p.1 #1 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
Dear friends,
I've been a Canon user for many years.
Right now I use a Canon EOS R (after all 5D line and film cameras) especially because of the possibilities of focusing manually with ease. You will already realize that I use several manual lenses.
Zeiss ZE lenses for Canon EF:
21mm f / 2.8,
35mm f / 2.0,
50mm f / 1.4
85mm f / 1.4
I also do macro work and so I use:
Canon 100mm f / 2.8 macro L
Canon MP-E 65mm 1x5 f / 2.8.
And the Canon 40mm f / 2.8.
Right now I'm very happy with the EOS R in terms of photo and video, but I've been pursuing the possibility of using the medium format for so many years or more, due to its unique look.
At this point the Canon R5 finally offers a good dynamic range compared to other brands and models and 45 megapixels, but it is so expensive here in Europe that it is not for me at the moment. On top of that it has video specifications that, being interesting, are not my priority.
I don't do commercial work. I make art and sometimes my work with photography is used commercially in photo essays and album covers. I work as a graphic designer.
For all these reasons, I am considering buying a new or used Fujifilm GFX 50R to pursue that special look, use my lenses in this format and perhaps test other old lenses. I like the error, the strange, the chance, as I like the extreme quality. It all depends on the project. I may be able to retain the EOS R for now as I intend to use only my current lenses with the 50R. GF lenses are excellent and in terms of quality and system optimization, they are ideal (for some projects), but a little expensive. They are for later, if you need and can.
I ask you; in the face of my lenses; below, has anyone in this forum already adapted them to the GFX system?
What adapter did you use? Must be a "smart" adapter; for Canon/Zeiss ZE lenses.
Can I see examples, with images?
One last question:
Is it true that the DOF/FOV changes when we use a 35mm lens on a sensor like this MF? The lens aperture is what it is but the resulting DOF in an MF sensor with a crop factor (I read somewhere that should be multiplied by 0.79) and so my lenses will show the following DOF (+-):
FF f1.4 = MF f1.1
FF f2.0 = MF f1.5
FF f2.8 = MF f2.2
This is true?
If so, this is an aspect of great expectation and excitement, that I have, to see my lenses at work on the Fujifilm sensor.
Sorry if any of these questions have already been asked and I thank you for your patience.
Thank you very much.
Best regards.
p.1 #4 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
The DoF is a function of the optics, not of the sensor below. It doesnt change with sensor size.
The FoV however changes with the sensor size. For example a 35mm lens turns into a 28mm lens on 44x33mm. If you can say that, anyway, when the aspect ratio changes.
There is already an autofocus adapter for Canon EF to Fujifilm X, so its likely we'll see an autofocus adapter Canon EF to Fujifilm G as well.
With a 44x33mm sensor you're running your optics outside their specifications for the 36x24mm small format, so all kinds of things can happen in the edges, outside the 43.3mm diameter circle thats the image circle of small format, until the 55mm diameter circle thats the image circle of 44x33mm.
What exactly depends upon the lens, of course. It might get very unsharp.
In many cases, especially when focusing to infinity, there are visible amounts of vignette. Especially on wide angle lenses the corners might turn completely dark. You might also need to get rid of the lens hood, or replace it with a more generous hood, to avoid vignetting from that.
You can fight effects like lack of sharpness and too much vignette to a degree with simply stopping down. People also just crop, and depending upon how strong the vignette is, you might still have a larger final image than with a 36x24mm sensor.
It starts to seem that my FF lenses will always have limitations on this MF sensor simply because the circle they project is smaller than the circle of the sensor.
These lenses have a circle of 52.7mm and the sensor one is 54.8mm.
Only in formats cut below 4x3 will they be able to work and even so, due to the examples published in the other post, there is always a drop of light and sharpness in the corners. This is accentuated at focal lengths of 50mm or less, so my Zeiss ZE 21mm, 35mm and probably 50mm will not perform very well. The Zeiss 85mm may work, but it will never be like a GF lens.
On top of that, if I have to reduce their aperture to get sharpness or DOF, the harmful phenomena will get worse.
It remains for me to try to understand, without being able to test, how the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro L and Canon MP-E 65mm 1x5 f / f2.8 will behave?
In fact, I have stayed at Canon for these two lenses.
I begin to consider changing the system in a somewhat radical way and forgetting Canon (body) once and for all. Sell my system and buy:
A GFX 50R
GF 120mm f / 4 Macro R LM OIS WR, for macro perhaps with the 18MM MCEX-18G WR tube
I also really liked these results of the 110mm with the tube and gain more light in the 110mm: https://jonasraskphotography.com/2018/04/12/moving-in-close-a-look-at-the-fujifilm-mcex-18g-and-mcex-45g/
(thank you for your opinion)
and
GF 32-64mm f / 4 R LM WR, for its versatility.
This covers 25mm to 50mm and a moderate 95mm tele that is macro. For many years I did everything with a 50mm and a macro.
I searched the thousands of images I have stored and in that order, these are the focal lengths that I have used most over the years:
100mm (macro)
50mm / 40mm
65mm (macro)
But as I work more with the 40mm-50mm, maybe the GF63mm or GF50mm would be better bets than the zoom in terms of image quality !? I appreciate your opinion here too.
Adapted lenses, it is a subject to be explored perhaps later, with old but medium format lenses to obtain character but without major compromises in the lens/sensor relationship.
Thank you very much. This forum is excellent!
I look forward to your words.
Best regards.
p.1 #7 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
I haven't tried 100mm f2.8 macro but I am pretty sure it works good. I have the 120mm f4 and it is expensive for what it is. I have the 45mm tube and to me it is very very limiting. And it was $300. That's why I only bought one to try with my 110mm f2 before buying the 120mm f4 macro. I would see if you can find other using the 100mm f2.8 macro with adapter and go that route.
p.1 #8 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
Luis Cunha wrote:
It starts to seem that my FF lenses will always have limitations on this MF sensor simply because the circle they project is smaller than the circle of the sensor.
This is the correct conclusion. And it's even worse for the UWA zooms, which produce a marked decrease in sharpness at the edges that looks like smearing.
But as I work more with the 40mm-50mm, maybe the GF63mm or GF50mm would be better bets than the zoom in terms of image quality !? I appreciate your opinion here too.
Adapted lenses, it is a subject to be explored perhaps later, with old but medium format lenses to obtain character but without major compromises in the lens/sensor relationship.
You can't go wrong with GFX+native lenses. I'd be highly skeptical of positive reports of adapting lenses. Inexperience and emotional buy-in leads to a lot of selective posting of low resolution "proof" that these old lenses work great on GFX. In reality only a tiny handful are worth using, and only because there is no Fuji equivalent.
p.1 #9 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
engardeknave wrote:
This is the correct conclusion. And it's even worse for the UWA zooms, which produce a marked decrease in sharpness at the edges that looks like smearing.
You can't go wrong with GFX+native lenses. I'd be highly skeptical of positive reports of adapting lenses. Inexperience and emotional buy-in leads to a lot of selective posting of low resolution "proof" that these old lenses work great on GFX. In reality only a tiny handful are worth using, and only because there is no Fuji equivalent.
There's either no Fuji equivalent or the Fuji lenses that are available are so expensive that it doesn't always make sense. I don't do enough Macro to make the Fuji GF 120mm make sense but the Mamiya 645 120mm APO Macro works great and is quite affordable. I don't expect native level performance but it meets my needs. For similar reasons a Contax C/Y 100-300 made a lot of sense. I'm also a big fan of character lenses and enjoy using a Canon "Dream Lens" and the Voigtlander 75mm F1.5 VM. Both of these lenses give me something I couldn't get in available Fuji lenses. Claims about sensor coverage etc don't really matter much to me as I'm much more interested in the results. I'm also not afraid to shoot 1:1 or 35mm mode if it makes sense to do so. Having shot multiple formats including LF it was somewhat natural to think about image circle on a given lens and not get stuck trying to shoot every lens at 4:3.
p.1 #10 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
selahsean wrote:
There's either no Fuji equivalent or the Fuji lenses that are available are so expensive that it doesn't always make sense. I don't do enough Macro to make the Fuji GF 120mm make sense but the Mamiya 645 120mm APO Macro works great and is quite affordable. I don't expect native level performance but it meets my needs. For similar reasons a Contax C/Y 100-300 made a lot of sense. I'm also a big fan of character lenses and enjoy using a Canon "Dream Lens" and the Voigtlander 75mm F1.5 VM. Both of these lenses give me something I couldn't get in available Fuji lenses. Claims about sensor coverage etc don't really matter much to me as I'm much more interested in the results. I'm also not afraid to shoot 1:1 or 35mm mode if it makes sense to do so. Having shot multiple formats including LF it was somewhat natural to think about image circle on a given lens and not get stuck trying to shoot every lens at 4:3....Show more →
Agree, but if that's mainly what you do, you'd be much better off with a Sony.
Aug 07, 2020 at 03:02 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
Luis Cunha wrote:
Dear friends,
I've been a Canon user for many years.
Right now I use a Canon EOS R (after all 5D line and film cameras) especially because of the possibilities of focusing manually with ease. You will already realize that I use several manual lenses.
Zeiss ZE lenses for Canon EF:
21mm f / 2.8,
35mm f / 2.0,
50mm f / 1.4
85mm f / 1.4
I also do macro work and so I use:
Canon 100mm f / 2.8 macro L
Canon MP-E 65mm 1x5 f / 2.8.
And the Canon 40mm f / 2.8.
Right now I'm very happy with the EOS R in terms of photo and video, but I've been pursuing the possibility of using the medium format for so many years or more, due to its unique look.
At this point the Canon R5 finally offers a good dynamic range compared to other brands and models and 45 megapixels, but it is so expensive here in Europe that it is not for me at the moment. On top of that it has video specifications that, being interesting, are not my priority.
I don't do commercial work. I make art and sometimes my work with photography is used commercially in photo essays and album covers. I work as a graphic designer.
For all these reasons, I am considering buying a new or used Fujifilm GFX 50R to pursue that special look, use my lenses in this format and perhaps test other old lenses. I like the error, the strange, the chance, as I like the extreme quality. It all depends on the project. I may be able to retain the EOS R for now as I intend to use only my current lenses with the 50R. GF lenses are excellent and in terms of quality and system optimization, they are ideal (for some projects), but a little expensive. They are for later, if you need and can.
I ask you; in the face of my lenses; below, has anyone in this forum already adapted them to the GFX system?
What adapter did you use? Must be a "smart" adapter; for Canon/Zeiss ZE lenses.
Can I see examples, with images?
One last question:
Is it true that the DOF/FOV changes when we use a 35mm lens on a sensor like this MF? The lens aperture is what it is but the resulting DOF in an MF sensor with a crop factor (I read somewhere that should be multiplied by 0.79) and so my lenses will show the following DOF (+-):
FF f1.4 = MF f1.1
FF f2.0 = MF f1.5
FF f2.8 = MF f2.2
This is true?
If so, this is an aspect of great expectation and excitement, that I have, to see my lenses at work on the Fujifilm sensor.
Sorry if any of these questions have already been asked and I thank you for your patience.
Thank you very much.
Best regards.
Unfortunately all of your Zeiss lenses will not even fully cover the image circle on the Fuji MF camera. I haven't tried the macro lenses you have, but macro lenses at macro distances tend to cover better, but you will need a fairly expensive adapter with Canon lenses to control the aperture of the lenses. So, basically I wouldn't try to use your existing lenses on the GFX 50r.
I would look into getting a small set of lenses for the Fuji camera if you can afford to do so, and if you cannot I would look into getting Mamiya 645 manual focus lenses which perform from fairly well to very well on the GFX and can be adapted with a simple cheap adapter. If 55mm is wide enough you could start with the 55 f/2.8N which is a nifty little lens and quite inexpensive (about $200). Then you could add the 110 f/2.8 (about $225) and the 150 f/2.8A (about $200) for a nice three lens kit. The 120 f/4 A is an excellent macro as well (about $300). That would give you a good start until you can add Fuji lenses.
If you need something wider that 55, I would save the money and go with Fuji. The new 30 f/3.5 ought to be a decent price before long and the 32-64 f/4 zoom is a very nice lens as well.
You are right about depth of field more or less and f/2.8 lenses on the Fuji have depth of field a lot like an f/2 lens on FF 35mm (more true if you shoot in 4 X 3 or a squarer format), so fairly shallow depth of field if you want to shoot wide open.
p.1 #12 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
engardeknave wrote:
Agree, but if that's mainly what you do, you'd be much better off with a Sony.
Came from Sony (A7RIII) but couldn't get on with the native lenses. It's a fine performing system but the results were too modern/clinical on the native lenses. Much prefer the results from the Fuji 45 and 110 over the Sony equivalents
p.1 #13 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
(URGENT!) ,-D
Dear friends,
I am most grateful for all your contributions.
The quality of the sensor in these Fuji is not out of my head. I've seen countless tests, comparative videos between my EOS R and the GFX 50R, I've seen videos and articles about adapted 35mm lenses and my head feels like a carousel ;-D
GFX reviews and GF lenses review; what a world of wonder!!!
The image quality and the quality of the files really got me.
I currently have two used cameras on offer:
GFX 50S with 2 and a half years and 35,000 shots in excellent condition.
Includes two batteries.
Price: € 2500.00
GFX 50R with 5 months, 2000 shots. Offer of a Viltrox adapter, from Canon EF to Fuji GFX, for aperture and autofocus.
Price: € 2500.00
I hope that the most irreplaceable lenses, the Canon 100mm L macro and Canon 65mm super-macro lenses work. And the remaining Zeiss ZE if not at all, with some crop, or sell for GF glass.
Even though I use the GFX 35mm crop mode to have no vignette, the 35mm files, although "only" 45 megapixels, are bigger than the 30 megapixels of my EOS R and richer? Do you agree?
p.1 #15 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
Adapting your lenses to a Sony gives better results, as someone stated. You start with a botch, really, to begin with.
If you intend to crop off the file to what a 35mm camera would give, you get an old sensor in terms of where others are.
Yes, despite its 'age', the 50S and 50R of course do deliever. When used with exceptional lenses. Not with a workaround.
Of your stated idea of a 'MF look', nothing remains.
p.1 #16 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
Luis Cunha wrote:
I currently have two used cameras on offer:
GFX 50S with 2 and a half years and 35,000 shots in excellent condition.
Includes two batteries.
Price: € 2500.00
GFX 50R with 5 months, 2000 shots. Offer of a Viltrox adapter, from Canon EF to Fuji GFX, for aperture and autofocus.
Price: € 2500.00
I hope that the most irreplaceable lenses, the Canon 100mm L macro and Canon 65mm super-macro lenses work. And the remaining Zeiss ZE if not at all, with some crop, or sell for GF glass.
Even though I use the GFX 35mm crop mode to have no vignette, the 35mm files, although "only" 45 megapixels, are bigger than the 30 megapixels of my EOS R and richer? Do you agree?
I think you should pick based on your preference but if your intention is to do a lot of Macro work the 50s seems better built for that with the tilting viewfinder. The 50r of course is lighter and more compact which made it a good choice for me. The GFX system is at its best with native lenses and shouldn't be bought with the intention of using adapted lenses exlcusively. In general the wider angle lenses will have problems with the thick sensor stack of the GFX and you'll need something native there (the 45mm is a standout lens imo). Working up from there you may have some lenses which will "work" as in provide decent sensor coverage but may have larger than normal field curvature (and honestly only you can say what will or won't bother you in that regard). In general the longer the lens the better the performance of adapted lenses (like the Canon 85mm above). Long way of saying if I were you I'd probably go for the 50s as it will lend itself better to Macro work and then I find a way to get one of the Fuji wide angle lenses I'd probably go with the 30mm or 45mm (the 23 is too wide for me).
p.1 #17 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
If I would pick either R or S right now, it would be S. Just because it has a grip, actually usable buttons and a D-PAD. With R one has to use the tiny joystick for most parameter changes and those small buttons are a real nuisance with large fingers or gloves.
I do use tripod for 99% of photos though, so the size (and weight) is not much of an issue for me.
What I did in similar situation in June is that I picked ... the R. Now I have purchased Smallrig L-plate & grip to make it better to hold but those small buttons are bit of a mess. Dunno how to solve that.
p.1 #19 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
bobby350z wrote:
I haven't tried 100mm f2.8 macro but I am pretty sure it works good. I have the 120mm f4 and it is expensive for what it is. I have the 45mm tube and to me it is very very limiting. And it was $300. That's why I only bought one to try with my 110mm f2 before buying the 120mm f4 macro. I would see if you can find other using the 100mm f2.8 macro with adapter and go that route.
Hi, why do you say "the 120mm f4 and it is expensive for what it is"?
It is the price that is definitely high (GF glass is expensive compared to Full Frame?) or you would like to have the biggest macro factor (at least 1:1) or the working distance is not good, the sharpness could be higher, anyway; do you find limitations?
p.1 #20 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass
I wish it was 1:1. I have the 45G tube and even then it is harder to get closer to the bugs. Fuji glass is always very nice, not denying it but at $2600 it is expensive. Buy used. Some people here recommend other MF macro lenses with adapters. I didn't go that route as adapter itself was like $400-$500.
