Makten wrote:
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.
Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
Makten wrote:
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.
Luis Cunha wrote:
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....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.
Makten wrote:
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. ...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 ,-)
Luis Cunha wrote:
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 ,-)...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.
Makten wrote:
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.
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.
freaklikeme wrote:
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.
Luis Cunha wrote:
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.
freaklikeme wrote:
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.
freaklikeme wrote:
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.
Makten wrote:
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.
rdeloe wrote:
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?
