js47
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.5 #1 · GFX100S worth it if ONLY planning to use adapted lenses? | |
Makten wrote:
Even though I quite like the 100-200, it's not the best lens for landscape unfortunately. It seems optimized for relatively close range, where aberrations are considerably lower than at or near infinity. Even well stopped down, there can be a "haze"/halo around bright object, especially at the long end and focusing at large distance.
However, I'm not sure what to adapt instead. Personally I have the EF 70-300L which has very nice character and colors (but isn't very sharp), and the Sigma 100-400. Non of them cover much more than FF, so you'd want to use 24x36 crop, pano or 33x33 (my to-go method since it's almost as wide as 36 but I don't have to decide between horizontal or vertical images).
The Sigma is sharper than the GF 100-200 but at the same time can give trouble at the periphery even at 24x36, probably because of the thick sensor stack.
The above shows why I don't recommend adapting lenses, but for longer teles, it's probably worth investigating at least.
Edit: The 100-200 is much nicer to use though, partly because of the weight being close to the camera, which makes the lens feel smaller and lighter than it is. AF is also fast and quiet, and OIS works amazingly well compared to the adapted lenses (with Fringer)....Show more →
Ah that is really disappointing to hear, I plan to use it for tele landscapes mostly at infinity focus. I guess we'll see how it goes. The alternative in my mind would be the EF100-400L since I have read that the sensor coverage is good.
Howie4life wrote:
I own the GFX 100S ii and use my 2 adapted EF lenses(35 1.4 ii & 50mm 1.4) as much as I use my native 80mm 1.7 lens. Native GFX lenses are expensive, relatively slow, and there are a lot of gaps in the lineup. My 2 EF lenses autofocus no different than my 80mm WITH the fringer adapter. I am a pixel peeper, and closed down to F/2.8, I get razor sharp images from the EF lenses. The sigma 50mm f1.4 has almost no visible vignette. I have owned the A1, R5, Z8, and A7rv cameras and the resolution and colors of the GFX is head and shoulders above the others. If you're not a pixel peeper and you are better at squeezing more out of your images during editing than I am, then it may not be as big of a difference to your final images. I still use my z8 for fast action, long/wide lenses and video....Show more →.
Thanks for that info Howie, are you talking about the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 or the Sigma version?
On the top of my list of potentially interesting fast prime lenses are the Nikon 35mm f2D, Canon EF 50mm f1.4 (if this is the lens you are talking about, otherwise The Spreadsheet suggests the coverage is only good for square crops), Nikon 50mm f1.8G, Nikon 58mm f1.4G, Canon 85mm f1.8, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, and finally the Canon EF 100mm f2. Plus the Sigma 14mm f1.8, Nikon 20mm f1.8 G, and Sigma 24mm f1.4 for astro but I know those last three don't quite cover the full sensor.
Also interested in the Canon EF 16-35 f4 (if I decide I want to go wider than the 20-35), Sigma 14-24 f2.8 (for astro and if I decide I want to go wider than the 16-35), Sigma 24-35 f2 (astro), and Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 for zooms.
|
