What adapters are you using for this series? Nicely done to show the versatility of the system with adapted glass. My GFX100S shows up next week. Besides the native 35-70 I bought, I'll be adapting two Contax 645 lenses (120 and the 140) and the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 mkIII. I might even give a try with the 400mm F4 DO II. I've got Fringer adapters for both the Contax and Canon EF.
helimat wrote:
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.
100S + Rokkor-PF 85/1.7
I bet you can get some serious swirl going with the 85.
I need to fill in a gap between GF 110/2-120/4 and GF 250/4.As I like Zeiss IQ best ,my thoughts go towards adapting 180/4 Zeiss Sonnar for Hasselblad.Could you please share your experience and (preferably) sample images from this lens adapted to GFX 100s or GFX 50R/S/II?
Peire wrote:
I need to fill in a gap between GF 110/2-120/4 and GF 250/4.As I like Zeiss IQ best ,my thoughts go towards adapting 180/4 Zeiss Sonnar for Hasselblad.Could you please share your experience and (preferably) sample images from this lens adapted to GFX 100s or GFX 50R/S/II?
I had the lens and liked it quite a bit. It performs well but of course is quite big and heavy and has a fairly slow max aperture. There are other lenses to consider including several 210 f/4 lenses in medium format and the very nice, but bigger Mamiya 200 f/2.8 APO. If you want smaller there are some interesting FF 35mm options to consider. My favorite was the Angenieux 180 f/2.3 APO, which covers the sensor well and is smaller and lighter than the Zeiss, with a considerably faster max aperture. When I got the Angenieux I rarely used the Hassy/Zeiss. If it were for landscapes, I would still prefer the Hassy, but for everything else I would prefer the Angenieux.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I had the lens and liked it quite a bit. It performs well but of course is quite big and heavy and has a fairly slow max aperture. There are other lenses to consider including several 210 f/4 lenses in medium format and the very nice, but bigger Mamiya 200 f/2.8 APO. If you want smaller there are some interesting FF 35mm options to consider. My favorite was the Angenieux 180 f/2.3 APO, which covers the sensor well and is smaller and lighter than the Zeiss, with a considerably faster max aperture. When I got the Angenieux I rarely used the Hassy/Zeiss. If it were for landscapes, I would still prefer the Hassy, but for everything else I would prefer the Angenieux....Show more →
Thank you Steve.Size and weight is not a problem,as 180/4 Sonnar isn't significantly heavier or longer than,say, GF 120/4 macro.IQ is the most important factor here.I mean not only good sharpness/microcontract/colour rendition but also the lack of vignetting and corner softness that many FF lenses present.f4 is OK as well - both GF 120 and GF 250 have the same speed.Also 200 or 210mm is too close to 250/4 GF.
Peire wrote:
I need to fill in a gap between GF 110/2-120/4 and GF 250/4.As I like Zeiss IQ best ,my thoughts go towards adapting 180/4 Zeiss Sonnar for Hasselblad.Could you please share your experience and (preferably) sample images from this lens adapted to GFX 100s or GFX 50R/S/II?
I've only used the Sonnar 180 on the Pentax 645D and Z, and it's a strong enough performer on those. I preferred the FE Sonnar 150/2.8. It's about 400g lighter thanks to the lack of central shutter, a stronger portrait lens wide open, and as good landscaper stopped down. If you can live with the shorter focal length, I highly recommend it.
freaklikeme wrote:
I've only used the Sonnar 180 on the Pentax 645D and Z, and it's a strong enough performer on those. I preferred the FE Sonnar 150/2.8. It's about 400g lighter thanks to the lack of central shutter, a stronger portrait lens wide open, and as good landscaper stopped down. If you can live with the shorter focal length, I highly recommend it.
Thank you Bradley.Lighter 150/2.8 Sonnar is tempting,yet a bit too close to 120/4 GF Macro,which I use as a regular tele too.I will have a closer look at it though.
You have 110-120 and 250mm so budget is not the issue. Why not add 100-200mm GF to the mix. It is pretty light weight, no vignetting issues, is relatively cheap if bought used. Why complicate life for no reason.
bobby350z wrote:
You have 110-120 and 250mm so budget is not the issue. Why not add 100-200mm GF to the mix. It is pretty light weight, no vignetting issues, is relatively cheap if bought used. Why complicate life for no reason.
The reason for not to adding 100-200/5.6 is that it's image quality on 50 MPX sensors of Fuji GFX 50/s/s2/R is barely OK in the image corners and between 170 and 200.Thus I doubt this lens will get satisfactory results on my Fuji GFX 100s,wich has 2x more pixel count.I would probably go for it on condition some real life examples convince me it is comparable on FGX 100s to 50R/S/S2.
So far I saw the test showing 100-200 is sharp in the GFX 100s's image center,but I still do not know much about edges/corners performance.Common sense says this lens will have subpar overall IQ for GFX 100s.
If you're looking in the 180mm range and okay with rare-ish options, I tested the Fuji 100-200 against the CV 180/4. The CV was a smidge sharper, even outside the 21mm image circle it was designed for, and had better color correction. It's much smaller and lighter, and somehow still doesn't hard vignette.
But for landscape purposes, cropping a Zeiss 135/2 was easily better than either. Much better corners, no contest at all. I did my tests at f5.6 with everything rescaled to 8k resolution using Capture 1's default rescaling/export.
Finally i managed to find some full res pictures taken with GFX 100s and GF 100-200/5.6 at around 200mm and they look good to me.So the order for 100-200/5.6 GF is placed and I should be getting it tomorrow.
Peire wrote:
The reason for not to adding 100-200/5.6 is that it's image quality on 50 MPX sensors of Fuji GFX 50/s/s2/R is barely OK in the image corners and between 170 and 200.Thus I doubt this lens will get satisfactory results on my Fuji GFX 100s,wich has 2x more pixel count.I would probably go for it on condition some real life examples convince me it is comparable on FGX 100s to 50R/S/S2.
So far I saw the test showing 100-200 is sharp in the GFX 100s's image center,but I still do not know much about edges/corners performance.Common sense says this lens will have subpar overall IQ for GFX 100s.
Have you used it yourself? It is weak compared to 250mm f4 but is a zoom and gives more flexibility. I can bet you don't see any differences unless you print 40x30 or higher. I had it for a while. I was surprised by it. I sold it as I needed to the fund 250mm f4.
