Leica M lenses on Fuji GFX100/100S

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, LarsHP said:

Smearing when using M lenses on other digital cameras is caused by the much thicker sensor glass stack in combination with a too short exit pupil. When steep angles of light hits a layer of glass about twice as thick as the lens is designed for, smearing occurs. 

Since the 50mm Apo-Summicron-M performs this well on a 44×33mm sensor, it implies that the exit pupil of that lens is long enough to not cause any problems. 

It’s not just M lenses, almost any full frame lens under 100mm has smeared corners at infinity on the full 44x33 sensor, whether designed for another digital sensor or for film. Medium format lenses for 645/67, etc. work without issue. In 35mm/full frame crop mode, most all full frame lenses including M work as intended. 

Edited April 15, 2021 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uxvvpxJ9QVFFyh0pW2rs9KBmUW9vlh-d-VnbcLDCTn8/edit#gid=0

[LarsHP]

On 4/15/2021 at 2:16 AM, hdmesa said:

It’s not just M lenses, almost any full frame lens under 100mm has smeared corners at infinity on the full 44x33 sensor, whether designed for another digital sensor or for film. Medium format lenses for 645/67, etc. work without issue. In 35mm/full frame crop mode, most all full frame lenses including M work as intended. 

I think it may be of value to distinguish between smearing derived from short exit pupil distance and ordinary reduced sharpness. The first happens only when the sensor glass is thicker than the lens is designed for, and within the its native image circle, while the latter is because the lens is used on a larger sensor/film than it is designed for. When I use the word smearing, it is only in the first mentioned sense. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by LarsHP

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Not quite my experience. Vignette yes, but not always smeared corners. Totally depends on the image circle covered. I found the sporadic threshold to be about 50mm, with exceptions above AND below that.

Very few full frame lenses below 100mm (85mm and wider) have full 44x33 coverage with usable/sharp corners stopped down at infinity. Some photographers are happy to crop to 16:9 or square in order to use a given full frame lens at infinity for landscape. 

At close distance wide open, many full frame lenses of all focal lengths are usable on 44x33 — often with heavy vignette correction required — sometimes with small hard corners requiring a small crop. 

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, LarsHP said:

I think it may be of value to distinguish between smearing derived from short exit pupil distance and ordinary reduced sharpness. The first happens only when the sensor glass is thicker than the lens is designed for, and within the its native image circle, while the latter is because the lens is used on a larger sensor/film than it is designed for. When I use the word smearing, it is only in the first mentioned sense. 

Smeared corners are unusable, and the majority of vintage full frame lenses at or below 50mm have them at infinity, especially the more collectible wide aperture vintage lenses that render well for portraits.

Reduced sharpness in the corners is what I consider a usable lens since that can often be mitigated with a small crop or a radial mask to add sharpening (or using the Sharpness slider in the C1 Lens Correction panel that effectively does the same thing).

The best full frame lenses for infinity landscape use are the tilt/shift lenses with image circles that can cover 44x33.

Of course there are exceptions, but when I see someone trying to find a full frame lens to use on the GFX for landscape, I try to steer them toward native GF lenses or a full frame tilt/shift (unless they don’t mind 16:9 or other cropped ratios). If they merely want to get increased subject separation for centrally-framed portrait-type shots, then the options are vast.

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Not here on the Leica forum. They are not Leica lenses. Just hinting a few: Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/180 C/Y mount, Zeiss Jena Biotar 2/5.8cm black, Canon EF 200/2.8 II, Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM (from f/8 on)... I attached a photo made with the latter, with EXIF. Full frame 44x33, perfect corners at f/8.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Canon 40 2.8 — I would say perfectly usable corners at infinity stopped down (especially in your example which plays to field curvature), but not perfect. The GF 45 would be perfect IQ, and the Canon 40 falls short of that level.

Many full frame lenses at 100mm and longer are great (some on par with native GF lenses) at infinity on the full 44x33 sensor out to the corners, the Contax Zeiss 100 f2 (C/Y) I own being one of them.

[Guest JMF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, there is a list of usable third party lenses for the GFX 44x33 line:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1787749571545651/permalink/1792943664359575

Best, JM

[Guest JMF]

...

Edited April 18, 2021 by JMF

[6bit]

On 4/11/2021 at 11:32 PM, frame-it said:

dont believe everyone on internet forums, most people have never tried M/R lenses on GFX, but love to talk a lot

Make sure you get a novoflex adapter, not a cheap crappy one

Read Jim Kassons Blog

50 lux is fine, 90APO is fine and sometimes so razor sharp there is moire

R lenses are fine

i dont care about the 4 extreme corners, the crop if required is actually very little

Fuji GFX50R + Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH
ACROS-RED Jpg from Camera

 

Between f4 and f8, ISO 125, 1/500th, FULL 8256x6192 resized to 1280 for the forum.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Why is the Novaflex adapter better than others? Are they lined with felt for reflections or just have a light-tight fit where others don’t? 

[hdmesa]

33 minutes ago, 6bit said:

Why is the Novaflex adapter better than others? Are they lined with felt for reflections or just have a light-tight fit where others don’t? 

German made versus Chinese made – fit/finish/tolerances. I use Novoflex where I can, but they don't make adapters for every mount combination I need, so I use Kipon to fill in the gaps.

Some random observations based on adapters I've tried:

All my Kipons work fine (Contax C/Y to G-mount/GFX, Minolta MD to G, Contax C/Y to RF, Minolta MD to RF). But my Kipon M to Canon RF does not give confident clicks when attaching or removing lenses – but I tolerate it for M to RF since it has a helicoid macro function.

I tried the TTArtisan M to RF macro adapter, but the helicoid was over-greased and made quite a mess. Impossible to clean up, as grease just kept coming back out after using the helicoid – tossed it into the trash where it belonged.

Both of the Fotodiox I've tried were near-trash quality as well. I have their Pentax 645 to G-mount/GFX, and its interior matte black paint was so poorly applied, it wiped right off with a cloth. I also have a Fotodiox Pentax 645 to Canon RF, and it's unnervingly loose on the camera side – my Canon rear lens caps won't even stay on it, they just fall right off after a slight bump. I should throw both of them away next time I see them.

I have a Novoflex for M to G-mount (GFX), and it's worth the extra cost, IMO – very well made.