p.2 #1 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I was testing lenses a few days ago; I didn't run out of image circle using 10mm rise (horizontal format). I'll get some samples posted soon.
I read somewhere that the Fuji 23 is less prone to "stretched" corners than most wide lenses. Seems to be true judging from samples I've been looking at. Anyone agree/disagree? Stretching is definitely present with the 24 tilt-shift.
Compared to some full frame lenses, I have found that, in my very limited testing. the 23mm is less prone to distortion, particularly in the corners. My 18mm Zeiss I used on Sony exhibited sharp but heavily distorted compared to the GF23. It really is a very nice piece of glass.
p.2 #2 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
I was testing lenses a few days ago; I didn't run out of image circle using 10mm rise (horizontal format). I'll get some samples posted soon.
I read somewhere that the Fuji 23 is less prone to "stretched" corners than most wide lenses. Seems to be true judging from samples I've been looking at. Anyone agree/disagree? Stretching is definitely present with the 24 tilt-shift.
If it is properly rectilinear, I’m trying to understand how it will exhibit more or less perspective distortion at the same or equivalent focal length on a different format as any other rectilinear corrected lens...
p.2 #3 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
mjm6 wrote:
If it is properly rectilinear, I’m trying to understand how it will exhibit more or less perspective distortion at the same or equivalent focal length on a different format as any other rectilinear corrected lens...
Not perspective distortion, but "stretched" corners, particularly noticeable to me with foliage. This isn't the same as the type of perspective distortion in which a circle becomes an oval, for example. Various lenses do have more/less of this. The big Zeiss 15/2.8 Distagon has less than many, but some is still visible. I'm not seeing any on the Fuji 23/4 samples that I've looked at.
p.2 #4 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
DannyBurkPhoto wrote: mjm6 wrote:
This perspective distortion is the main issue I have with my aps-c wide angle images that I am hoping will be resolved/minimized with the GFX/23. Looking at the online sample images from the new 8-16/2.8 seems just as bad as my 10-24. It makes me cringe when I look at these otherwise wonderful images and the corners look like someone just took the print and stretched it out.
p.2 #5 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
Not perspective distortion, but "stretched" corners, particularly noticeable to me with foliage. This isn't the same as the type of perspective distortion in which a circle becomes an oval, for example. Various lenses do have more/less of this. The big Zeiss 15/2.8 Distagon has less than many, but some is still visible. I'm not seeing any on the Fuji 23/4 samples that I've looked at.
Stretched corners is perspective distortion.
The only way that one lens has more than another is if there is subtly different levels of true rectilinear correction.
For example, a lens that has a subtle barrel distortion will show less apparent corner stretching than a truly rectilinear lens. A lens with pincushion or mustache distortion will appear to show more corner pulling.
If you aren’t comparing the exact FOV then that could easily be the reason for the apparent difference because subtle differences get magnified pretty quickly at the wide end. But if you are covering the same conditions, there will be no difference in this as long as the lenses are truly rectilinear corrected.
p.2 #6 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
Off-topic, a bit. Any recommendations for EF-mount lens adapters from those GFX users who are using Canon glass? I'm considering a 50S but would need to adapt my TS-E lenses, so manual focus only is fine but want aperture control. Seems like Techart’s is a favorite.
p.2 #7 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
Right now I have a Techart (since getting the camera nearly 3 weeks ago). I only discovered a few days ago that the issue with it using the GFX 63mm lens profile hasn't completely gone away; it still applies it unless you press the adapter's silver button each time you turn on the camera or attach a lens or the adapter. There's a considerable difference in results with/without the erroneous profile applied. I did a number of test shots last night; with the Otus 85, for example, that incorrect profile introduces strong pincushion distortion that isn't present otherwise.
It's easily corrected if you remember to press the button. All the same, I've ordered a Kipon adapter to compare, which should be here next week.
p.2 #12 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
DannyBurkPhoto wrote:
Yes! The Kipon works great and doesn't require any special techniques. I'm using it as my primary adapter, but kept the Techart as a backup.
Dan, thanks for checking back. Special techniques (like remembering to press the Techart function button) aside, any reason not to use the Techart and favor the Kipon?
p.2 #13 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Dan, thanks for checking back. Special techniques (like remembering to press the Techart function button) aside, any reason not to use the Techart and favor the Kipon?
Not that I can see. The Techart works fine as long as you remember to press and hold the button. I'm apt to forget, so I have an automatic preference for the Kipon, but I kept the Techart as a backup just in case something goes awry with the Kipon while I'm on a trip. (Not an idle worry - my Metabones suddenly stopped working late last year and had to be replaced.)
p.2 #14 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
I'm back with an update on the GF23 vs Canon 24 tilt-shift (version ii). Although I thought the Canon was quite good, I couldn't ignore the universal praise for the GF23, and bought one a couple of weeks ago. I've done various test shooting at the local greenhouse, and found some interesting results that I'll post below.
There's a much bigger difference than I expected - the GF smokes the Canon. In the center, they're about the same when going down a few stops; toward the edges, there's no comparison. The latter holds at every aperture and focus distance that I tried. I'll post a sample set from each lens, with GF23 first. All are f/11, giving every benefit to the Canon, since that's its best aperture overall, *and* the GF versions lose a hair of sharpness compared to f/8. They're converted from RAW with the same moderate sharpening and slight lifting of shadows; no movements on the Canon. Samples include the full image (at reduced size) + crops from top, center, and right side (at 100%).
p.2 #15 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
Sorry not clear, is the GF23 much better or same as 24TSE? Flowers shot, GF23mm looks better to me. Wish the shots were side by side for easier comparison.
p.2 #16 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
bobby350z wrote:
Sorry not clear, is the GF23 much better or same as 24TSE? Flowers shot, GF23mm looks better to me. Wish the shots were side by side for easier comparison.
The GF is far better except in the center, which is roughly equal. Flowers, etc near the edge are much sharper on the GF.
p.2 #18 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
Probably you would not even see that part on 35 mm full frame camera. So no surprise that Canon is weaker at the edges (lens is designed for 36mms wide sensor and not for 44mm).
p.2 #19 · GFX 23mm lens vs adapted Canon 24/3.5 ii tilt-shift
D_Sh wrote:
Probably you would not even see that part on 35 mm full frame camera. So no surprise that Canon is weaker at the edges (lens is designed for 36mms wide sensor and not for 44mm).
But it's designed to use those outer portions for tilt and shift, or there would be no point in creating it as a "tilt shift" lens. If one were not going to use movements (or, in this case, the enlarged image circle to cover 44x33), you may as well use an ordinary 35mm format lens.
