markhout wrote:
Can't wait to see adaptions of Z mount lenses reviewed.
Z lenses won't be able to used on the GFX without a converter with glass. The Z mount is considerably closer to the sensor than the GFX mount and I doubt anyone will make a converter with glass. It would be expensive and many Z mount lenses would not cover the 55mm diameter of the GFX sensor (i.e., image circle). Z mount lenses are designed for to cover a 43mm image circle after all.
Thank you Steve, I am quite sensitive to vignetting on my gfx so I imagine I wouldn't be happy. Thank you for the assurances.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I haven't been able to find my post when I reported on the Milvus 25 f/1.4 and Milvus 35 f/1.4. My post at the beginning of the thread didn't include those lenses and as I didn't have them yet (I don't think they were even produced yet). You will see in the posts from the beginning of this thread that the Milvus 21 f/2.8 and the Otus 28 f/1.4 did very poorly on the GFX. Among the worst of any lenses I tested for vignetting and coverage of the sensor. The Milvus 25 f/1.4 and Milvus 35 f/1.4 were a bit better, but still had substantial vignetting. I am pretty sure I posted about these lenses in the middle of the thread somewhere when I got them, but perhaps I did not. The bottom line is for me, they had too much vignetting to use without substantial cropping as I said above. You may be happy with these lenses, but I was not....Show more →
While there are some fantastic Z lenses, the better F lenses give up nothing other than the need to use an adapter on Z bodies, and they have the significant benefit of being usable on pretty much any mount.
Buy a Canon 50/1.2 or 85/1.2, or a Nikon 58/1.4 or 105/1.4, and you can use it pretty much anywhere with better performance than on native EF/F bodies. I think M43 is one of the few mounts that doesn’t have an AF adapter at this point. It’s like we finally got what Tamron was aiming at with their Adaptall lenses!
CKrueger wrote:
While there are some fantastic Z lenses, the better F lenses give up nothing other than the need to use an adapter on Z bodies, and they have the significant benefit of being usable on pretty much any mount.
Buy a Canon 50/1.2 or 85/1.2, or a Nikon 58/1.4 or 105/1.4, and you can use it pretty much anywhere with better performance than on native EF/F bodies. I think M43 is one of the few mounts that doesn’t have an AF adapter at this point. It’s like we finally got what Tamron was aiming at with their Adaptall lenses!
Not sure when I'll get around to filming the YouTube review, probably early Fall but here are some sample images from the Pentax 645 45mm f/2.8 on the GFX 100S. All wide open @ 2.8. Just your typical local summer car show / music event.
Great lens, really nice rendering to it. Definitely get the medium format look. Not too bad with flare, fair bit of CA wide open, but overall a wonderful performer as far as sharpness/contrast. I think I paid $175 for my copy..!
That Pentax would be manual focus correct? I am not good in MF, so for my needs Tamron 45mm f1.8 works much better. A bit more expensive at $350 something and you need Fringer adapter.
bobby350z wrote:
That Pentax would be manual focus correct? I am not good in MF, so for my needs Tamron 45mm f1.8 works much better. A bit more expensive at $350 something and you need Fringer adapter.
Yep! The only autofocus 645 system for the GFX is the Contax.. There is a 45mm 2.8 for that system, but I haven't picked up a copy yet.
My next YT review is on the Contax 645 80/2 though, if you're interested in how the Contax 645 AF performs (which it does fairly impressively for a ~25-year-old system). Adapter is painfully expensive though, ~ $700.
cbass wrote:
How is the vignette on the Zenitar 50/1.7? Do both the f2 and f/1.7 vignette the same or is one better than the other?
Is either one capable of good corner sharpness stopped down to f/8-f/11?
very same. but i like more warm colors from M2s,also it is lighter,smaller,but plastiky,my favorit. 50/1.7 is top end quality,superior smooth focus,full metal,and better vigneting control. i m selling new 50/1.7. it is very top and best bokeh from 50 of cccp lenses. im use fast lenses for they made,only at f2-2.8 ,so dont know about f8-11 apertures. think all at f8-11 good corner sharpnes and no vigneting
I'm trying to plan out how to do the one in October. I've never adapted lenses to my 50SII, so I'm thinking about renting an adapter and using a Nikon/Canon 150-600mm or a very long lens. I'd like to get to at least 600mm since it'll be about 480mm equivalent in use.
Open to any suggestions and advice. I'm leaning rental because I don't want to break the bank, but I'm open to any thoughts on the right gear for the shot!
flower_power wrote:
Has anyone shot a solar eclipse with a GFX?
I'm trying to plan out how to do the one in October. I've never adapted lenses to my 50SII, so I'm thinking about renting an adapter and using a Nikon/Canon 150-600mm or a very long lens. I'd like to get to at least 600mm since it'll be about 480mm equivalent in use.
Open to any suggestions and advice. I'm leaning rental because I don't want to break the bank, but I'm open to any thoughts on the right gear for the shot!
Do you have the filters etc? Have you done solar imaging before?
Seems like a hell of an expensive camera to experiment with.
Pentax 645 600/5.6 obviously covers and is very good. I think most long tele primes cover without issue but not sure about zooms. Avoid the Nikon 500PF as that vignettes, I would avoid Nikon PF and Canon DO lenses in general for any kind of solar/astro imaging.
