Makten wrote:
Why would one get EF lenses to use on a format that EF lenses are not meant to cover? I understand if you already have lenses and want to continue using them, but buying them for using on GFX is really strange.
Yes, one can get "reasonable" results with a few of them when stopping down a lot, but then what's the point with the larger sensor?
Yes, I totally understand what your point is.
But one of my purpose to buy my 50R is for fun, I got my Nikon Z6II to do my formal work (if there is a formal work for a hobby shooter like me).
Quite possibly I will buy GF lenses in the future if the EF cannot match my expectation.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I wouldn't recommend EF lenses (other than the TSEs) for the GFX. If you want AF, then I would recommend the GF lenses. If the GF lenses are too expensive, then I would recommend Mamiya 645 MF lenses. The Mamiya 645 55 f/2.8 is a very good lens available at a low price and their longer lenses can be had inexpensively and perform very well. Wider than 55mm, and medium format lenses get large, perform less well, and are a bit more expensive. For wider than 55mm I would recommend staying with Fuji. So, here would be my recommendation for three different kits:
All Fuji GF (budget not a constraint can live with larger size):
GF 30 f/3.5; GF 45 f/2.8; GF 80 f/1.7; GF 110 f/2 (and I would probably replace the 45 with the 55 f/1.7 when it comes out.
All Fuji GF (focus on smaller size lighter weight kit)
GF 30 f/3.5; GF 63 f/2.8; GF 110 f/2
Mixed Fuji GF/Mamiya 645 kit (this is small, light weight and pretty cheap)
GF 30 f/3.5; Mamiya 55 f/2.8; Mamiya 110 f/2.8
Edit: Another lens that I really like is the Irix 45 f/1.4 in GF mount (it is manual focus, however). That is a really nice lens at a quite reasonable price.
I think a kit with:
GF 30 f/3.5; Irix 45 f/1.4; and GF 80 f/1.7 could be a really nice kit if you want fast lenses....Show more →
I tested on GFX50s using TechArt. AF is crap. I was using timer. Lens would AF again right before taking the shot. So I ended up taking in manual focus.Also 2 times, my camera went into hung up state with green recording LED blinking and me not being able to do anything. Not that good, wouldn't recommend TechArt and this lens on GFX50s.
leonasj wrote:
it is photos from tamron 35/1.8 ,more worst photos will be from tamron 45/1.8 as it is softer,loaded with more CA and far more vigneting vs 35...
Oh, is it? Actually the 35 is much cheaper at my side..
nafiz wrote:
Oh, is it? Actually the 35 is much cheaper at my side..
they both same price about 400usd new, 35 is far sharper,has very low vigneting,and lower chromatic aberation vs 45. im like macro lenses, ordered sigma art 70/2.8 macro for 360usd. this one ultra sharp,free from color fringing,free from CA,and equally sharp centre to corner.as all sigma art lenses made for high resolution and sharpness. if not like it,would see at gf63
35 and 45 are quite different focal lengths, so why choose between them based on sharpness? There are also many other important parameters, such as CA, flare, colors, bokeh, vignetting, curvature of field, distortion, and so on. The sharpest lens isn't necessarily the "best" lens. It depends...
Makten wrote:
35 and 45 are quite different focal lengths, so why choose between them based on sharpness? There are also many other important parameters, such as CA, flare, colors, bokeh, vignetting, curvature of field, distortion, and so on. The sharpest lens isn't necessarily the "best" lens. It depends...
Yes, I like the 45mm focal length better, but maybe my copy is old, I'm a little little bit dispointed by the results.
Here are some result which I think could show the lens's real IQ of my copy.
Something have to mention about is that the sharpness is quite good when you nailed the focus.
I want to take back the "dispointed by the results". When I look at the images I uploaded, I think they're very acceptable , but errrr, the experience of using it make me feel very unconfident..
Something have to mention about is that the sharpness is quite good when you nailed the focus.
I don't think you should be disappointed; there are very few FF lenses in similar focal length that give as flat field as the Tamron seem to do. Surprisingly good actually. Perhaps not very sharp, but personally I care a lot more about rendering and not having distant corners in focus.
Makten wrote:
35 and 45 are quite different focal lengths, so why choose between them based on sharpness? There are also many other important parameters, such as CA, flare, colors, bokeh, vignetting, curvature of field, distortion, and so on. The sharpest lens isn't necessarily the "best" lens. It depends...
im jpeg shutter ,no any post process,so need straight from camera good photos and lenses that do this
leonasj wrote:
im jpeg shutter ,no any post process,so need straight from camera good photos and lenses that do this
Then you should really be concerned with other properties than sharpness, because what to do about all the other aberrations in JPG? It's hard enough with raw, but often not possible at all (like with curvature of field).
And why not use GF lenses if you want as good quality as possible? Seems a bit contradictory.
Makten wrote:
Then you should really be concerned with other properties than sharpness, because what to do about all the other aberrations in JPG? It's hard enough with raw, but often not possible at all (like with curvature of field).
And why not use GF lenses if you want as good quality as possible? Seems a bit contradictory.
i have only gf50 and gf120. third party lenses need only for speed
There are also many other important parameters, such as CA, flare, colors, bokeh, vignetting, curvature of field, distortion, and so on. The sharpest lens isn't necessarily the "best" lens. It depends...
, but errrr, the experience of using it make me feel very unconfident..