p.1 #1 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
Hi everyone,
I'm hoping to get some advice from photographers who have **actual hands-on experience using Nikon F super-telephoto lenses on Fujifilm GFX cameras with the Fringer NF-GFX adapter**.
I'm currently putting together a wildlife setup for an upcoming African safari and would really appreciate hearing from anyone who has used this combination in the field.
After a lot of research, I've decided to go down the **Nikon F** route rather than Canon. The Canon EF super-telephotos are excellent, but they're generally **well outside my budget**. The equivalent Nikon lenses seem to represent much better value on the used market, so I'm hoping they'll pair well with the GFX system via the Fringer adapter.
The lenses I'm most interested in are:
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC 1.4 FL ED VR
- (and any other Nikon F lenses of 400mm or longer)
My intended setup will be:
- **Fujifilm GFX100S II**
- **Fringer NF-GFX adapter**
- **Vehicle door mount** (engine off whenever possible)
Most of my subjects will be **static or slow-moving wildlife**—resting lions, leopards, elephants, rhinos, giraffes, etc.—rather than birds in flight or high-speed action.
My priorities are:
- Maximum image quality for very large fine-art prints
- Exceptional sharpness on the 102 MP GFX sensor
- Beautiful, creamy background blur
- Strong low-light performance for dawn and dusk game drives
- Reliable autofocus on static and slow-moving subjects
- Full use of the GFX sensor if possible
I'd really appreciate any real-world feedback, particularly on the following:
1. Does the lens cover the full 44 × 33 mm GFX sensor cleanly, or are you forced to crop because of vignetting?
2. How accurate and reliable is autofocus with the Fringer adapter?
3. Does animal or eye detection work well?
4. How well does Nikon VR work in conjunction with the GFX IBIS?
5. If you've used both, which would you choose for safari—the 400mm f/2.8 or the 500mm f/4?
6. Has anyone used the 180–400mm with the built-in 1.4× teleconverter on GFX?
7. Are there any quirks or issues I should know about before investing?
Most importantly, **I'd love to see sample images**.
If you've shot any of these lenses on a GFX body with the Fringer adapter, I'd really appreciate it if you could share:
- JPEGs or RAW files
- Flickr, SmugMug or personal gallery links
- 100% crops
- EXIF data
- Your thoughts on sharpness, autofocus, image circle coverage and overall performance
I've searched quite extensively but there seem to be very few real-world examples online, so any experience or sample images would be incredibly helpful.
p.1 #2 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
I don't have any experience with those lenses adapted or otherwise. But I did notice that they aren't exactly inexpensive options. Oddly, telephotos in the GF line are more competitively priced with other long lenses. A second hand GF500 might not be that much more. Even the 250 with 1.4x might be an option and its an excellent lens. I have used the Contax 645, Canon EF, and Canon EF-X Fringer adapters and very impressed with all 3.
p.1 #4 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
My guess is that this is...uh....pushing the envelope to the maximum, let's say. But I think the vision could work: even after cropping some of the likely vignette, there'll probably be 80MP left. Which is definitely more than a Z9 can do, if that's the criteria.
In terms of just getting excellent photos a Z9 with a 400/2.8 would run circles around this, but if you need to forego quantity to go all in trying to get maximum quality...I can appreciate the audacity of the vision. It's likely you're the first person to seriously try adapting Nikon superteles in the field.
p.1 #5 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
RoamingScott wrote:
In general, the rule of thumb is that Nikon F adapts the worst to GFX of all your options.
Why are you not looking at similar EF lenses instead? Better yet, why are you not looking at the GF500?
I dont like the subject separation and low light performance of the GF 500. I will be using this adapted combo for mostly static subjects on safari in Africa off a car door mount.
I dont need super quick autofocus for a lion that is resting. Nor can I use the GF 500 at watering holes in the evenings (low light).
As for Nikon- the newer generation F mount ones are much cheaper than the Canon EF counterparts for some reason.
p.1 #6 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
I've done 20-something safaris to Africa and I've seen people use all kinds of cameras including medium format film like Hassleblad and Mamiya RZ. I agree with what some others are saying, like use the native 500mm if possible.
But the most practical way will be to buy or rent/hire a Sony a7RVI. It has modern AF and 67 MP is 50% more pixels than Nikon or Sony. Sony has excellent sensor IQ and a very nice little 300/2.8, plus 400/2.8 and 600/4.
p.1 #7 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
GFX100sIIBoy wrote:
I dont like the subject separation and low light performance of the GF 500. I will be using this adapted combo for mostly static subjects on safari in Africa off a car door mount.
I dont need super quick autofocus for a lion that is resting. Nor can I use the GF 500 at watering holes in the evenings (low light).
As for Nikon- the newer generation F mount ones are much cheaper than the Canon EF counterparts for some reason.
Just my two cents but relying on adapters and non native lenses for this type of thing would be a non-starter for me. I don't know how often you do a Safari but I would not want to live and die with something that could pretty easily fail and definitely isn't weather sealed. I'm not sure what you don't like about the subject separation on the 500 as it looks like pretty much everything else in that super telephoto range. If the 500 doesn't work maybe it's worth considering if the GFX is the right tool for this job? I'd be tempted to rent an A7RVI for this type of thing personally.
p.1 #8 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
GFX100S II with the GF500 f/5.6 is the same as a full-frame body with a 395mm f/4.4 lens. The DoF is already pretty shallow; thus, the subject separation should not, normally, be a concern. Also f/4.4 is not bad for low light, unless you mean shooting in near darkness. Theoretically, a lens like Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR should give you an extra stop of light. However, this can be to some extent negated by the vignetting if this turns out to be significant.
The GF500 f/5.6 is an outstanding lens in different ways. I like it a lot, especially for hand-held use because of the remarkably good image stabilization and because of the way how light in hand it feels as a result of perfect balancing on the camera body.
Where this is coming from: "I dont like the subject separation and low light performance of the GF 500" - has this been your experience?
p.1 #9 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
People love making things harder for themselves, don't they?
Like Dmitri said, the GF 500 has roughly the same bokeh as a 400/4.4, which is to say, the difference of what you lose is almost meaningless to what you gain by shooting native. Where's he's wrong, of course, is light gathering is not affected by equivalence, i.e. it will still act like any other f5.6 lens from that perspective.
No shot will be made or broken by the difference in bokeh between an adapted F or native GF.
p.1 #10 · Nikon F Super-Telephotos on Fujifilm GFX with the Fringer Adapter – Looking for Real-World Experience & Sample Images
Given the same shutter speed, the GF500mm f/5.6 projects the same amount of light on a GFX sensor as does a full-frame 395mm f/4.4 lens placed in front of a FF sensor. This is what "equivalence" requires to begin with (equivalence doesn't require the ISO to be the same on these cameras).
Two lenses allow the same amount of light to pass through when they have the same iris (opening). In this particular case the diameter of the iris is 500/5.6 = 395/4.4, that is near 89 mm.
This seems to be a common belief that lenses in systems that differ by the size of their sensors should have the same "light gathering" when they display the same f/number printed on the lenses. E.g., you may hear in the micro-four-thirds community that the 300mm f/4 lens has the same light gathering ability as a full frame 600mm f/4 lens.
