Peter Figen wrote: Luis Cunha wroteSteve Spencer wroteI 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.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
anyone here using Contax 645 lenses on Fuji GFX body? Any recommendation for adapter please?
I'm not sure if Fringer is as good for the cost but if it is then I may go for it. Recommend?
prashant wrote:
Hi
anyone here using Contax 645 lenses on Fuji GFX body? Any recommendation for adapter please?
I'm not sure if Fringer is as good for the cost but if it is then I may go for it. Recommend?
I have used the Contax 645 35 f/3.5; 55 f/2.8; 80 f/2; and the 120 f/4 APO macro and I used the Finger adapter and thought it worked well. I use the GFX 50s which only has contrast detect AF, so AF was slow but was accurate. I usually manual focussed, however, which was faster and as accurate for me anyway. The lenses are all very nice, but you should know what you want. For example the 35 f/3.5 won't be as sharp of a landscape lens as the Fuji GF 30, and the 80 f/2 is not that sharp wide open at all. These are twenty year old designs and the age shows. One exception is the 120 f/4 APO macro, which is fantastic and I believe is the best macro I have ever used.
Steve Spencer wrote: prashant wroteHi
anyone here using Contax 645 lenses on Fuji GFX body? Any recommendation for adapter please?
I'm not sure if Fringer is as good for the cost but if it is then I may go for it. Recommend?I have used the Contax 645 35 f/3.5; 55 f/2.8; 80 f/2; and the 120 f/4 APO macro and I used the Finger adapter and thought it worked well. I use the GFX 50s which only has contrast detect AF, so AF was slow but was accurate. I usually manual focussed, however, which was faster and as accurate for me anyway. The lenses are all very nice, but you should know what you want. For example the 35 f/3.5 won't be as sharp of a landscape lens as the Fuji GF 30, and the 80 f/2 is not that sharp wide open at all. These are twenty year old designs and the age shows. One exception is the 120 f/4 APO macro, which is fantastic and I believe is the best macro I have ever used....Show more →
Thanks Steve. Appreciate the response. Yes, I think I can do without AF hence the question. I'm not sure if the adapter allows for any other metadata. Yes, some lenses may not be as sharp. On my Aptus back it seems 80/120 do well. Not tested 35mm yet.
prashant wrote:
Hi
anyone here using Contax 645 lenses on Fuji GFX body? Any recommendation for adapter please?
I'm not sure if Fringer is as good for the cost but if it is then I may go for it. Recommend?
I'm also using the Contax 120mm f/4 Macro, or is it Makro. Fabulous lens with less than zero backlash in its focusing helicoid and goes to 1:1, unlike the Fuji 120 macro. The only thing sharper is likely the Rodenstock 105, but that's a different animal altogether. There seem to be plenty of these available on eBay in the $800-$1000 range. I found mine from Sean at Camera West in Palm Springs for $795 and then found a hood online for $50 used. And those hoods are full on metal with a bayonet attachment and deep as hell. Fringer seemed to be coming out with a new Contax to GFX adapter a couple of months ago and the only place to get it from - and I had to wait a couple of weeks - was from the Fringer website itself. The adapter itself works flawlessly, but it does include a rather useless Arca-Swiss foot bolted to the bottom of the adapter which both doesn't rotate and is too narrow to actually clamp in most A/S type clamps. It just wobbles around in my RRS clamps and is barely acceptably tight in my A/S Cube. My next project, well, not the next, but soon, is going to figure out how to design my own rotating clamp with foot to replace that. That Fringer adapter, unfortunately, was $700, about two bills more than the EF to GFX adapter but it certainly works.
Fast forward to last week. Since I already had the Fringer for the Contax, I looked a what other lenses were out there from Contax, and ended up buying a 210mm f/4 Sonnar for around $300. So cheap that it was worth taking a chance on. I've been testing it for the last few days and the results are interesting. The auto focus is very snappy and accurate on the GFX 100s. That's the good news. Well, there's more good news. The lens is very sharp and has a minimum focusing distance of around 5 feet, but it's almost as if there are two lenses in one with this lens. Images up to about 100 feet away are just fabulous and sharp at every aperture until diffraction hits. You start to see mild degradation at f/16 so I would consider that the limit. Here's were it gets weird. At longer distances - say - fifty to a hundred yards - and more toward the frame edges, there was a wide soft blue color fringing that got better as you stopped down and was more or less manageable by f/11 where Capture One's magical chromatic aberration correct could then take care of it. I think I'll be keeping the lens and just using it for those closer subjects where it excels.
I shot basically the same set of test images outside my studio yesterday with the Canon 200mm 2.8 which was very very sharp with zero color fringing and maybe only a slight softening toward the edges wide open but rapidly improved with stopping down. The 200mm .2.8 does have a mild case of corner vignetting wide open which improves with stopping down and also improves with closer subjects. Then I shot my Canon 200mm 1.8 on the same set of images and while it was bitingly sharp in the center, it has a similar but smaller amount of blue fringing near the edges at the longer distances, which also improved with stopping down, plus a very mild dose of corner vignetting wide open which disappeared as you focused closer, and at those closer distances there was zero evidence of any fringing even wide open. Then I finally shot the same images with the Fuji 100-200mm zoom at the 200mm end of the zoom range and surprising, or not, found it to be similar in performance to the Contax at the furthest distances - softer on the edges with a lot of blueish color fringing that improved with stopping down but never really went away. And of course, that lens starts of at f/5.6 so you'd hope that the mild maximum aperture would have let them design in even better performance but I guess that's why that lens is only, what, $2200 or so.
Maybe there are other options out there like the Mamiya or the Pentax in the 200mm range but I'd have to buy another adapter or two and the lenses themselves to test and still no guarantee that they'd be any better that what I've currently got.
Weirdly, it seems that the best all round 200mm lens I have for the GFX is the Canon 200mm 2.8, despite its mild vignetting, which seems to be quite correctable in Photoshop. The vignetting control in C1 does not come close to matching the vignetting profile of the lens but it's a simple fix in Ps if I want to correct it at all.
So now it's time to make a list of where each one of these lenses performs its best and put Post-Its on them all, or at least make a strong mental note.
Peter Figen wrote: prashant wroteHi
anyone here using Contax 645 lenses on Fuji GFX body? Any recommendation for adapter please?
I'm not sure if Fringer is as good for the cost but if it is then I may go for it. Recommend?I'm also using the Contax 120mm f/4 Macro, or is it Makro. Fabulous lens with less than zero backlash in its focusing helicoid and goes to 1:1, unlike the Fuji 120 macro. The only thing sharper is likely the Rodenstock 105, but that's a different animal altogether. There seem to be plenty of these available on eBay in the $800-$1000 range. I found mine from Sean at Camera West in Palm Springs for $795 and then found a hood online for $50 used. And those hoods are full on metal with a bayonet attachment and deep as hell. Fringer seemed to be coming out with a new Contax to GFX adapter a couple of months ago and the only place to get it from - and I had to wait a couple of weeks - was from the Fringer website itself. The adapter itself works flawlessly, but it does include a rather useless Arca-Swiss foot bolted to the bottom of the adapter which both doesn't rotate and is too narrow to actually clamp in most A/S type clamps. It just wobbles around in my RRS clamps and is barely acceptably tight in my A/S Cube. My next project, well, not the next, but soon, is going to figure out how to design my own rotating clamp with foot to replace that. That Fringer adapter, unfortunately, was $700, about two bills more than the EF to GFX adapter but it certainly works.
Fast forward to last week. Since I already had the Fringer for the Contax, I looked a what other lenses were out there from Contax, and ended up buying a 210mm f/4 Sonnar for around $300. So cheap that it was worth taking a chance on. I've been testing it for the last few days and the results are interesting. The auto focus is very snappy and accurate on the GFX 100s. That's the good news. Well, there's more good news. The lens is very sharp and has a minimum focusing distance of around 5 feet, but it's almost as if there are two lenses in one with this lens. Images up to about 100 feet away are just fabulous and sharp at every aperture until diffraction hits. You start to see mild degradation at f/16 so I would consider that the limit. Here's were it gets weird. At longer distances - say - fifty to a hundred yards - and more toward the frame edges, there was a wide soft blue color fringing that got better as you stopped down and was more or less manageable by f/11 where Capture One's magical chromatic aberration correct could then take care of it. I think I'll be keeping the lens and just using it for those closer subjects where it excels.
I shot basically the same set of test images outside my studio yesterday with the Canon 200mm 2.8 which was very very sharp with zero color fringing and maybe only a slight softening toward the edges wide open but rapidly improved with stopping down. The 200mm .2.8 does have a mild case of corner vignetting wide open which improves with stopping down and also improves with closer subjects. Then I shot my Canon 200mm 1.8 on the same set of images and while it was bitingly sharp in the center, it has a similar but smaller amount of blue fringing near the edges at the longer distances, which also improved with stopping down, plus a very mild dose of corner vignetting wide open which disappeared as you focused closer, and at those closer distances there was zero evidence of any fringing even wide open. Then I finally shot the same images with the Fuji 100-200mm zoom at the 200mm end of the zoom range and surprising, or not, found it to be similar in performance to the Contax at the furthest distances - softer on the edges with a lot of blueish color fringing that improved with stopping down but never really went away. And of course, that lens starts of at f/5.6 so you'd hope that the mild maximum aperture would have let them design in even better performance but I guess that's why that lens is only, what, $2200 or so.
Maybe there are other options out there like the Mamiya or the Pentax in the 200mm range but I'd have to buy another adapter or two and the lenses themselves to test and still no guarantee that they'd be any better that what I've currently got.
Weirdly, it seems that the best all round 200mm lens I have for the GFX is the Canon 200mm 2.8, despite its mild vignetting, which seems to be quite correctable in Photoshop. The vignetting control in C1 does not come close to matching the vignetting profile of the lens but it's a simple fix in Ps if I want to correct it at all.
So now it's time to make a list of where each one of these lenses performs its best and put Post-Its on them all, or at least make a strong mental note.
Thanks for sharing Peter. Interesting to know about canon.
I've 80mm, 45mm, 35mm, 140mm and 120mm. I did get Pentax set to test but sold it recently. I'm testing Mamiya 50mm SHIFT lens. And it is very sharp from 5.6 to circa f14. And shifts in all direction much like Olymus little shift lens. Do I understand correct that Fringer allows for some metadata like focal length etc?
prashant wrote: Peter Figen wroteprashant wroteHi
anyone here using Contax 645 lenses on Fuji GFX body? Any recommendation for adapter please?
I'm not sure if Fringer is as good for the cost but if it is then I may go for it. Recommend?I'm also using the Contax 120mm f/4 Macro, or is it Makro. Fabulous lens with less than zero backlash in its focusing helicoid and goes to 1:1, unlike the Fuji 120 macro. The only thing sharper is likely the Rodenstock 105, but that's a different animal altogether. There seem to be plenty of these available on eBay in the $800-$1000 range. I found mine from Sean at Camera West in Palm Springs for $795 and then found a hood online for $50 used. And those hoods are full on metal with a bayonet attachment and deep as hell. Fringer seemed to be coming out with a new Contax to GFX adapter a couple of months ago and the only place to get it from - and I had to wait a couple of weeks - was from the Fringer website itself. The adapter itself works flawlessly, but it does include a rather useless Arca-Swiss foot bolted to the bottom of the adapter which both doesn't rotate and is too narrow to actually clamp in most A/S type clamps. It just wobbles around in my RRS clamps and is barely acceptably tight in my A/S Cube. My next project, well, not the next, but soon, is going to figure out how to design my own rotating clamp with foot to replace that. That Fringer adapter, unfortunately, was $700, about two bills more than the EF to GFX adapter but it certainly works.
Fast forward to last week. Since I already had the Fringer for the Contax, I looked a what other lenses were out there from Contax, and ended up buying a 210mm f/4 Sonnar for around $300. So cheap that it was worth taking a chance on. I've been testing it for the last few days and the results are interesting. The auto focus is very snappy and accurate on the GFX 100s. That's the good news. Well, there's more good news. The lens is very sharp and has a minimum focusing distance of around 5 feet, but it's almost as if there are two lenses in one with this lens. Images up to about 100 feet away are just fabulous and sharp at every aperture until diffraction hits. You start to see mild degradation at f/16 so I would consider that the limit. Here's were it gets weird. At longer distances - say - fifty to a hundred yards - and more toward the frame edges, there was a wide soft blue color fringing that got better as you stopped down and was more or less manageable by f/11 where Capture One's magical chromatic aberration correct could then take care of it. I think I'll be keeping the lens and just using it for those closer subjects where it excels.
I shot basically the same set of test images outside my studio yesterday with the Canon 200mm 2.8 which was very very sharp with zero color fringing and maybe only a slight softening toward the edges wide open but rapidly improved with stopping down. The 200mm .2.8 does have a mild case of corner vignetting wide open which improves with stopping down and also improves with closer subjects. Then I shot my Canon 200mm 1.8 on the same set of images and while it was bitingly sharp in the center, it has a similar but smaller amount of blue fringing near the edges at the longer distances, which also improved with stopping down, plus a very mild dose of corner vignetting wide open which disappeared as you focused closer, and at those closer distances there was zero evidence of any fringing even wide open. Then I finally shot the same images with the Fuji 100-200mm zoom at the 200mm end of the zoom range and surprising, or not, found it to be similar in performance to the Contax at the furthest distances - softer on the edges with a lot of blueish color fringing that improved with stopping down but never really went away. And of course, that lens starts of at f/5.6 so you'd hope that the mild maximum aperture would have let them design in even better performance but I guess that's why that lens is only, what, $2200 or so.
Maybe there are other options out there like the Mamiya or the Pentax in the 200mm range but I'd have to buy another adapter or two and the lenses themselves to test and still no guarantee that they'd be any better that what I've currently got.
Weirdly, it seems that the best all round 200mm lens I have for the GFX is the Canon 200mm 2.8, despite its mild vignetting, which seems to be quite correctable in Photoshop. The vignetting control in C1 does not come close to matching the vignetting profile of the lens but it's a simple fix in Ps if I want to correct it at all.
So now it's time to make a list of where each one of these lenses performs its best and put Post-Its on them all, or at least make a strong mental note.Thanks for sharing Peter. Interesting to know about canon.
I've 80mm, 45mm, 35mm, 140mm and 120mm. I did get Pentax set to test but sold it recently. I'm testing Mamiya 50mm SHIFT lens. And it is very sharp from 5.6 to circa f14. And shifts in all direction much like Olymus little shift lens. Do I understand correct that Fringer allows for some metadata like focal length etc?
I've been using the Canon 50mm t/s-e Macro on the GFX as well (and the 90 and 135) and they all work exceedingly well. I think the biggest liability is that they only shift 12 millimeters where a native Fuji shift would likely shift more like 15 or 16mm. But since I already had those three, why not use them.
Agree with Peter, Canon 200mm f2.8 is very nice on the GFX. I wish Fuji has something between 110mm f2 and the 250mm f4 at f2.8 atleast. 250mm f4 which I have is a slow lens that I use for landscapes only.
bobby350z wrote:
Agree with Peter, Canon 200mm f2.8 is very nice on the GFX. I wish Fuji has something between 110mm f2 and the 250mm f4 at f2.8 atleast. 250mm f4 which I have is a slow lens that I use for landscapes only.
leonasj wrote: bobby350z wroteAgree with Peter, Canon 200mm f2.8 is very nice on the GFX. I wish Fuji has something between 110mm f2 and the 250mm f4 at f2.8 atleast. 250mm f4 which I have is a slow lens that I use for landscapes only.how sharpness is ef 135/2 vs ef 200/2.8 on gfx?
They are very similar but the 135mm has a much harder vignette unless you're focused closer than about ten feet (three meters). The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is a much better lens optically than the Canon plus there's only a slight vignette.
Every adapted lens has its plusses and minuses and you have to figure out which might work for your own purposes.
Peter Figen wrote: leonasj wrotebobby350z wroteAgree with Peter, Canon 200mm f2.8 is very nice on the GFX. I wish Fuji has something between 110mm f2 and the 250mm f4 at f2.8 atleast. 250mm f4 which I have is a slow lens that I use for landscapes only.how sharpness is ef 135/2 vs ef 200/2.8 on gfx?They are very similar but the 135mm has a much harder vignette unless you're focused closer than about ten feet (three meters). The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is a much better lens optically than the Canon plus there's only a slight vignette.
Every adapted lens has its plusses and minuses and you have to figure out which might work for your own purposes.
I would also recommend the Contax 645 140/2.8 Sonnar, which is relatively compact and light weight, and it is not that expensive. The AF performance is pretty accurate with the Fringes adaptor.
ocean2059 wrote: Peter Figen wroteleonasj wrotebobby350z wroteAgree with Peter, Canon 200mm f2.8 is very nice on the GFX. I wish Fuji has something between 110mm f2 and the 250mm f4 at f2.8 atleast. 250mm f4 which I have is a slow lens that I use for landscapes only.how sharpness is ef 135/2 vs ef 200/2.8 on gfx?They are very similar but the 135mm has a much harder vignette unless you're focused closer than about ten feet (three meters). The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is a much better lens optically than the Canon plus there's only a slight vignette.
leonasj wrote: ocean2059 wrotePeter Figen wroteleonasj wrotebobby350z wroteAgree with Peter, Canon 200mm f2.8 is very nice on the GFX. I wish Fuji has something between 110mm f2 and the 250mm f4 at f2.8 atleast. 250mm f4 which I have is a slow lens that I use for landscapes only.how sharpness is ef 135/2 vs ef 200/2.8 on gfx?They are very similar but the 135mm has a much harder vignette unless you're focused closer than about ten feet (three meters). The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is a much better lens optically than the Canon plus there's only a slight vignette.
Every adapted lens has its plusses and minuses and you have to figure out which might work for your own purposes.I would also recommend the Contax 645 140/2.8 Sonnar, which is relatively compact and light weight, and it is not that expensive. The AF performance is pretty accurate with the Fringes adaptor.contax 140mm very soft lens,even at f5.6 similar to f2.8 https,compact size,but heavy 700gr ://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-645/en/datasheet-zeiss-sonnar-28140-en.pdf
It is a bit of a softy, but a great portrait lens. The Hassy Sonnar 150/2.8 FE starts in roughly the same place as the 140, but improves significantly stopped down if that's the kind of performance you're after (no AF, of course).
ftllens wrote:
yeah the sigma 135 is one of my favorite, but the samyang 135 1.8 (for sony) was more perfect in every way lol
they would make so much money if they sell it for gf mount. it's a god-tier lens
It looks like they designed that from the git-go for an even shorter flange distance so maybe that'd be a total from the ground up redesign, but I really don't know anything about that lens. What, in your mind, makes it even better than the Sigma? Still learning at this age. ha.
it's not sharpness (same sharpness as the sigma), the MFD is the main thing and the bokeh balls are rounder towards the edges. just the overall rendering with these two things make it nice (and also the APO-like performance). it's basically the sigma 135 and batis 135 rolled into one.
it's also lighter cause composite shell (even tho it's big it doesn't feel heavy, only 160g more than batis and 200-400 g lighter than gm or sigma).
it's also 950 now brand new lol
i sold it cause i sold my sony, but if i got a1 again, it's the first lens i would buy (over the gm even)
