Leica S lens on Fuji GFX 50s

[Dazzajl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would this not be better the other way around? Adapter to put the Fuji lenses on to the Leica S seems far more useful in producing a better paring. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Tirpitz666]

You cannot do it of course, since the flange distance of the S (DSLR) is far longer than that of the Fuji GFX (ML).

Besides that, I don't see how the S3 64MP non-BSI and not stabilized sensor should be any better than the GFX 102MP BSI stabilized sensor (or the 37.5MP vs the 50MP of the "lower" models). 

Edited December 19, 2024 by Tirpitz666

[Einst_Stein]

Maybe someone can confirm or correct this. I suspect Leica S lenses may not fully explore GFX 100 sensor's capability.  Even the GFX50 kit lens 35-70mm is not up to the GFX100 sensor full capability.

If so, what's the point to use S lens on FGX?

[Sarnian]

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Maybe someone can confirm or correct this. I suspect Leica S lenses may not fully explore GFX 100 sensor's capability.  Even the GFX50 kit lens 35-70mm is not up to the GFX100 sensor full capability.

If so, what's the point to use S lens on FGX?

I've use my 30-90mm on my GFX100S and I'd say that the sharpness is pretty much equal to my GFX 20-35mm (which is a very well-respected lens). The Kipon adapter is a match made in heaven. I'll post some close-up examples when I have time. 

[Einst_Stein]

17 minutes ago, Sarnian said:

I've use my 30-90mm on my GFX100S and I'd say that the sharpness is pretty much equal to my GFX 20-35mm (which is a very well-respected lens). The Kipon adapter is a match made in heaven. I'll post some close-up examples when I have time. 

I owned GFX100S only for a short period of time. I had the 35-70mm kit lens, but I used mostly Contax 645 lenses. During the short period, I am not happy with the 35-70mm zoom. A friend who owns GFX50S told me 35-70mm is practically dedicated for GFX50S only. For GFX100S, try other GFX zoom. He also told me, from his observations, my Contax 645 lenses seem not necessary performs better than GFX native lenses.

I didn't do the evaluation further since I returned the GFX kit due to the Contax-FGX problems. So my impression, or, should I say, my suspect was never confirmed.  

Edited December 20, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Tirpitz666]

Well, that Contax 645 lenses, which were made for film, don't perform super-well on the hyper-pixellated digital sensor of the GFX is no surprise to my mind, you use them for rendering usually, not for thair sheer sharpness prowess on modern sensors.

I only have the GF 45-100 zoom and on my GFX 100s it's unbelievably sharp for a zoom lens, so really nothing to complain about it.

Since Leica S glass was made from scratch for digital and has no problem to resolve the 64MP sensor of the S3, I'm pretty optimistic that it will perform quite well on the GFX 100, and the catch for me would be that, sharpness aside, the rendering woud be different (more "leica-esque") than Fuji glass.

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, Tirpitz666 said:

Well, that Contax 645 lenses, which were made for film, don't perform super-well on the hyper-pixellated digital sensor of the GFX is no surprise to my mind, you use them for rendering usually, not for thair sheer sharpness prowess on modern sensors.

I only have the GF 45-100 zoom and on my GFX 100s it's unbelievably sharp for a zoom lens, so really nothing to complain about it.

Since Leica S glass was made from scratch for digital and has no problem to resolve the 64MP sensor of the S3, I'm pretty optimistic that it will perform quite well on the GFX 100, and the catch for me would be that, sharpness aside, the rendering woud be different (more "leica-esque") than Fuji glass.

You might have the right point.

A factor I was thinking is the matching firmware between the camera and the lens. I would not doubt Leica has the optimized firmware  to pair the Leica S lens and Leica S camera. So would Fujifilm to pair the GFX lens and GFX camera. Crossing system definitely would loss that advantage.

Edited December 20, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Stuart Richardson]

The S lenses were designed without digital corrections in mind because optical viewfinder needs to be accurate and distortion free, for example. Don't worry about the S lenses. As a whole, they are likely better. As Tirpitz said, the Contax are not quite the same comparison because they are that much older and designed or film. But the best of those lenses are also likely to be fine. I guess we wait for a detailed comparison, but my bet would be on Leica being the best of the bunch. If nothing else, they will maintain the beautiful character they have on the S cameras on the GFX.

[Tirpitz666]

Yep, the fact that Leica S should be mostly optically (and not software, as it is often the case nowadays) corrected make me optimistic that they could perform pretty well also adapted to another camera. At the end there should be a reason why they tend to be so "fat" 🙂

[Dazzajl]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

but my bet would be on Leica being the best of the bunch

I’d wager no one else will be as optically impressive as Fuji’s lenses. Leica certainly don’t have the medium format history and expertise to match them in design or manufacturing. 

[Jon Warwick]

I have a few GF lenses, being the smallish 50mm, the 63mm, and the much newer 55mm 1.7. The last of those is my favourite - very flat field, and sharp all the way into the deepest corners (certainly by f5.6, which is what I use for landscapes). It’s a very good lens for my use.

All that said, I think the overall “system” (the interaction of the lens, sensor, microlenses / sensor cover glass / color filter array, camera processing, etc) is perhaps just as important than pure headline megapixels alone. The reason is because I’ve taken loads of side-by-side images (base ISOs, RRS 3-series tripod, self timer, f5.6) using my GFX100 and the GF55mm, and compared them closely to my M11 and 50 APO Lanthar, including on screen and on 55” wide prints off both Lambda and Epson 11880 printers. The difference in recorded detail, and even look of the files is really really small. In a recent blind test of two cropped 30x20” test prints (off 55” on a Lambda printer) I couldn’t tell which camera took what and I’m looking all over the frame for any giveaway. 

The main difference that I occasionally see (before cleaning it up) can be more aliasing and color artifacts with the M11 due to its lower megapixels, but otherwise the M11 prints can often have more “bite” and consistent mid-frame sharpness than what I’m getting off the GFX. I’d still rate the GF55 as better at the far edges (specifically at f5.6) than my APO Lanthars, the latter I think needs closer to f8+ to match. But the final output to my eyes is really close, despite 100 vs 60mp, medium format vs 35mm full frame. 

The M lenses, like the S, also have very little optical correction going on, which I appreciate - clicking it on / off in ACR shows almost no difference, but one sees the warping with the GF lenses as the corrections are applied.

I will be intrigued to see how the S lenses perform on a GFX, including interaction with the sensor cover glass etc etc. 

Edited December 20, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[Einst_Stein]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

The S lenses were designed without digital corrections in mind because optical viewfinder needs to be accurate and distortion free, for example. Don't worry about the S lenses. As a whole, they are likely better. As Tirpitz said, the Contax are not quite the same comparison because they are that much older and designed or film. But the best of those lenses are also likely to be fine. I guess we wait for a detailed comparison, but my bet would be on Leica being the best of the bunch. If nothing else, they will maintain the beautiful character they have on the S cameras on the GFX.

Let’s wait to see if S lens on GFX without GFX optimized firmware beats GFX lens on GFX camera with optimized firmware.

[helged]

15 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Let’s wait to see if S lens on GFX without GFX optimized firmware beats GFX lens on GFX camera with optimized firmware.

Isn't it equally much a question of how the actual rendering of various lenses? For optical perfection, newer lenses are hard to beat, and I would think that the optically best/newest of the GF-lenses are optically outstanding. But the rendering of S-lenses - or other/older lenses for that matter - could be equally useful for the photographer/client. At least how I see it. I would think that mirrorless, medium format lenses from Leica, rumoured to come 'together' with S4, will be optically super. For instance based on the existing SL APO Summicrons. Despite this, I foresee that quite som will use the existing S-lenses on S4 by means of a dedicated adapter (also rumored).

[Einst_Stein]

I have not seen from any reliable sources saying S lens is designed without lens correction firmware. However, if you google, you will find comments saying S firmware does include lens correction. 

Logically, even S lenses are designed without lens correction in mind, it does not mean it cannot get benefit with lens correction. Besides, distortion is not the only thing the correction firmware can do, There are many other types of imperfection that can beget benefit.

The reality needs someone to demonstrate whether GFX lens can out prep form S on GFX camera.

[Stuart Richardson]

Have you used S lenses on an S or SL body? I recall you were using Contax lenses I think. They do have optional corrections that are almost completely unnecessary. In the case of the 120mm, the correction actually diminishes performance (it has no distortion or color fringing to speak of, and clicking the distortion just slightly softens the image. Lightroom made these corrections, not Leica. The ones in the Q and SL lenses are different and made by Leica themselves as part of the lens designs. 

[Einst_Stein]

5 minutes ago, helged said:

Isn't it equally much a question of how the actual rendering of various lenses? For optical perfection, newer lenses are hard to beat, and I would think that the optically best/newest of the GF-lenses are optically outstanding. But the rendering of S-lenses - or other/older lenses for that matter - could be equally useful for the photographer/client. At least how I see it. I would think that mirrorless, medium format lenses from Leica, rumoured to come 'together' with S4, will be optically super. For instance based on the existing SL APO Summicrons. Despite this, I foresee that quite som will use the existing S-lenses on S4 by means of a dedicated adapter (also rumored).

I don’t get your point yet. “Equally” ? It is likely never. 

if your point is to enjoy somewhat S image rendering of S lens+ S camera through S lens on GFX camera,  certainly it is each individual’s freedom. My personal interest is whether it is more preferred, objectively, than GFX lens on GFX camera (with all tools, pre and post processing. 

[helged]

2 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I don’t get your point yet. “Equally” ? It is likely never. 

if your point is to enjoy somewhat S image rendering of S lens+ S camera through S lens on GFX camera,  certainly it is each individual’s freedom. My personal interest is whether it is more preferred, objectively, than GFX lens on GFX camera (with all tools, pre and post processing. 

My comment was an explicitly stated question - a rather common practice in forums like this, I presume.

[Einst_Stein]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Have you used S lenses on an S or SL body? I recall you were using Contax lenses I think. They do have optional corrections that are almost completely unnecessary. In the case of the 120mm, the correction actually diminishes performance (it has no distortion or color fringing to speak of, and clicking the distortion just slightly softens the image. Lightroom made these corrections, not Leica. The ones in the Q and SL lenses are different and made by Leica themselves as part of the lens designs. 

I bought S camera to use C645 lenses since my Contex - HB back has some problems. I didn’t expect it outperforms using native S lens. But soon I found I prefers the S lenses I acquired later. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

5 minutes ago, helged said:

My comment was an explicitly stated question - a rather common practice in forums like this, I presume.

Fair enough. 
Let wait to see someone posts objective comparisons.

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, helged said:

Isn't it equally much a question of how the actual rendering of various lenses? For optical perfection, newer lenses are hard to beat, and I would think that the optically best/newest of the GF-lenses are optically outstanding. But the rendering of S-lenses - or other/older lenses for that matter - could be equally useful for the photographer/client. At least how I see it. I would think that mirrorless, medium format lenses from Leica, rumoured to come 'together' with S4, will be optically super. For instance based on the existing SL APO Summicrons. Despite this, I foresee that quite som will use the existing S-lenses on S4 by means of a dedicated adapter (also rumored).

The GF lenses are good, especially considering the price (and some lenses like the GF 55 and 110mm are especially good), but the rendering is different for some subjects compared to much of what I’m used to from Leica systems. To my eyes (ie, subjective indeed), the GF system creates a very sharp look in terms of high acutance, but I often prefer the “textures” in my images from the Leica. The latter often looks more real and alive to me. In comparison, the GF can look a bit, well, “flat”, despite being very sharp from the high acutance. Again, maybe the GF lenses are recording textures (which give the shape to a subject?) in a different way that might explain this?? …..if so, beyond my ability to describe why / how.

The nice thing about the M system (or SL), and potentially the S4 if it’s produced, is the option to create many different renderings with the same body by picking and choosing different lenses. On my M11, I much prefer the Summicron v5 for close-up portraits, but then I also use a super sharp APO lens with little field curvature for landscapes. With Leica, I have flexibility in creating the rendering that I’m after for different subjects. In comparison, the GFX is more a “one look wonder” because the ability to mix and match various lenses is more limited, in my humble opinion.

Separately - fwiw - my tests concluded to my eyes that, out of all of these systems (M11, M11M, SL3, GFX100), the M11M records the most detail and in the purest way, helped by no aliasing in any of the finest of details due to lack of color filter array messing things up.

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by Jon Warwick