My feeling is Zeiss created the perfect 135 in the classic APO-Sonnar 135/2. It's not the sharpest lens wide open, but it is so smooth. Just the right amount of under-corrected SA f/2-2.8 to make it an easy portrait choice, brilliantly sharp from f/4 on. It's one of my best and most reliable cross-platform performers on film, FF digital, and the GFX.
If it weren't that, it'd be the Nikon 135/2 DC. It's certainly not the best corrected lens for CA, but the ability to control the SA correction (under or over) I found very addictive. If Zeiss ever decides to revisit the APO-Sonnar, I'd love to see them add a similar feature.
freaklikeme wrote:
My feeling is Zeiss created the perfect 135 in the classic APO-Sonnar 135/2. It's not the sharpest lens wide open, but it is so smooth. Just the right amount of under-corrected SA f/2-2.8 to make it an easy portrait choice, brilliantly sharp from f/4 on. It's one of my best and most reliable cross-platform performers on film, FF digital, and the GFX.
If it weren't that, it'd be the Nikon 135/2 DC. It's certainly not the best corrected lens for CA, but the ability to control the SA correction (under or over) I found very addictive. If Zeiss ever decides to revisit the APO-Sonnar, I'd love to see them add a similar feature....Show more →
There's another 135 that deserves attention for use on the GFX cameras. That's the manual focus A-mount Sony STF lens. It covers the GFX sensor completely, and the 135 Apo-Sonnar doesn't quite get there. If you like the apodized-lens look, it's got it.
JimKasson wrote:
There's another 135 that deserves attention for use on the GFX cameras. That's the manual focus A-mount Sony STF lens. It covers the GFX sensor completely, and the 135 Apo-Sonnar doesn't quite get there. If you like the apodized-lens look, it's got it.
It does come up a little short of full coverage, but my favorite aspect ratio is 7:5 anyway, and that crop takes care of it under most situations.
I agree about the Sony STF, but the apodized look is definitely different than what the Nikon DC lens is doing. As I understand it, the defocus control just makes slight measured adjustments within a group of optics to under or over correct the SA with no loss in transmission
In case anyone was interested in the coverage of the Leica Macro Elmarit-R 60mm on the GFX.
This is at infinity, wide open.
This is after Adobe flat field correction using a reference image.
Stopping down the vignetting decreases too. At f16 or f22 it starts to get a hard vignette in the extreme corners at infinity. Used closer in it doesn't vignette.
This excites me, I ordered a KMZ 44M-4 after seeing a friend's results with the 44-2 on a Zenit and your post that it gives full sensor coverage. Can't wait to try it out as a lightweight walk-around option and my first adapted lens.
ryvfader wrote:
This excites me, I ordered a KMZ 44M-4 after seeing a friend's results with the 44-2 on a Zenit and your post that it gives full sensor coverage. Can't wait to try it out as a lightweight walk-around option and my first adapted lens.
Helios 44M-x covers 55mm circle.dont know about other vintage lenses.sharpest from all seven helios44m-x is 44m-7.At f2 a bit lacks of contrast,but from f2.8 no need any corrections in Ps.Any hood very help increase contrast on that lens,maybe on all vintage too. My helios got new for 50eur on ebay. just need take to master lubricate focus ring with modern grease as old grease very tight. Late helios are made very high quality ,all metal and glass.Most swirly bokeh has helios 44-2
I bought an old Canon 300/2.8 IS (version 1) to try on the GFX 50S but it doesn’t seem to work at all with my Viltrox adapter. Has anyone gotten this lens to work on GFX?
I have updated the adapter to the latest firmware, and other Canon lenses I have work well.
I had the Canon 300 2.8 L USM on the GFX 100s with the Fringer adapter for a few snaps. Contrast AF worked, corner sharpnes was ok wide open and the vignetting was managable. In fact I applied the Adobe profile for the Sony E 16mm 2.8 and it seemed to be a good match.
Edit: it was the first AF version without IS.
Edit: the non IS original version is now on the compatibility list of the Fringer adapter. When I tested it was not officially supported.
leonasj wrote:
Helios 44M-x covers 55mm circle.dont know about other vintage lenses.sharpest from all seven helios44m-x is 44m-7.At f2 a bit lacks of contrast,but from f2.8 no need any corrections in Ps.Any hood very help increase contrast on that lens,maybe on all vintage too. My helios got new for 50eur on ebay. just need take to master lubricate focus ring with modern grease as old grease very tight. Late helios are made very high quality ,all metal and glass.Most swirly bokeh has helios 44-2
I was looking for a 44M-7 but couldnt find anything I could feel certain was actually a 7 and not a front cover on a 4/5/6 without paying a pretty high price premium. Sort of regretting not having looked into vintage glass earlier since I've had ample opportunities to try and purchase these lenses cheaper in Russia bordering countries over the past few years, however it just wasn't on my radar at the time. The demand for these lenses and the influx of film shooters over the past few years seems to have really driven up the prices in the US for these.
Interestingly a guy on youtube compared the 44-2, 3 and 44M-4,5,6,7's on youtube (&t=885s). Ultimately it seems that the swirling bokeh appearance is affected most by lens contrast and the deeper recession of the optical elements in the 44-2 tend to be less prone to loss of contrast due to less stray light on the lens vs the 44M-X. Your lens hood comment makes a lot of sense with this as more contrast means more visible swirling bokeh based off his conclusions.
Though he was able to reproduce some differences in bokeh shape (past the expected 8v6 blades) by placing a star filter on each lens, and the 44-2 did produce more distortion in this test that couldn't be reproduced in real world testing. There is debate on if the additional distortion in this test was more based on the distance of the filter from the more recessed lens elements on the 44-2 vs 44m-X lenses.
