Steve Spencer wrote:
My thinking is that the gap between 23 and 45 for primes is a pretty big gap and it would be nice to have a prime between those two.
Yes, a 30mm or 35mm would be very nice for us prime users.
stevesanacore wrote:
Will lenses like this cover the mf sensor?
buggz wrote:
In the DPR MF forum there is a user who used this down to 15mm.
At 14mm the shade hood becomes visible.
I just double checked this. It's actually 18mm max without vignette and 17mm with barely any. This is like 14-15mm full-frame equivalent, so that's probably what I was thinking.
rdeloe wrote:
I'll be surprised if Fuji comes out with even one tilt-shift lens for the GFX cameras.* My read is that people who discover they need what that kind of lens can do, but haven't used one before, will go for the software solution instead (using wide angle lenses and correcting verticals during post-processing; focus stacking). I don't view those techniques as a particularly good substitute for camera movements, but they will get the job done for lots of people, and they're only getting easier to do.
Meanwhile there are lots of adapted solutions for die-hard tilt-shifters. I wanted more movements than I was getting on my X cameras with a tilt-shift adapter and OM lenses, so earlier this year I started using a GFX 50R as a "medium format back" on a Toyo VX23D. I'm not limited to whatever focal length a lens manufacturer decides I need. I wanted 35mm, 45mm, 60mm, 80mm, 125mm and 180mm lenses, and now I have them. People who want a turnkey solution for a GFX can go with a Cambo Actus GFX setup, and still adapt all kinds of lenses. And of course there are lots of different tilt-shift adapters for medium format lenses.
* I have exactly zero insider knowledge on Fuji's plans for tilt-shift lenses, so you can take my surprise for what it's worth... ...Show more →
A agree the software solution can work but for architectural photographers, there is no substitute in many situations. there are many Phase One tech camera users out there that depend on shifting wide angle lenses like the 23 and 32mm, (and that's on a larger sensor). If Fuji want's that market they need to provide a solution. If a 23mm Schneider will somehow adapt to this camera, then that would be great.
You will not find happiness if you try to adapt the wide tech cam lenses like the 23mm to the GFX. Those lenses are designed for backs where the camera flange focal distance is closer to 0mm. In contrast, the FFD of the Fuji GFX is 26.7 mm. By the time you add in the mm needed for a mount mechanism (mount ring, spacer if needed, board thickness), you've eaten up a lot of the space you need to have the lens be the right distance so it can focus at infinity and still move around.
I believe Cambo (for their Actus GFX) draws the line at 55mm using tech camera lenses (e.g., Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital 55mm f/4.5). On my Toyo VX23D + GFX outfit, I tried a Rodenstock Apo Grandagon 55mm/4.5, which (as far as I know) is the same thing as the digital version except for some tweaking to account for the sensor glass. The rear end of the lens was flush with the mount board, meaning I could just barely shift, and movements were restricted badly when I started combining swings/tilts with shifts. Rodenstock's lovely "designed for digital" lenses, like the HR Digaron-W/SW 32mm, often have humungous rear ends that simply won't fit physically in the available space when a GFX is the "medium format back". Even something like the Rodenstock HR Digaron-W/SW 50mm, which isn't very wide as a focal length on a GFX, would have its rear lens parts inside the GFX!
On top of all of that, you have to deal with lens cast with these wide lenses. The Rodenstock Apo Grandagon 55mm/4.5 I tried was spectacular in the zero position (i.e., unshifted), even though it's a "film" lens and by some accounts can't possibly be used on digital.... However, as soon as I shifted even just a bit, I had lens cast that really can only be corrected by shooting a second shot through a translucent plastic and applying lens cast correction in software. I didn't want to have to fuss with all of that. And I certainly didn't want to have to spring for expensive centre filters, which are also necessary with most of the wide tech cam lenses.
This is why for anything wider than 60mm I'm using retrofocus medium format lenses on my GFX + Toyo VX23D camera -- currently an SMC Pentax 67 45mm and a Pentax-A 645 35mm. Retrofocus lenses like these don't give you lens cast problems, and if their native flange focal length allows them to mount, you're good to go with any one in the line. Both of these Pentax lenses are very good performers. The SMC Pentax 67 55mm (4th edition) is also superb (but it's a beast size-wise).
Your only other option if you don't want to go the tech cam route is to wait for Fuji to come up with something, or to use TS/E lenses like the Canon ones. Lots of people have tried the Canon 24mm and 17mm on the GFX and reported results in threads on FM and GetDPI.
stevesanacore wrote:
agree the software solution can work but for architectural photographers, there is no substitute in many situations. there are many Phase One tech camera users out there that depend on shifting wide angle lenses like the 23 and 32mm, (and that's on a larger sensor). If Fuji want's that market they need to provide a solution. If a 23mm Schneider will somehow adapt to this camera, then that would be great.
rdeloe wrote:
You will not find happiness if you try to adapt the wide tech cam lenses like the 23mm to the GFX. Those lenses are designed for backs where the camera flange focal distance is closer to 0mm. In contrast, the FFD of the Fuji GFX is 26.7 mm. By the time you add in the mm needed for a mount mechanism (mount ring, spacer if needed, board thickness), you've eaten up a lot of the space you need to have the lens be the right distance so it can focus at infinity and still move around.
I believe Cambo (for their Actus GFX) draws the line at 55mm using tech camera lenses (e.g., Rodenstock Apo Sironar Digital 55mm f/4.5). On my Toyo VX23D + GFX outfit, I tried a Rodenstock Apo Grandagon 55mm/4.5, which (as far as I know) is the same thing as the digital version except for some tweaking to account for the sensor glass. The rear end of the lens was flush with the mount board, meaning I could just barely shift, and movements were restricted badly when I started combining swings/tilts with shifts. Rodenstock's lovely "designed for digital" lenses, like the HR Digaron-W/SW 32mm, often have humungous rear ends that simply won't fit physically in the available space when a GFX is the "medium format back". Even something like the Rodenstock HR Digaron-W/SW 50mm, which isn't very wide as a focal length on a GFX, would have its rear lens parts inside the GFX!
On top of all of that, you have to deal with lens cast with these wide lenses. The Rodenstock Apo Grandagon 55mm/4.5 I tried was spectacular in the zero position (i.e., unshifted), even though it's a "film" lens and by some accounts can't possibly be used on digital.... However, as soon as I shifted even just a bit, I had lens cast that really can only be corrected by shooting a second shot through a translucent plastic and applying lens cast correction in software. I didn't want to have to fuss with all of that. And I certainly didn't want to have to spring for expensive centre filters, which are also necessary with most of the wide tech cam lenses.
This is why for anything wider than 60mm I'm using retrofocus medium format lenses on my GFX + Toyo VX23D camera -- currently an SMC Pentax 67 45mm and a Pentax-A 645 35mm. Retrofocus lenses like these don't give you lens cast problems, and if their native flange focal length allows them to mount, you're good to go with any one in the line. Both of these Pentax lenses are very good performers. The SMC Pentax 67 55mm (4th edition) is also superb (but it's a beast size-wise).
Your only other option if you don't want to go the tech cam route is to wait for Fuji to come up with something, or to use TS/E lenses like the Canon ones. Lots of people have tried the Canon 24mm and 17mm on the GFX and reported results in threads on FM and GetDPI.
Never thought that would be possible but I hope they see the potential for these cameras for the architectural market. We use our 17mm quite a bit shooting interiors. I prefer the 24mm but sometimes clients love the ultra wide views (on full frame 35). When I used the Phase it seemed like I used the 32 most of the time and the 23 only when I had to for extremely dramatic but beautiful shots. Those lenses are perfect after you apply the LCC in C1 of course. I guess I was really hoping the Fuji would be a more affordable answer to what I had with the Phase system (which I rent when I can justify it).
