May I ask: which Contax 645 > Fujifilm GF adapter do you use on the GFX? Steel or Fringer or …? How does the AF work with the Contax lens? Thx Chris
Peter Figen wrote:
A quick little in studio test of the close focusing abilities of the Contax 350mm f/4, which focuses to just under 6 ft. While you would generally use this lens for further distances, I had a moment while documenting this sax and tried this lens out at somewhere in the six to seven foot range. What I found is that wide open it sucked, while shooting at closer to infinity it was fine wide open or a stop down. Stopping down to f/11, while not in the same league as the Contax 120mm macro, it's really not bad at all. The lens is a freaking beast, but it is a long, fairly fast lens designed for medium format. ...Show more →
grasmuc wrote:
May I ask: which Contax 645 > Fujifilm GF adapter do you use on the GFX? Steel or Fringer or …? How does the AF work with the Contax lens? Thx Chris
Chris - I'm using the new model Fringer adapter, and while I have not tested the autofocus on this lens yet, I do have the 210mm f/4 lens where the AF works perfectly, and, of course, their macro is manual focus and is perfect as well on that adapter. The only bad thing about the Fringer Contax adapter is that it was $200 more than the Canon EF adapter. A small thing considering the overall expenditure.
When I bought the Canon 300mm f/4 IS, it was horrible everywhere but the center so I sold it and bought the non IS version, and when initially testing it, it was great, and I never saw any vignetting at all until I shot with it out in Palm Springs a few weeks ago, and there it was, plain as day, the same as in your shots. If it's against sky or something relatively smooth, it's easy to fix but sometimes it's impossible - well, nothing's impossible given enough time. Maybe there's an internal baffle that can be trimmed to remove that vignette. Hmmm.
Peter Figen wrote:
When I bought the Canon 300mm f/4 IS, it was horrible everywhere but the center so I sold it and bought the non IS version, and when initially testing it, it was great, and I never saw any vignetting at all until I shot with it out in Palm Springs a few weeks ago, and there it was, plain as day, the same as in your shots. If it's against sky or something relatively smooth, it's easy to fix but sometimes it's impossible - well, nothing's impossible given enough time. Maybe there's an internal baffle that can be trimmed to remove that vignette. Hmmm.
I don't think it would be too difficult to correct in post... But I left it as is for those that were curious how it performed out of the box. But yes, might be worth having a look to see if a modification could be done. I found the IBIS struggled with the 300mm focal length, however.
helimat wrote:
I don't think it would be too difficult to correct in post... But I left it as is for those that were curious how it performed out of the box. But yes, might be worth having a look to see if a modification could be done. I found the IBIS struggled with the 300mm focal length, however.
No, with this subject, it's a simple fix in Ps, but with a complex subject, it's, well, a bit more complex.
helimat wrote:
I don't think it would be too difficult to correct in post... But I left it as is for those that were curious how it performed out of the box. But yes, might be worth having a look to see if a modification could be done. I found the IBIS struggled with the 300mm focal length, however.
No, with this subject, it's a simple fix in Ps, but with a complex subject, it's, well, a bit more complex.
Rented the GFX 100s for thanksgiving weekend. Love the files, not quite the leap from the my Leica SL2 that I was expecting.
I'm having a greater than expected issue with the viewfinder blackout after taking a photo, really do not like it at all. Will probably prevent me from purchasing a GFX currently
3BIGMAMAS wrote:
Hello guys ! What is your general opinion regarding Canon lenses on the GFX system?
I mean L lenses
The tilt/shift lenses especially the 50 f/2.8 L TSE, 90 f/2.8L TSE, and 135 f/4L TSE can be excellent for the GFX. Most Canon L lenses however, IMO, don't have a wide enough image circle to work well on the GFX. Everyone has different tolerances for performance in the edges and corners and there are some lenses that some people like, but personally I prefer the Fuji lenses and medium format lenses over almost all smaller format lenses including Canon L lenses.
3BIGMAMAS wrote:
Hello guys ! What is your general opinion regarding Canon lenses on the GFX system?
I mean L lenses
You really have to take it on a lens by lens basis combined with your intended use, and don't limit yourself to just Canon brand 35mm lenses.
The 11-24 is great from 15mm to 20mm. The 35mm 1.4II turns into a fab 28mm perfect for limited depth of field close up environmental portraits, but vignettes past about ten feet. The Sigma ART series are generally quite good. I have the 50mm 1.4, the 70mm 2.8 Macro and the 135mm 1.8, all of which are good with the 135 being nothing short of amazing. The Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2 macro is excellent.The Canon 200mm 2.8 is very good. The 300mm f/4 IS is not good as it's only sharp in the center. The non IS version is optically very good but you will have to fix the small amount of vignette in the corners or crop it a bit. The 200mm 1.8 is very good, but another beast, but almost no vignette even wide open and sharp sharp sharp. And the Canon 85mm 1.4 does very well too. The three aforementioned latest generation Canon tilt-shift lenses are all very good, but the 24mm v2 is also quite good, but very sensitive to accurate focus, which is often difficult on the 100s due to the low resolution viewfinder, so often very slight focus bracketing on that lens will make a huge difference (same with the 11-24) in how sharp your images are, and this is something to stress, as it's not talked about much. Too many people will use a lens once and then write it off when the real problem is that the only problem is that the focus is off just a tiny bit.
The Fuji lenses are good, but they're usually large and much slower than the adapted lenses, most often f/4 or f/5.6 with the 80mm and 110mm exceptions. I also have three Contax 645 lenses which work very well adapted. So there are really quite a large number of viable lens options out there to make a nice system, and with Fuji just releasing the 20-35mm zoom, which I picked up on Monday, it's looking pretty good in Fuji land.
Peter Figen wrote:
You really have to take it on a lens by lens basis combined with your intended use, and don't limit yourself to just Canon brand 35mm lenses.
The 11-24 is great from 15mm to 20mm. The 35mm 1.4II turns into a fab 28mm perfect for limited depth of field close up environmental portraits, but vignettes past about ten feet. The Sigma ART series are generally quite good. I have the 50mm 1.4, the 70mm 2.8 Macro and the 135mm 1.8, all of which are good with the 135 being nothing short of amazing. The Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2 macro is excellent.The Canon 200mm 2.8 is very good. The 300mm f/4 IS is not good as it's only sharp in the center. The non IS version is optically very good but you will have to fix the small amount of vignette in the corners or crop it a bit. The 200mm 1.8 is very good, but another beast, but almost no vignette even wide open and sharp sharp sharp. And the Canon 85mm 1.4 does very well too. The three aforementioned latest generation Canon tilt-shift lenses are all very good, but the 24mm v2 is also quite good, but very sensitive to accurate focus, which is often difficult on the 100s due to the low resolution viewfinder, so often very slight focus bracketing on that lens will make a huge difference (same with the 11-24) in how sharp your images are, and this is something to stress, as it's not talked about much. Too many people will use a lens once and then write it off when the real problem is that the only problem is that the focus is off just a tiny bit.
The Fuji lenses are good, but they're usually large and much slower than the adapted lenses, most often f/4 or f/5.6 with the 80mm and 110mm exceptions. I also have three Contax 645 lenses which work very well adapted. So there are really quite a large number of viable lens options out there to make a nice system, and with Fuji just releasing the 20-35mm zoom, which I picked up on Monday, it's looking pretty good in Fuji land.
I don't disagree with what Peter says here in any way, except to note that in addition to the 80 f/1.7 and 100 f/2, Fuji has also announced a 55 f/1.7, so fast GF mount lenses are going to be good options. There is of course the 45 f/2.8 and 63 f/2.8 create nice OOF rendering in my opinion and have fairly shallow depth of field as well. Like Peter noted Contax 645 lenses can be a great option too. I had the 80 f/2 and it was a very nice, although not modern rendering, lens, and the Contax 645 120 f4 APO macro is one of my all time favorite lenses.
With regard to FF 35mm lenses. My favorite is the Zeiss Milvus/ZE/ZF 135 f/2 APO, which works wonderfully on the GFX and why I haven't tried any other 135mm lenses on my GFX. If you need a longer focal length the Canon FD 300 f/2.8L is fantastic on the GFX and cover the sensor well. I have tried a lot of FF 35mm lenses (about 25 or so) and it didn't just try them once but I had each for about 6 months and these two are the only ones that were problem free. I liked some others, but generally I had to crop in at least some circumstances with those lenses.
Steve - I'll reiterate with the Sigma 135. Full coverage. Sharp to the corners wide open and the autofocus is exceptionally accurate even shooting wide open. I most recently used that along with the 200mm 2.8 shooting outdoor music where I could be all around the stage, so moving musicians shooting wide open in not the most ideal light, and both lenses were just crazy good. Maybe the tiniest bit of red fringing with the 200 that Capture One instantly took care of.
And as far as those Contax lenses go, I'll agree with you regarding the 120. Superb, plus it focuses to 1:1. No AF and no stabilization, but quite a remarkable lens. I also have the 210mm f/4 which to me seems very good at distances closer than about 75 feet or so with great AF, but it's the 350mm f/4 that I searched out and bought a month ago that so far is looking to be very very good. Mostly using it for tele landscape or city scape types of images, and the initial testing looks very good. Testing long lenses is tricky as so often there are atmospheric or thermal interferences degrading the scene so, for testing purposes, you have to seek out areas where that is not a problem and test away. So far, very good. It's also touted as a decent close up lens, focusing to under six feet, but I found the performance lacking at MFD with both significant focus shift when stopping down and nothing usable until f/11. Usable but nothing close to the macro or the tilt-shift Canons. You probably need a Sherpa to haul it around but at least it's sharp lens with no vignetting at all.
I agree with Peter that the Art 135 is the stronger overall performer (something that's also true in its native format). If they worked out an arrangement to use the GF mount, they could port the lens over as is. Like Steve, though, I'm sticking with the APO-Sonnar. I'd rather have its lightly undercorrected SA wide open, gentler focus transitions, and great manual experience. Stopped down, the across the frame performance is pleasing for landscapes.
I used a Contax Distagon 35/3.5 as a placeholder before I got my Rodenstock 35/4 adapted. I was very happy to be free of the bulk, but I had few complaints about the optical performance. Nicely solid all-arounder with a particularly sweet wide-open draw mid to close that made it great for environmental portraiture. It's probably a little too attention-grabbing to make a great street lens, but it certainly has the draw of one.
Geoff CB wrote:
Rented the GFX 100s for thanksgiving weekend. Love the files, not quite the leap from the my Leica SL2 that I was expecting.
I'm having a greater than expected issue with the viewfinder blackout after taking a photo, really do not like it at all. Will probably prevent me from purchasing a GFX currently
Don't want to completely derail the thread. For me personally I much prefer the handling of the Leica SL2 and SL2s. It's more responsive, with a better viewfinder, and easier to use with adapted lenses, and the thick sensor stack of the 100s had a larger effect in the corners with some of my M glass than I expected.
I do love the files and the 4x3 aspect ratio, but the sensor size did not make as big a difference as I expected for the images.
Fuji GFX with Voigtlander 40mm f2 SL Lens (Nikon Mount)
A nice finding, one of my all-time favourite lenses (Rokkor 85/1.7) covers the GFX sensor surprisingly well. Certainly not clinically corner to corner, I'd say just adds a little character bonus.
