I just found that too today at that GetDPI link. It's a useful resource.
Well, of course the lenses already listed don't change so the evaluation is current. But it will only include the newest lenses if people update it. Looks like you can edit the doc by logging into Google and requesting access from the owner. Then add your 7Artisans lens. The owner's email is provided on his website at http://christianschnalzger.de/
There is no way the 21 ZE/ZF covers 44x33 sharp to the corners at infinity on 44x33. Maybe the person who entered it only meant the vignetting was correctable. I would not base a purchasing decision on this list without finding a second source. No full frame lens below about 100mm covers sharp corner to corner at infinity on 44x33 except some of the most recent tilt/shift Canon EF lenses.
The BSI sensor on the 100/100S should theoretically give a little less vignetting over the 50mp 44x33 sensor, but I've yet to see that demonstrated. That said, the resolution jump to >100mp on the 100/100S is really demanding of full frame lenses designed in the film era. Lenses that I thought were sharp at infinity on my 50S/R really struggle on my 100S. They still render nice images, but they may disappoint at high magnification compared with GF lenses.
Agree, and in fact I wouldn't get too excited about second or third sources either... Anyone else's opinion is simply a rough starting point (and often an unreliable starting point). There are so many variables at play, and a lot of people aren't controlling for them properly.
Bump
That's not true. There are indeed non tilt/shift EF mount lenses which are sharp corner to corner at infinity (stopped down). I have two - the Tamron 35 and 45 f1.8 VC lenses. I believe there are others, including from Canon and Sigma. I believe there may also be F mount lenses in this category too, though I haven't personally tested.
1:0 for the skeptics. Here is the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/21 coverage. You get a circular fisheye look on crop MF. Note that this is from the Nikon F version - the Canon might be a bit better due to the larger mount, but not much:
Thanks for that. You did the measurements?Here is the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/21 coverage. You get a circular fisheye look on crop MF. Note that this is from the Nikon F version - the Canon might be a bit better due to the larger mount, but not much:
- Chris
blog.kasson.com
Yes. Lens at infinity on a dumb Nikon F to Hasselblad X adapter. I posted more of these some time ago:Thanks for that. You did the measurements?Here is the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/21 coverage. You get a circular fisheye look on crop MF. Note that this is from the Nikon F version - the Canon might be a bit better due to the larger mount, but not much:
- Chris
Really useful work you're doing.Yes. Lens at infinity on a dumb Nikon F to Hasselblad X adapter. I posted more of these some time ago:Thanks for that. You did the measurements?Here is the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/21 coverage. You get a circular fisheye look on crop MF. Note that this is from the Nikon F version - the Canon might be a bit better due to the larger mount, but not much:
- Chris
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65966044
blog.kasson.com
“Black corners” and “strong smear” are a strong double indication to me that it isn”t covering 44x33 respectably well. But it’s been almost two years since you wrote what I responded to, and the table may have been updated in the interim.
If the entry amounted to a positive I would agree. But it looks damning to me. I did actually own one once, and was bothered by the smearing on 24x36. The same goes for the ZF 15mm even more so
I think that the Sigma Art 40/1.4 does pretty nicely with a soft and faint corner darkening after applying Fringer’s lens profile. It’s not far from the not-jarring creative vignetting that I frequently do. But do get a 2nd opinion
.--
Thanks, Jim! I guess I should gather these in one place where they are easier to access. One thing I’m curious about is how much better the 100 MP BSI sensor does. My measurements indicate that the sensor has quite a large effect, in that the curves for the longer XCD lenses are closer to the figures published by Hasselblad than those for the 30 and 45mm. I’d have to put some work into the program I wrote to produce them (mainly documentation) before it would be useable by other people. Also, it uses dcraw and thus does not support Fuji raw files.
If anyone has already tested it, I'd be grateful if you could share your opinions and, if possible, images. Thanks.
Most normal to wide M lenses are a bit worse than the same focal lengths designed for other 35mm mounts. The M lenses are so small, Leica has to use extremely thin cover glass and special microlenses on the digital Ms to accommodate the angles at which light from M lenses is hitting the sensor. The GFX cover glass is not only very thick but is also gapped away from the sensor. But like many other 35mm/full frame lenses, some M lenses can be used at close distance wide open for portraits, etc.I had the Zeiss ZE 2.8/21mm, ZE 2/35mm, ZE 1.4/50mm and ZE 1.4/85mm adapted to the GFX50R with the Kipon EF>GFX AF. I sold them all.
2.8/21mm: horrible hard vignetting with no chance of recovery except with a big crop in the image and distortions.
2/35mm: vignetting and chromatic aberrations.
1.4/50mm: very bad between f1.4 and f2.8; lack of contrast and sharpness. Vignetting and chromatic aberrations.
1.4/85mm: very bad between f1.4 and f2.8; lack of contrast and sharpness. Softest vignetting of the four and chromatic aberrations. At f1.4 there was a very strange effect that looked like an "Emboss".
It's no coincidence that the 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 were completely redesigned when they became Milvus. They are beautiful objects but optically weak. Why have f1.4 if you can't use it? Apart from vignetting, these problems were present when I used them on the Canon 5DII/III/IV and EOS R cameras.
I now only have the ZE 2/100mm Macro-Planar. It does a bit of vignetting (recoverable) and optically it's superior to all the others I've mentioned. The Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZE/ZF2 is very good too.
This table isn't always accurate, but it has its uses.
I'm curious to know how the Carl Zeiss Planar 2/50mm T* ZM - Leica M Fit behaves in the GFX with respect to vignette. I hope it's better than the ones I had
