fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2020 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

selahsean
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

bobby350z wrote:
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.

Just adding on to say that my Mamiya 120mm APO macro was about $250 used and the adapter was about $60. It's 1:1 with no extensions needed and produces excellent results. No idea how it would compare to the Canon, but it's safe to say it's not in the same league as the Fuji 120 but I'm not expecting those kind of results for a $300 investment.

If the main goal of getting into the GFX system is adapting your Canon lenses then I think that's the wrong move. Be prepared to buy native GFX lenses particularly in the focal lengths you will use the most.

Aug 10, 2020 at 09:19 AM

MJKoski
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

I would say that picking native GF lenses have another major point: In-camera focus bracketing. It works so well (particularly after recent FW upgrade) that I'm now hesitating to buy Pentax 645 lenses which I planned to adapt.

Aug 10, 2020 at 10:10 AM

Luis Cunha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Yeah; it's good but it's always expensive, GF glass.

It seems to me that the GFX systems with their GF lenses will be good for work like landscape, portrait and still life (the three styles of painting). It is not so suitable for macro, fast objects, fast animals or people in fast motion and other more niche images. They do not have ultra wide, fisheye, ultra macro or tilt & shift. Or super-tele.
The sensor, although old, is excellent. The lenses are equally good, but expensive, no doubt.
I do landscape and still life. Some portrait. Macro. The macro is very important to me and the GFX system, without being adapted, does not allow me to work natively with 1: 1 or even 5: 1.

Right now, my usual work system, which is Canon, has this new proposal; the Canon R5 and which finally appears to be a full frame sensor with a dynamic range very close to the GFX sensor. It makes you think. We have to choose the right tools for the job we want to create. There is no point in having a wonderful MF sensor, with magnificent lenses, but that are not suitable for my projects ...
;-(

We have to ponder very well.
Thank you very much.

Aug 10, 2020 at 11:04 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Luis Cunha wrote:
Yeah; it's good but it's always expensive, GF glass.

It seems to me that the GFX systems with their GF lenses will be good for work like landscape, portrait and still life (the three styles of painting). It is not so suitable for macro, fast objects, fast animals or people in fast motion and other more niche images. They do not have ultra wide, fisheye, ultra macro or tilt & shift. Or super-tele.
The sensor, although old, is excellent. The lenses are equally good, but expensive, no doubt.
I do landscape and still life. Some portrait. Macro. The macro is very important...Show more →

I agree with almost everything you write here except the part about macro. Macro is very important to me as well and I love the GFX system for macro. Sure you have to adapt lenses for some types of macro, but there are some great options to adapt for macro. My main macro lenses in the Contax 645 (made by Zeiss) 120 f/4 APO macro. It provides 1:1 macro with stunning quality and because it was made for 645 film it more than covers the image circle for the GFX. You can get this lens and the adapter for less than $1,000 and it is phenomenal quality. The Mamiya 645 120 f/4 A macro is almost as good and it too was made for 645 film and as described above with an adapter will be $350 or maybe a bit less.

If you want higher magnification, then 1:1 then you could always look into a bellows system. The mamiya lens in particular because of the simple mechanical mount should allow use of a bellow system. There is also a Mamiya 645 80 f/4 that is a 1:2 macro that could be used with a bellow system.

Finally you can use lenses for Canon EF and Nikon F mount with the Laowa magic format converter allowing the use of all kinds of specialized macro on the GFX. Here is a link to this converter:

https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-magic-format-converter-mfc/

Laowa's 100 f/2.8 2X macro for example should work well with this converter and is a surprisingly good option for the price. They also have a 60 f/2.8 2X macro, a 15mm f/4 1:1 macro, and a 25mm 2.5X-5X macro all of these should work well with their magic format converter on the GFX. As a caveat I haven't tried any of these with the magic format converter and you are talking about using lenses totally in manual focus mode and with an aperture ring. Canon lenses would need to have the aperture controlled and set by another devise (e.g., a different camera) as they don't have an aperture ring. All Nikon lenses except the most recent E lenses work fine, however.

So there are tons of options for macro and the GFX. I find it to be a wonderful platform for macro. It is true, however, that if you want high magnification you might be better off with a different system. Not that there aren't options with the GFX, they just all require some adapting.

Aug 10, 2020 at 11:47 AM

bobby350z
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Luis Cunha wrote:
Please, please, send me your thoughts.
Thanks you so much.

Depends what you like. I like SLR style and came to Fuji with XT1. So GFX50s for me.

Aug 10, 2020 at 11:53 AM

Luis Cunha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Steve Spencer wrote:
I agree with almost everything you write here except the part about macro. Macro is very important to me as well and I love the GFX system for macro. Sure you have to adapt lenses for some types of macro, but there are some great options to adapt for macro. My main macro lenses in the Contax 645 (made by Zeiss) 120 f/4 APO macro. It provides 1:1 macro with stunning quality and because it was made for 645 film it more than covers the image circle for the GFX. You can get this lens and the adapter for...Show more →

Your considerations are very interesting and reveal other possibilities. Thank you!
I am very young in terms of thinking about medium format. I have always used full frame and I am not aware of all the possibilities of medium format; pure ignorance .-)

Canon "modern" lenses always have this problem of not having an aperture ring. I've come across this before. The Nikon versions of my Zeiss ZF.2 lenses, all have this ring and also communication contacts. But when I started in macro in the 2000s, only Canon had a 65mm f / 2.8 MP-E 5: 1; do you understand .-)? Imagine that this and a 50mm were my first lenses. And so I worked at least 2-3 years with just these two.

I never paid much attention to Laowa but I noticed that they were investing in macro. However, as I was already served by Canon, I paid little attention.
I didn't know this adapter you are referring to. It doesn't fit my EF / ZE lenses (the problem with the missing aperture ring). I think this adapter is more designed for Laowa lenses for full frame, to work with the GFX system; am i correct?

This opens up new possibilities. With the assortment of Laowa lenses with 1:1 to 5:1 macro and the other very unique macro + wide lenses, even for full frame, they will work on the GFX system with the adapter.
Do they really work well? Is there no EXIF in these cases ?! Must look for reviews...

Have Laowa and other oriental brands started making lenses for the GFX system? I imagine only manual lenses. I have to investigate ,-D that too.

My Canon 100mm and 65mm work flawlessly; obviously.

I don't mind changing the system permanently and forget Canon, due to the quality of the GFX sensor. I'm going to lose some money on purchases and sales, but maybe I get an image quality that Canon or no other full frame can give...?
There is also a limit of pixels (and their size) and the size of the sensors. And the laws of physics are what they are.
Bigger sensors>bigger pixels>bigger"eyeballs">better results, if after capturing the light, the whole process up to the file is of quality.

All of this is a subject that fascinates me; as much as producing images.

Is the Mamyia macro you mentioned (I'm in Portugal) this one?
https://www.olx.pt/anuncio/mamiya-645-macro-mf-120mm-f-4-IDEdntt.html#5c7942322b

Thank you very much.

Aug 10, 2020 at 12:31 PM

MJKoski
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Don't forget Pentax 645 120/4 macro lenses. I have adapter coming and will likely pick up the FA-version with proper lens hood. Not very expensive either.

Aug 10, 2020 at 02:53 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Luis Cunha wrote:
Your considerations are very interesting and reveal other possibilities. Thank you!
I am very young in terms of thinking about medium format. I have always used full frame and I am not aware of all the possibilities of medium format; pure ignorance .-)

Canon "modern" lenses always have this problem of not having an aperture ring. I've come across this before. The Nikon versions of my Zeiss ZF.2 lenses, all have this ring and also communication contacts. But when I started in macro in the 2000s, only Canon had a 65mm f / 2.8 MP-E 5: 1; do you understand...Show more →

I thought I would offer a couple of points of clarification. There is a Laowa magic format converter does fit Canon EF lenses. You just can't change the aperture and you have to use manual focus. You need either a Canon camera around are another devise that allows you to change the aperture, then you have to unmount the lens, change the aperture, and put the lens back on to change aperture. For me this would be a big pain, but some people think it is worth it. The format converter also uses glass sort of like a teleconverter in reverse to widen the image circle, so there will also be some performance hit. In my experience it isn't too bad. I have used the Nikon F mount version with a number of Zeiss Milvus lenses and gotten very nice results, but you may or may not find they are up to your standards.

You can get all the Laowa macros in either Canon EF or Nikon F mount and they will work with the magic format converter. Like I said, I haven't tried any of them. Like all current Laowa lenses they are manual focus and they have no contacts for EXIF data.

They do make one lens for the GFX system -- an ultrawide -- 17 f/4.

I do think your Canon 65 f/2.8 MPE is a unique and wonderful lens. I am less impressed by the Canon 100 f/2.8L macro -- I think lots of other 100 f/2.8 macros are at least as good and there are several 120 f/4 options for the GFX that are at least as good or better, but that is just my opinion.

Aug 10, 2020 at 03:29 PM

buggz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

This is true, and should be added to your consideration, especially for macro work.
I have tried with AF adapters and non Fuji AF glass, my GFX50R will NOT perform focus bracketing, while my Fuji GFX glass does.
I now lust after the GFX 120/f4 macro, even though I have great adapted glass.

Yes, you can perform manual focus bracketing, but NOT auto with adapted AF glass.

MJKoski wrote:
I would say that picking native GF lenses have another major point: In-camera focus bracketing. It works so well (particularly after recent FW upgrade) that I'm now hesitating to buy Pentax 645 lenses which I planned to adapt.

Aug 10, 2020 at 08:33 PM

highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · 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...Show more →

With all of that great EF glass, you may wish to consider a new, gray market 5DsR for around $1400. It will compliment your R, and the resolution combined with the AA-canceling filter will blow your mind. Won't be as good as the GFX, but at ISO 100, the 5DsR holds its own. If you like to do a lot of massive shadow recovery, then just use AEB on the 5DsR.

Aug 11, 2020 at 09:32 PM

Luis Cunha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Dear friend,

1.
I already put this possibility since these cameras are now much cheaper; they are 5 years old. The problem is that the sensor is not spectacular, by Full Frame standards, much less compared to a GFX. "Just" features, the 50 megapixel resolution, like the GFX50, but of course they are smaller and less effective and features the canceled AA filter; GFX doesn't even have it (to my knowledge).
It is a cheaper option, fully compatible with my Canon and Zeiss ZE lenses, but the image quality is lower.
I am trying to upgrade my image quality .-)

2.
If I choose the GFX50R I can only start with the GF50mm f3,5 (budget problems; a step by step process). The rest will be my full frame lenses, adapted.
Even so, I sincerely hope that the full frame lenses; in apite of the vignette issue; adapted to Fuji, produce better files than the 5DsR. Even; using a smaller format like 5x4 or 3x2 (Full frame) on the GFX50. Color, image fidelity, resolution vs pixel pitch, dynamic range and file flexibility; I think this will all be better at GFX. Hoping to preserve the Zeiss microcontrast.
Stress this; even if I shoot in a 3:2 format to avoid the vignette entirely, image quality will be better.

3.
Also, with 5DsR; or any full frame, no matter how many megapixels they have, they will never produce the Medium Format look that is given because we are optically closer with the same field of view as a wider lens. Example: GF 110mm is an 85mm field of view, so you are optically closer, yet you have the same field of view as an 85mm, so yes, there is a medium format look (I quote more or less the Angry Photographer).
There is no Brenizer effect to save us! .-D
So, this is also why I am very curious to see what changes and behavior my full frame lenses will have in a medium format sensor.
This is very exciting. Mirrorless systems allow for these experiments like never before.

4.
Related to all of this; I've been investigating Zeiss Data Sheets and my Zeiss ZE Full Frame lenses (Canon is harder to find info), they have a 43mm Diameter of Image field (or circle of projection).
The GFX50 sensor has a measurement of 43.8x32.9mm.
The difference is 0.8mm. This is enough to cause a vignette in the image. It's an "hair", but the light is just like that. However, it can be corrected with our modern editing programs.
I still don't understand why a wider lens like the 21mm or certain Zeiss Otus even, produce a strong vignette and others don't. Especially from 35mm-40mm onwards, they behave well.
Since they all have the same diameter of image (43mm)?

Am I mistaken or exaggerating? Please correct me with complete sincerity. I am here to learn and share.
Thank you for your patience.

Aug 12, 2020 at 08:13 AM

billsamuels
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #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.

I've been looking at the Fuji Medium Format 50R and the lenses are real expensive. There is at least one lens converter that lets you use Canon EF lenses, and I saw some photos using Canon "L" lenses, which looked pretty good. However, I also found some off-brand lenses made specifically for the Fuji MF cameras that are a lot less expensive. I'm wondering if they are that much less quality than the original Fujifilm lenses?

The lenses I found on B&H Photo are Venus Laowa, Mitakon Zhongyi, and Kipon Iberit.

Anyone have experience with these brands?

Also, where is the forum for the Fuji medium format cameras and lenses, if there is one?

Sep 01, 2020 at 02:22 AM

Kry27
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Luis Cunha wrote:
...they have a 43mm Diameter of Image field (or circle of projection).
The GFX50 sensor has a measurement of 43.8x32.9mm.
The difference is 0.8mm. ....

That is your mis-understanding. Draw a circle with the diameter of 43mm to start with. Now you lay on top of that a rectangle with a measurement of 43.8mm x 32.9mm. You will realize that the 0.8mm short is in the horizontal middle line of the rectangle. It's diagonal is longer than 43.8mm!

So you get a lot more vignette then what you expected.

Sep 01, 2020 at 09:38 AM

Luis Cunha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Thanks .-) a good help.

Sep 01, 2020 at 10:56 AM

Luis Cunha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

To all my friends here and Steve Spencer ,-)

Bought the GFX50R.
I am selling all my Canon and Zeiss lenses as I see no advantage in keeping them. Everything they do is done with GF lenses. The investment will have to be slower, step by step, but I will be able to take full advantage of the camera.

There is always a vignette with my lenses, correctable, but it takes work and requires time between 21mm and 50mm (in my case these are 4 lenses Canon and Zeiss).
The Zeiss 85mm behaves well, but a GF will not be worse, even if it is a 45-100mm zoom I guess. GF Glass is really good.
The Canon 100mm macro behaves well, but the GF 110mm with macro tubes or the 120mm macro will definitely be better. I can see some weird effects on the adapted lenses (I mean the images of course); some more than others. Adaptation with FF lenses is a huge compromise.

I will just keep the Canon MP-E 65mm macro x5 because it is unique and behaves well. The used camera (mint) I bought included an EF> GFX AF adapter from Kipon. Fits the 65mm MP-E for macro between 1: 1 and 5: 1 .-)

To begin with I am undecided and would like to have your opinion.
For macro:
FUJINON GF 120mm F/4 Macro R LM OIS WR (I know it doesn't do 1: 1 except with the Fujifilm Macro Extension tube MCEX-45G WR, but it's not a serious problem). I will lose infinity with the tubes. No problem.
or
FUJINON GF 110mm F/2 R LM WR with one of the tubes?
Fujifilm Macro Extension tube MCEX-18G WR
or
Fujifilm Macro Extension tube MCEX-45G WR
(I love the results of Jonas Rask here: https://jonasraskphotography.com/2018/04/12/moving-in-close-a-look-at-the-fujifilm-mcex-18g-and-mcex-45g/)

For more general stuff:
FUJINON GF 45mm F / 2.8 R WR
or
FUJINON GF 50mm F / 3.5 R LM WR

A last word for Steve Spencer: what exactly was the macro lens on the Mamiya 645 option (a link please)? And which adapter should I use?

Thank you all again. This forum is awesome.-D

Oct 01, 2020 at 05:38 AM

hauxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

Kry27 wrote:
That is your mis-understanding. Draw a circle with the diameter of 43mm to start with. Now you lay on top of that a rectangle with a measurement of 43.8mm x 32.9mm. You will realize that the 0.8mm short is in the horizontal middle line of the rectangle. It's diagonal is longer than 43.8mm!

So you get a lot more vignette then what you expected.

Exactly. You can use rule of Pythagoras to calculate the diagonal.

a^2 = sqrt(b^2+c^2) =>



GFX diagonal = sqrt( (43.8mm)^2 + (32.9mm)^2 ) 

= sqrt( 1918.44 + 1082.41 )  

= sqrt( 3000.85 )

= 54.78mm

So the circle projection needs to cover 54.78mm

Oct 06, 2020 at 09:23 AM

envydd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

If budget is a concern then the 50 is almost as good as the 45. In fact it used to be sold for 500 new and at that price it will be hard to find a lens for any system with that smooth rendering and tack sharpness.

I would also encourage you to consider the 100mm for dual use - macro with adapter or portrait. Wait for the 80/1.7 if you don�t want to spend for the 110mm. I tried a Pentax 120mm 645 lens and it was very nice too. Get a 45-100 and a 45mm ring perhaps. That way you get IBIS.

A 50 or a 63 will make your 50R quite portable.

Oct 06, 2020 at 10:23 AM

Luis Cunha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

envydd wrote:
If budget is a concern then the 50 is almost as good as the 45. In fact it used to be sold for 500 new and at that price it will be hard to find a lens for any system with that smooth rendering and tack sharpness.

I would also encourage you to consider the 100mm for dual use - macro with adapter or portrait. Wait for the 80/1.7 if you don�t want to spend for the 110mm. I tried a Pentax 120mm 645 lens and it was very nice too. Get a 45-100 and a 45mm ring perhaps. That...Show more →

Thanks for your opinion.
The 50mm f/3.5 is very portable indeed. It is maybe a sweet spot between the 45mm and the 63mm.
I used a Canon 40mm STM in FF, so I know and like that field of view.

You meant the 120mm f/4 for dual use (not 100mm ,-)? For macro and other work?

Oct 06, 2020 at 10:39 AM

Luis Cunha
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

hauxon wrote:
Exactly. You can use rule of Pythagoras to calculate the diagonal.

a^2 = sqrt(b^2+c^2) =>



GFX diagonal = sqrt( (43.8mm)^2 + (32.9mm)^2 ) 

= sqrt( 1918.44 + 1082.41 ) 



= sqrt( 3000.85 )

= 54.78mm

So the circle projection needs to cover 54.78mm

Thanks .-)

Oct 06, 2020 at 10:40 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Fujifilm GFX 50R+Canon and Zeiss ZE glass

hauxon wrote:
Exactly. You can use rule of Pythagoras to calculate the diagonal.

a^2 = sqrt(b^2+c^2) =>



GFX diagonal = sqrt( (43.8mm)^2 + (32.9mm)^2 ) 

= sqrt( 1918.44 + 1082.41 ) 

= sqrt( 3000.85 )

= 54.78mm

So the circle projection needs to cover 54.78mm

Or you can just remember Pythagorus' golden triangle with 3 units on one side and 4 units on the other side, will have a diagonal of 5 units. Then you can skip the math and realize that a 33 X 44 sensor is going to have a 55 diagonal

.

More seriously this is one thing I like about a 4 X 3 aspect ratio, the diagonal is then always 5. I think these relations have a natural elegance and a look that just fits my eye.

Oct 06, 2020 at 10:53 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Fuji Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end