71 #20Adapting Lenses to the Fuji GFX


rdeloe wrote:
Makten wrote
rdeloe wrote
freaklikeme wrote
leonasj wrotedoes adapted lens works in camera lens optimization for jpeg images for lowering vigneting,CA,distortions? or this only works with native GF lenses?
It only works for native lenses, but the GFX-50sII and 100s, at least, allow you to set profiles for up to six adapted lenses. You set the parameters with a fairly basic distortion and vignetting correction and a surprisingly robust color-cast correction tool. The other three GFX cameras may have the same capability, but you'll need to confirm it.
I don't have that capability in the 50R. I can only provide focal length for adapted lenses. The other parameters are greyed out.
Same in the 50S II. I think it's only for Hassy lenses with electronic adapter, or something like that.
I think you're exactly right -- just for Hasselblad V with Fuji's special Hassy to GFX adapter.

I wouldn't use it anyway because I don't shoot JPEG. However, I would love to be able to have the ability to enter actual lens names rather than just focal lengths. It's not a huge deal as I don't have that many lenses and I add the metadata with Lenstagger right away anyway.

It's an H adapter, not V (Fuji made the H lenses), but it looks like you guys are right. I hadn't played with it yet because I'm still sorting out the lenses I plan to use frequently. That sucks and it makes no sense. They made the lenses and they have electronic contacts. You'd think, if any adapted lenses were going to be treated like native, it would be the ones they made used on the adapter they also made. Why do we have to profile them?
May 25, 2022 at 04:13 PM





FM ForumsFuji ForumJoin Upload & Sell
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register