helios 44-2 full covers gfx sensor as native gf lens. covers 56mm circle. no any wigneting at f2. it is copy of fzeiss biotar 58/2 . i there is few versions of helios 44. im ordered mint+++ for 50€ sharpest copy version zenit helios 44M-7 mc
Steve Spencer wrote:
I got my Fuji GFX a couple of weeks ago and I have finally got time to test it a bit. So, far I have tested it with 6 Zeiss lenses for the ZF mount -- the Milvus 135 f/2 APO; the Milvus 85 f/1.4; the Otus 55 f/1.4; the Classic 35 f/1.4; the Otus 28 f/1.4; and the Mills 21 f/2.8; and six medium format lenses -- a Hasselblad HCD 24 f/4.8; a Hasselblad CFE IF 40 f/4; a Mamiya 645 MF 55 f/2.8N; a Hasselblad HC 100 f/2.2; a Mamiya 645 MF 120 f/4 Macro A; a Hasselblad CF 180 f/4; and a Hasselblad HC 300 f/4.5.
I have the a Fotodiox Nikon F adapter, a Fotodiox Mamiya 645 adapter, a Fuji Hasselblad H adapter, and a Hasselblad H to V mount adapter.
Let me start with the FF 35mm lenses. The mini MF sensor is notably bigger than a FF 35mm sensor but no so much bigger that FF 35mm lenses automatically won't work. The FF 35mm image circle is 43.2mm, whereas the mini MF sensor requires a 55mm image circle to cover the whole sensor, but different crops require different image circles and one of the nice things about the Fuji GFX is that you can set up the camera to show different crops in the view finder--more on that later. Anyway, here is the image circle that is required for the various crops:
1 to 1 (i.e., square) - this format requires just a 46.5 image circle which is only a bit larger than FF 35mm. Many FF 35mm will be able to cover this format.
16 X 9 (common for video and some like it for landscapes) - this format requires a 50.3mm image circle. Now we are getting quite a bit bigger, but some FF 35mm will cover this format.
7 X 6 (a format the Pentax used for MF) - this almost square format requires a 50.5mm image circle; and requires just at tiny bit bigger than 16 X 9, some FF 35mm lenses will cover this format as well.
5 X 4 (classic format which many including me like for portraits if you want to print 8 x 10s this is your format) - this format requires a 52.7mm image circle. This will be more challenging yet for FF 35mm lenses to cover.
3 X 2 (classic format that is the format of FF 35mm) this format also requires a 52.7 image circle, but as many people will want to use this for landscapes at least some of the time it will at times require good coverage right to the corners.
4 X 3 (classic format this is the native format of the GFX) this format requires a 55mm image circle (or 54.8mm to be precise). This image circle will be difficult for almost all FF 35mm lenses.
Keep in mind usage of the lens will matter. The image circle of a lens is usually smallest at infinity, and that compounded by landscape shooter often wanting excellent performance all the way to the corners makes it much more difficult for a FF 35mm lens to work as a landscape lens. In contrast for portraits many people don't care much at all about the corner performance, so as along as a lens doesn't have to severe of vignetting then a FF 35mm can work pretty well for portraits. Macro or close focus shooting will also be much easier than landscapes, but better performance at the edges and maybe the corners may make it more demanding than portraits. With all this in mind let me describe the FF 35mm lenses I have tested.
Zeiss Milvus 135 f/2 APO - This lens is a lot like a 100mm f/1.5 lens on FF 35mm for crops of 4 by 3 or squarer on the GFX; for crops of 3 X 2 or skinnier it is a lot like a 110mm f/1.6 FF 35mm lens; it a lot like a 175mm f/2.6 lens for 645 film. This lens does remarkably well on the Fuji GFX. The only flaw I can see is when shooting landscapes in the full 4 X 3 the corners are a bit weak, they aren't terrible just not as good as the rest of the image. It is a relatively small area in the corners that is effected and even a 3 X 2 crop completely eliminates that area. See the picture below for some close focus shots of flowers. The first shot of the lilly is full 4 X 3 format and no vignetting correction at all. With the darker corners in this shot none is need. The second shot is also full 4 X 3 format and with the brighter corners I did use vignetting correction here, but it cleaned up nicely and it was just the tips of the corners. The third shot is 3 X 2 and needed nor correction at all.
Zeiss Milvus 85 f/1.4 - This lens is a lot like a 60mm f/1.0 FF 35mm lens for crops of 4 X 3 or squarer; for crops of 3 X 2 or skinnier it is a lot like a 70 f/1.2 FF 35mm lens; it is a lot like a 110mm f/1.8 lens for 645 film. This lens does fine for 1 X 1 portraits; 6 X 7 portraits and even 4 X 5 portraits if you can put up with fairly heavy vignetting. I haven't tested it fully for landscapes yet, but I am not that optimistic. Maybe 16 X 9 will work, but I am pretty sure that 3 X 2 will not.
Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO - This lens is a lot like a 40mm f/1.0 FF 35mm lens for crops of 4 X 3 or squarer; for crops of 3 X 2 or skinnier it is a lot like a 45 f/1.2 FF 35mm lens; it is a lot like a 70mm f/1.8 lens for 645 film. This lens does fine for 1 X 1 portraits; 6 X 7 portraits; and even 4 X 5 portraits but the vignetting is pretty heave for 4 X 5 portraits even heavier than the Milvus 85 f/1.4. I haven't tested it for landscapes yet, but I doubt it will work well.
Zeiss Classic 35 f/1.4 - This lens is a lot like a 25mm f/1.0 FF 35mm lens for crops of 4 X 3 or squarer; for crops of 3 X 2 or skinnier it is a lot like a 28 f/1.2 FF 35mm lens; it is a lot like a 45mm f/1.8 lens for 645 film. This lens is pretty good for 1 X 1 and 6 X 7 portraits, but has too much vignetting for my tastes even for 4 X 5 portraits. I don't hold out really any hope for landscapes with this lens.
Zeiss Otus 28 f/1.4 APO - This lens is a lot like a 20mm f/1.0 FF 35mm lens for crops of 4 X 3 or squarer; for crops of 3 X 2 or skinnier it is a lot like a 23 f/1.2 FF 35mm lens; it is a lot like a 35mm f/1.8 lens for 645 film. Unfortunately this lens is not even suitable for 1 X 1 portraits. It has heavy dark vignetting anywhere beyond the 43mm image circle of FF 35mm, in fact at f/1.4 it doesn't really seem to even cover this image circle. It is a beautiful lens, but it just won't work on the Fuji.
Zeiss Milvus 21 f/2.8 -This lens is a lot like a 15mm f/2.0 FF 35mm lens for crops of 4 X 3 or squarer; for crops of 3 X 2 or skinnier it is a lot like a 17 f/2.3 FF 35mm lens; it is a lot like a 28mm f/3.6 lens for 645 film. Surprisingly this lens works noticeably better than the Otus 28mm. It would work for 1 X 1 portraits, but not much else for my tastes. It does make for intriguing focal lengths, but unless you want to shoot square it probably won't be useful.
I will report on the MF lenses, which all work fine without problems later. Some including the 24 and 40 which are very wide and pretty wide perform very very well. I will add some shots with them soon, but I want to compare them to the Loxia 21 and the Otus 28 on the Sony A7rII and I haven't done those comparisons yet....Show more →
This thread has been around for some time ,-) and is very pleasant to follow. Definitely; is it worth adapting at least some lenses?
Or in the face of the GF lens offering in 2022, isn't it worth adapting lenses?
I'm about to order a Classic Zeiss ZE 2/100mm Makro-Planar for the GFX50R and I intend to test it also with the Mcex 18 and 45 macro tubes. Is this a mistake?
Luis Cunha wrote:
This thread has been around for some time ,-) and is very pleasant to follow. Definitely; is it worth adapting at least some lenses?
Or in the face of the GF lens offering in 2022, isn't it worth adapting lenses?
I'm about to order a Classic Zeiss ZE 2/100mm Makro-Planar for the GFX50R and I intend to test it also with the Mcex 18 and 45 macro tubes. Is this a mistake?
I think that the Makro Planar is very similar if not identical, except for coatings, to the Milvus. At least that what I remember the Zeiss representative for southern California telling me at the time. The lens is exemplary on both 35mm and GFX format, but simply does not like extension tubes at all. Resolution and color fringing go to hell very quickly and do not improve with stopping down, but up to half life size, it's a hard lens to beat, even though there's a tiny amount of easily corrected blueish color fringing. What makes that lens extraordinary is that you can actually shoot with it wide open at f/2 and it's sharp everywhere. Too bad it's not a 1:1 lens.
Hi there, enjoying the thread, just bought a used GFX 50S, a fotodiox Pentax-A 645 adapter and a metabones Nikon F adapter.
I have the Pentax A 35/3.5 and 45/2.8 and a load of old nikkors and a few newer G nikkors.
Plus have ordered a used GF50/3.5.
Still have my Z6II but sold my XT2.
Will be shooting landscapes in New Zealand from October and contribute to the NMFL thread on the Nikon board so will share my findings here too.
Anyone else using Nikon lenses on their gfx ? Either new or old mf lenses? Thoughts?
cadman342001 wrote:
Hi there, enjoying the thread, just bought a used GFX 50S, a fotodiox Pentax-A 645 adapter and a metabones Nikon F adapter.
I have the Pentax A 35/3.5 and 45/2.8 and a load of old nikkors and a few newer G nikkors.
Plus have ordered a used GF50/3.5.
Still have my Z6II but sold my XT2.
Will be shooting landscapes in New Zealand from October and contribute to the NMFL thread on the Nikon board so will share my findings here too.
Anyone else using Nikon lenses on their gfx ? Either new or old mf lenses? Thoughts?
Andy
I did a search on the thread. Here are some relevant posts:
cadman342001 wrote:
Hi there, enjoying the thread, just bought a used GFX 50S, a fotodiox Pentax-A 645 adapter and a metabones Nikon F adapter.
I have the Pentax A 35/3.5 and 45/2.8 and a load of old nikkors and a few newer G nikkors.
Plus have ordered a used GF50/3.5.
Still have my Z6II but sold my XT2.
Will be shooting landscapes in New Zealand from October and contribute to the NMFL thread on the Nikon board so will share my findings here too.
Anyone else using Nikon lenses on their gfx ? Either new or old mf lenses? Thoughts?
Andy
I use quite a few Nikons on the 50sII and most of them are useful in one way or another, either in minor crops or stopped down. It's a matter of tolerances, but I'd say it's certainly worth the investment in a G-capable adapter. The wider lenses are generally more trouble than they're worth, I find, especially their UWA zooms (the Milvus 18's ultimately more useful to me and a much better UWA than anything Nikon produced for F). The f/1.8 and f/1.4 wides (20-50) all vignette like crazy at wider apertures, but most of them are excellent at 5.6 and slower (I'm not a fan of the 28/1.8 and 35/1.8, and there's nothing about their performance on the 50sII that changed my opinion). The 60/2.8G and 85/1.4G are my favorites of the G lenses, especially the 85/1.4, which is a beautiful portrait lens and an absolute gorgeous landscape lens stopped down a bit (low distortion, low field curvature, great flare resistance, brilliant across-the-frame resolution). The 105 and 135 DC lenses retain all their charm on the larger sensor. If you like the 180/2.8D on FF, you'll probably find little to complain about on the GFX. I use the AIS ED 180/2.8 and the AF 80-200/2.8D two touch, but I tend to use them with a Kenko 1.4x for the best sensor coverage with a very minor loss in overall resolution. I haven't tried any of the G super-teles, but the AIS 400/3.5, 500/4P, and 600/5.6 play very well with the sensor and are great bargains in today's market.
So, like I said, a matter of tolerances, but I'm sure you'll find a reason to be excited about your existing F-mounts if you're willing to look for it.
Cheers Brad. I have the 85/1.4G and 180ED. See next post.
freaklikeme wrote:
I use quite a few Nikons on the 50sII and most of them are useful in one way or another, either in minor crops or stopped down. It's a matter of tolerances, but I'd say it's certainly worth the investment in a G-capable adapter. The wider lenses are generally more trouble than they're worth, I find, especially their UWA zooms (the Milvus 18's ultimately more useful to me and a much better UWA than anything Nikon produced for F). The f/1.8 and f/1.4 wides (20-50) all vignette like crazy at wider apertures, but most of them are excellent at 5.6 and slower (I'm not a fan of the 28/1.8 and 35/1.8, and there's nothing about their performance on the 50sII that changed my opinion). The 60/2.8G and 85/1.4G are my favorites of the G lenses, especially the 85/1.4, which is a beautiful portrait lens and an absolute gorgeous landscape lens stopped down a bit (low distortion, low field curvature, great flare resistance, brilliant across-the-frame resolution). The 105 and 135 DC lenses retain all their charm on the larger sensor. If you like the 180/2.8D on FF, you'll probably find little to complain about on the GFX. I use the AIS ED 180/2.8 and the AF 80-200/2.8D two touch, but I tend to use them with a Kenko 1.4x for the best sensor coverage with a very minor loss in overall resolution. I haven't tried any of the G super-teles, but the AIS 400/3.5, 500/4P, and 600/5.6 play very well with the sensor and are great bargains in today's market.
So, like I said, a matter of tolerances, but I'm sure you'll find a reason to be excited about your existing F-mounts if you're willing to look for it....Show more →
I'm pondering a GFX adventure, and digging into this intimidating thread I'm seeing that I have my work cut out for me if I want to select adapted lenses to keep costs low... 77 pages of reports from GFX users!
Has anyone compiled a list of lenses that have been tested for a lack of vignette when adapted to a GFX body? Or is everyone building their own mental lists based on user reports?
For what it's worth, I'm most interested in adapting EF lenses due to their AF and electronic aperture control, and I'm looking for a macro, a telezoom, and a 'fast fifty'. It seems there are numerous options!
CKrueger wrote:
I'm pondering a GFX adventure, and digging into this intimidating thread I'm seeing that I have my work cut out for me if I want to select adapted lenses to keep costs low... 77 pages of reports from GFX users!
Has anyone compiled a list of lenses that have been tested for a lack of vignette when adapted to a GFX body? Or is everyone building their own mental lists based on user reports?
For what it's worth, I'm most interested in adapting EF lenses due to their AF and electronic aperture control, and I'm looking for a macro, a telezoom, and a 'fast fifty'. It seems there are numerous options! ...Show more →
After reviewing this list and reading this thread, I came to the conclusion that adaptation results are very subjective. I tested my EF lenses, some worked very well within certain conditions - but none are 100% IMO.
After reviewing this list and reading this thread, I came to the conclusion that adaptation results are very subjective. I tested my EF lenses, some worked very well within certain conditions - but none are 100% IMO.
Thank you very much!! I'll take it with a grain of salt, but this really helps kickstart my research by knocking a ton of lenses off the list right away.
Doing a lot of reading today and reviewing that list, it seems telezooms are one type of lens that doesn’t often adapt well. The best I could find was the original Canon 70-200/4. I know it had a good reputation, but that was back in the days of ~12mpixel. If I end up shooting GFX long-term I might pick that up and save a bucket of cash on the 100-200.
Is there any other EF telezoom that people here like?
It also looks like the Sigma 70/2.8 is a fine macro lens, if a bit short, and there are many choices for fast primes in the 50-85 range. I’ve always wanted the 1st gen 85/1.2L, warts and all, and it would also adapt nicely to my Z9.
in way to me few vintage- helios 44m-7,asashi super takumar 50/1.4 and zeiss jena pancolar zebra 50/1.8 thorium 8blades lenses keeping eye on super tak 8element
keeping eye on super tak 8element 