Invitation: share your results of full frame lenses on medium format

Hi all,

I have been compiling this list

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uxvvpxJ9QVFFyh0pW2rs9KBmUW9vlh-d-VnbcLDCTn8/edit?usp=sharing

of full frame lenses covering more than their intended image format, i.e. being usable on GFX et al, at least in 1:1 or 1:3 crop. (If you're wondering what that's about: a) more lens choice; b) same depth of field as on full frame, yet more angle of view! A possible image degradation in the corners may even add to the character of, for instance, portraits)

If you have tried, read about, or have the gear to test any lenses not mentioned there yet, I cordially invite you to add them, here or in the doc

Enjoy your weekend!

Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art
Covers full sensor, extremely sharp, fast to focus.
Sold off my GF 110 f2 in favor of the 135mm

I have tested only a couple. First 85mm f1.2 L II. Covers the sensor well. If corners are soft I would care less. It is not a landscape lens.

@f1.8



@f4



Second, Canon 200mm f2.8. looks pretty good for $500 lens. Here are some comparison shots with GF 100-200mm.





real image from 200mm f2.8



Here is Fuji GF 250mm f4 for comparison



Canon at f2.8, there is no Fuji lens with f2.8 in that focal length. I know this is 16:9 crop but for f2.8 I don't look at corners.



Third based on reviews of above poster is Tamron 35mm f1.8. Mostly tests shots.

@f1.8

I made a post recently giving some details about my experiences with older Pentax K-mount lenses:

Short version - some of them are excellent on 44x33.

Jonas Rask seems quite excited about Minolta Rokkor lenses. https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/

Might I ask how this list was compiled and what your criteria for the different colors are? And is there a standard for distance? While I come to the same result for some lenses I own, some seem off - maybe because of portrait distance vs infinity.

Please don't take this as a blanket critique - I much appreciate all the effort that went into the list and am quite tempted to head off to ebay for some of the lenses. That's why I'm asking - I'd be disappointed to find hard vignetting on a green-rated one when the explanation might be simply that I'm into landscape and the original source cared about people only.

E.g. Nikkor 1.8/20 G has green when it looks like this: https://fujilove.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/nikkor-20mm-f1.8-Fujifilm-GFX.jpg

Then there's my Zeiss Distagon 2.8/21 ZF.2 which shows hard vignetting regardless of the aperture. The ZE might be better due to the wider EF mount, but is it that much better that it deserves a green?



I did find some problems in the lenses listed:

• The Nikkor 2.8/45 GN and AI-P are different optical designs, even if both are Tessars.
• There are at least 3 optically different 2/50 Nikkors: Rangefinder Sonnar, 7-element Gauss, and 6-element Gauss.
• The 1.4/5cm Nikkor-S rangefinder and its "Olympic" successor are completely different - the former is a Sonnar, the Olympic a Gauss!

About that last one: I did a quick sample shot at infinity with the original 5cm at f/4, which is its best aperture for 33x44 coverage. This gets a yellow on your list.

Rob de Loe said:

Jonas Rask seems quite excited about Minolta Rokkor lenses. https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/

Click to expand...

no AF though. For some it doesn't matter for others like me matter a lot. That's why I stick with Canon mount lenses from Canon/Sigma.

bobby350z said:

Rob de Loe said:

Jonas Rask seems quite excited about Minolta Rokkor lenses. https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/

Click to expand...

no AF though. For some it doesn't matter for others like me matter a lot. That's why I stick with Canon mount lenses from Canon/Sigma.

Click to expand...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's great that you have a couple good lines that work for you.

bokesan said:

I did find some problems in the lenses listed:

• The Nikkor 2.8/45 GN and AI-P are different optical designs, even if both are Tessars.
• There are at least 3 optically different 2/50 Nikkors: Rangefinder Sonnar, 7-element Gauss, and 6-element Gauss.
• The 1.4/5cm Nikkor-S rangefinder and its "Olympic" successor are completely different - the former is a Sonnar, the Olympic a Gauss!

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input!

Most entries are indeed based on sample images since I don't own the GFX nor most of the lenses (this list helped me decide to pursue the full frame + focal reducer approach instead). There is thus naturally a bit of variation through subject, aperture, distance and indeed personal tolerance. I would find your sample picture of the 2o/1.8 acceptable, but can understand how you wouldn't. So my yellow is your red . That said, I incorporated all your feedback.

I see the list as a starting point for possible purchase decisions, i.e. to go and look at sample pictures.

Concerning different optical designs, I grouped lenses together if they performed the same, regardless of what's under the hood. The two Leica Noctiluxes for instance do not and thus have separate entries.

Thanks for the info. I understand this approach. I think I have some lenses not yet on your list. Here are all I have measured so far in one big image - if you view it at 100%, the graphs should be large enough to extract the necessary information. I could also dig out the source raws for these curves, but there are a lot of them.

One standout lens not mentioned yet is the older Sigma 2.8/70 macro. A sharp lens with very good coverage of 33x44 from infinity to about 1:2. To go closer you need to add a short tube. And as a tiny longer lens, I can recommend the Sigma 5.6/180.

bokesan said:

Here are all I have measured so far in one big image

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot! Can I just clarify, the right edge of the x-axis is the edge of the GFX frame? I.e. the space between the green line and the right edge of the chart is the additional image area of GFX over full frame? What do the millimetres under the x-axis designate?

Leica 50mm ‘lux asph is excellent.

Leica 135mm f:4 Tele-Elmar is almost perfect.

Leica 90mm Tele- Elmarit f:2.8 is very good.

All show slight vignetting but treatable.

The above is on a Hasselblad 907x using a Novoflex adaptor.

kathala said:

bokesan said:

Here are all I have measured so far in one big image

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot! Can I just clarify, the right edge of the x-axis is the edge of the GFX frame? I.e. the space between the green line and the right edge of the chart is the additional image area of GFX over full frame? What do the millimetres under the x-axis designate?

Click to expand...

The X-axis is millimeters from the center of the sensor. So yes: between the green line (edge of 36x24) and 27.5mm is the additional image area.

The Y-axis is relative illumination, so 0.5 ist -1 EV, 0.25 is -2 EV, ... So, if you were to define -3 EV as the limit of acceptable, you can read off how large the image circle is at any aperture by looking for the intersection of that curve with y=0.125. (If there's no intersection, the lens covers more than 55mm diagonal).

All curves are for infinity focus on a Hassy 907x with various adapters. Sometimes you can see the effect of a protruding part of the lens mount or adapter, e.g. on the Micro-Nikkor 4/200.

I can give more info, especially about the macro lenses when focused closer, since that will contrary to expectations often decrease coverage because of mechanical vignetting from the mount. I'm just a bit busy right now - will write that up in the next days.

- chris

To further illustrate, here is the Zeiss 2.8/21 curve and the source images for f/2.8 and f/11:






ZEISS 2.8/21 ZF.2 @ F/2.8




ZEISS 2.8/21 ZF.2 @ F/11



Another rangefinder lens I forgot to test so far: W-Nikkor 1:4 f=2.5 cm (saturation upped for that extra psychedelic touch):




W-Nikkor 1:4 f=2.5cm @ f/11

(I'd really like to know where that coloration on top comes from. Happens with other adapted wide-angle lenses too).

And it's curve:



- chris

bokesan said:

To further illustrate, here is the Zeiss 2.8/21 curve and the source images for f/2.8 and f/11:




ZEISS 2.8/21 ZF.2 @ F/2.8


ZEISS 2.8/21 ZF.2 @ F/11

Another rangefinder lens I forgot to test so far: W-Nikkor 1:4 f=2.5 cm (saturation upped for that extra psychedelic touch):


W-Nikkor 1:4 f=2.5cm @ f/11

(I'd really like to know where that coloration on top comes from. Happens with other adapted wide-angle lenses too).

And it's curve:



- chri

Click to expand...

A few days ago I compared a Pentax 645 35/3.5 FA lens to my Voigtlander 35/2 APO Lanthar on 24x36 mm.



View attachment d3f501d8f26c406d8147f194a681f5f8.jpg
Here left side is the 24x36 mm, without lens corrections and the right side is the Pentax 645 lens. The 645 lens shows much less vignetting.







View attachment 7350d5df21d04f749b9ef1f8860ef166.jpg
The same images, with lens corrections applied to the 24x36 mm lens.

What this shows is that a lens designed for a larger format will have less lightness fall of than a lens designed for a larger format.

Best regards

Erik



--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

Some lenses you probably did not want to know about, but I checked anyway

• Cosina 19-35mm 3.5-4.5 MC (also Soligor, Vivitar, ...): Covers from about 22 to 35mm. Hard vignetting below that. At infinity and 22mm and f/11, only the center is acceptably sharp.
• Sigma 100-300mm 1:4.5-6.7 DL: Covers from 100 to about 220mm. Not very good very small and light.
• Tokina SZ-X 60-300mm 1:4-5.6 (Metal, actually): Covers from 200-300mm, and even seems quite sharp at these focal lengths. Weighs twice as much as the Sigma, though.