M645 lenses on Fuji MF cameras ...

[jwilliams]

I'm just wondering what kind of results one can expect if using Mamiya 645 lenses adapted to one of Fuji's medium format camera. I have an old M645 Super the I haven't used in ages and also a 55 2.8, 80 2.8 & 150 3.5. I was thinking about selling them but was wondering how they would do if I adapted them to one of the Fuji GFX50/100 cameras? This would be for static landscape type stuff.

Any idea how these lenses on a Fuji camera would fare against modern FF mirrorless cameras and lenses?

I've got a Canon R at the moment with RF 24-105 4L IS, 50 2.1L, EF 16-35 4L IS and plan to add the RF 70-200 4L IS. Could those lenses on a GFX camera perform as well or better than my current RF gear?

Also curious if anyone has compared the GFX 50 series with the higher MP FF cameras. A Canon R5 upgrade might be in my future instead.

If I got a GFX camera undoubtedly I'd eventually add some GFX lenses, especially at the wider FLs, but if my current lenses would work well that would greatly reduce the number of lenses I'd need.

I'm also curious if any here have adapted Canon EF lenses to GFX cameras, especially my 16-35 4L IS. I know it doesn't cover the whole image sensor but still seems like an interesting prospect especially if wanting to shoot in a more square aspect ration than FFs native 3:2.

Thanks.

--
Jonathan

 

[Rob de Loe]

I'm just wondering what kind of results one can expect if using Mamiya 645 lenses adapted to one of Fuji's medium format camera. I have an old M645 Super the I haven't used in ages and also a 55 2.8, 80 2.8 & 150 3.5. I was thinking about selling them but was wondering how they would do if I adapted them to one of the Fuji GFX50/100 cameras? This would be for static landscape type stuff.

Any idea how these lenses on a Fuji camera would fare against modern FF mirrorless cameras and lenses?

I've got a Canon R at the moment with RF 24-105 4L IS, 50 2.1L, EF 16-35 4L IS and plan to add the RF 70-200 4L IS. Could those lenses on a GFX camera perform as well or better than my current RF gear?

Also curious if anyone has compared the GFX 50 series with the higher MP FF cameras. A Canon R5 upgrade might be in my future instead.

If I got a GFX camera undoubtedly I'd eventually add some GFX lenses, especially at the wider FLs, but if my current lenses would work well that would greatly reduce the number of lenses I'd need.

Thanks.

Mamiya 645 lenses and Pentax 645 lenses each have their fans, but most people who have used both seem to consider them about on par (with individual variations, e.g., I have yet to find someone who thinks Mamiya's 35mm is better than Pentax's).

The point of that preamble is I use Pentax 645 lenses on a GFX 50R and am happy with the results. It's going to be case-by-case with your Mamiya 645 lenses, but I think you'll find that some of them will give you excellent results. You can safely ignore anyone who tells you that "old" medium format lenses are not good enough for a GFX camera.

If you'd like to see some full resolution JPEG samples with Pentax 645 lenses, there are files here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mIInzlyRvnMKS-MLOEdVjwX5gkNY3Xqn

There are files for lots of other lenses there too, including the Mamiya G 50/4 which is a superb lens on my 50R.

 

[jwilliams]

I'm just wondering what kind of results one can expect if using Mamiya 645 lenses adapted to one of Fuji's medium format camera. I have an old M645 Super the I haven't used in ages and also a 55 2.8, 80 2.8 & 150 3.5. I was thinking about selling them but was wondering how they would do if I adapted them to one of the Fuji GFX50/100 cameras? This would be for static landscape type stuff.

Any idea how these lenses on a Fuji camera would fare against modern FF mirrorless cameras and lenses?

I've got a Canon R at the moment with RF 24-105 4L IS, 50 2.1L, EF 16-35 4L IS and plan to add the RF 70-200 4L IS. Could those lenses on a GFX camera perform as well or better than my current RF gear?

Also curious if anyone has compared the GFX 50 series with the higher MP FF cameras. A Canon R5 upgrade might be in my future instead.

If I got a GFX camera undoubtedly I'd eventually add some GFX lenses, especially at the wider FLs, but if my current lenses would work well that would greatly reduce the number of lenses I'd need.

Thanks.

Mamiya 645 lenses and Pentax 645 lenses each have their fans, but most people who have used both seem to consider them about on par (with individual variations, e.g., I have yet to find someone who thinks Mamiya's 35mm is better than Pentax's).

The point of that preamble is I use Pentax 645 lenses on a GFX 50R and am happy with the results. It's going to be case-by-case with your Mamiya 645 lenses, but I think you'll find that some of them will give you excellent results. You can safely ignore anyone who tells you that "old" medium format lenses are not good enough for a GFX camera.

If you'd like to see some full resolution JPEG samples with Pentax 645 lenses, there are files here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mIInzlyRvnMKS-MLOEdVjwX5gkNY3Xqn

There are files for lots of other lenses there too, including the Mamiya G 50/4 which is a superb lens on my 50R.

Thanks. That's very helpful.

 

[John Crowe]

I have done a lot of research in the past 2 months. The Mamìya 35mm comes in C and C N. The C is poor. The N is close to the Pentax 35, but the Mamiya has less distortion. I may eventually decide to go for the 35 C N due to lack of distortion.

I have just started shifting/stitching with the Mamiya 645 50mm f4 Shift with shift adapter on FF Canon 5DSR. This lens would be awesome on a GFX through either simply shifting to correct perspective or for shifting/ stitching to obtain the equivalent of about 56mm x 84mm sensor.

The advantage of your 645 lenses is they have more coverage than just 33mm x 44mm. I believe there is a shift adapter for 645 to GFX. Making 44mm x 56mm stitched images is quite doable. So 85 MP to 170MP depending on which GFX. You of course get back closer to the uncropped focal length of your lenses.

The Mamiya 50 is not quite as sharp as my Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical but as soon as you can start shifting/ stitching to get the view of a 24mm lens (FF) at an equivalent 200MP sensor...wow! Blows away my Canon 17 TS-E and 1.4x. That is on a 5DSR, imagine GFX100.

The Mamiya 50 was not that highly rated back in the day so I think your Mamiya 645 lenses would do quite well. In some instances, like above, they could outperform your L's.

If you search here there is a thread where someone lists how much coverage Canon lenses have on GFX. The possibilities are quite good.

I can achieve the results of the Mamiya 35 through shifting/stitching of the 50, so I will leave that one for now. I am awaiting delivery of an Arsat 30mm full frame 6x6 fisheye to play around with on the 5DSR. It is coming with 645 adapter so I can shift/stitch with it too.

 

[Rob de Loe]

I have done a lot of research in the past 2 months. The Mamìya 35mm comes in C and C N. The C is poor. The N is close to the Pentax 35, but the Mamiya has less distortion. I may eventually decide to go for the 35 C N due to lack of distortion.

John, have you personally compared the Mamiya 645 35 N to the Pentax-A 645 35? I'm intrigued to hear that you think the Mamiya has less distortion. Some moustache distortion is the one issue I have with my Pentax (although apparently it's quite common with wide-angle retrofocus lenses). I rarely notice it because I rarely shoot subjects where it would be noticed (e.g., architecture). It's most prominent when I shift into the outer edge of the image circle (which is actually larger than is needed to cover 645 film).

 

[John Crowe]

Not direct comparison. Just a lot of research as I mentioned. I don't do a lot of architecture but enough to get thoroughly ticked off with moustache in the Nikon 14/2.8 for 7 years before switching to the Canon 17 TS-E 10 years ago.

I have not had a chance yet to look for distortion in the Mamiya 50 Shift or the Laowa 12/2.8. Maybe I will visit a brick wall when it warms up a bit.

From my readings there are people who will never go back to Mamiya 35 after the Pentax 35. But I can gather that most of those are not talking about the newer N version. There are also those that were disappointed in the Pentax distortion and other users of the Mamiya C N that are pleased with what little distortion there is. It is difficult weeding through and separating comments for the Mamiya C and C N versions. I conclude that the Pentax is sharper but I prefer less distortion.

The Mamiya 50 is not highly rated either, but I can tell you it is very good until the last 6mm approx. of shift. At the very edges of the image circle it gets very soft and more CA, at f8 to f11. I will double check but I got useful imagery at 24mm x 84mm. I got exposure of 96mm but 6mm at each end was not useful. I will likely settle on using it for a very clean clear 64mm x 76mm. The problem on the 5DSR at the extremes of 24mm x 84mm is the colour shift due to the angle of light coming in and or vignetting. I need to work on this aspect. The centre is soft at f4, better with each stop down. Excellent at f8 to f11, and then noticeably poorer down through f16 to f32. This is one of the reasons that I suspect the 35 C N is better than reported. I personally have never used a wideangle lens wide open and that seems to be how it gets judged.

There is even variation in the Pentax 35 models. I was not concentrating on these but if I am not mistaken the FA is better than DA is better than A. Hope I got the nomenclature right.

The Contax 645 35 is supposed to be best, but very expensive and no manual aperture.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Not direct comparison. Just a lot of research as I mentioned. I don't do a lot of architecture but enough to get thoroughly ticked off with moustache in the Nikon 14/2.8 for 7 years before switching to the Canon 17 TS-E 10 years ago.

I have not had a chance yet to look for distortion in the Mamiya 50 Shift or the Laowa 12/2.8. Maybe I will visit a brick wall when it warms up a bit.

From my readings there are people who will never go back to Mamiya 35 after the Pentax 35. But I can gather that most of those are not talking about the newer N version. There are also those that were disappointed in the Pentax distortion and other users of the Mamiya C N that are pleased with what little distortion there is. It is difficult weeding through and separating comments for the Mamiya C and C N versions. I conclude that the Pentax is sharper but I prefer less distortion.

The Mamiya 50 is not highly rated either, but I can tell you it is very good until the last 6mm approx. of shift. At the very edges of the image circle it gets very soft and more CA, at f8 to f11. I will double check but I got useful imagery at 24mm x 84mm. I got exposure of 96mm but 6mm at each end was not useful. I will likely settle on using it for a very clean clear 64mm x 76mm. The problem on the 5DSR at the extremes of 24mm x 84mm is the colour shift due to the angle of light coming in and or vignetting. I need to work on this aspect. The centre is soft at f4, better with each stop down. Excellent at f8 to f11, and then noticeably poorer down through f16 to f32. This is one of the reasons that I suspect the 35 C N is better than reported. I personally have never used a wideangle lens wide open and that seems to be how it gets judged.

There is even variation in the Pentax 35 models. I was not concentrating on these but if I am not mistaken the FA is better than DA is better than A. Hope I got the nomenclature right.

The Contax 645 35 is supposed to be best, but very expensive and no manual aperture.

Thanks for clarifying. I suspect we've read all the same resources! That all sounds familiar.

I briefly had a Mamiya 50 645 shift lens. My copy was quite terrible, even unshifted. I would never condemn the whole line based on one sample though. Glad yours works for you.

I friend has the Contax 645 35 and absolutely loves it (and the 645 Contax line in general). The inability to control the aperture is a terrible shame for lens adapters like me. However... if you ever desperately need one, Cambo now has a service where they will re-house a Contax 645 35 lens you provide into a new aperture mount for the Actus line.

Regarding the Pentax 645 35mm lenses, the FA is almost universally considered weaker at the edges than the manual A version I have. I can confirm that based on side-by-side comparison (again, one sample of each). The D-FA version corrected the edge problem and improved the coatings. Some people think it's better than the A. I have not owned one, but I'm not going to spend the money to find out since I compared some side-by-side RAW files made by Warren (Diggles on various forums). His post with the files can be found here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...ax-645-35mm-smc-pentax-vs-hd-pentax-d-fa.html When I studied the files Warren supplied, I thought the A was either the same, or better than the newer model.

This is a quick test made with the SMC Pentax-A 645 35/3.5 with 13mm of shift left and right on my GFX 50R. The angle of view is about the same as a 26mm lens on a 33mm x 44mm sensor. In the full version, the license plates on the cars at left and right are sharp and clear. What moustache distortion?

SMC Pentax-A 645 35mm f/3.5 -- 13mm left/right shift on GFX 50R. Focus at effective infinity.

 

[Rich42]

• jwilliams wrote:

I'm just wondering what kind of results one can expect if using Mamiya 645 lenses adapted to one of Fuji's medium format camera. I have an old M645 Super the I haven't used in ages and also a 55 2.8, 80 2.8 & 150 3.5. I was thinking about selling them but was wondering how they would do if I adapted them to one of the Fuji GFX50/100 cameras? This would be for static landscape type stuff.

Any idea how these lenses on a Fuji camera would fare against modern FF mirrorless cameras and lenses?

I've got a Canon R at the moment with RF 24-105 4L IS, 50 2.1L, EF 16-35 4L IS and plan to add the RF 70-200 4L IS. Could those lenses on a GFX camera perform as well or better than my current RF gear?

Also curious if anyone has compared the GFX 50 series with the higher MP FF cameras. A Canon R5 upgrade might be in my future instead.

If I got a GFX camera undoubtedly I'd eventually add some GFX lenses, especially at the wider FLs, but if my current lenses would work well that would greatly reduce the number of lenses I'd need.

I'm also curious if any here have adapted Canon EF lenses to GFX cameras, especially my 16-35 4L IS. I know it doesn't cover the whole image sensor but still seems like an interesting prospect especially if wanting to shoot in a more square aspect ration than FFs native 3:2.

Thanks.

Here is the most straightforward response on this subject. Get the GFX camera of your choice. Use your film era lenses on it with the appropriate adapter. You will get good results. Even excellent results in many instances. I’ve used a variety of Pentax 6x7 lenses on GFX 100 bodies. The lenses have performed up to my expectations. Enjoy using your existing MF lenses. They will perform well. Don’t worry about that. You’re over thinking this.

THEN . . .

Rent a few GF lenses. Any GF lenses. Prime. Zoom. It doesn’t matter. If you dare, rent the 110mm f/2. Shoot lots of images. Shoot a lot wide open.

The angels will sing.

No matter which GF lens.

You will not have to wonder about using the adapted lenses any more. You will quietly nod your head in new-found understanding and put them away and spend all your time plotting how to acquire GF lenses. You will not be content with just eventually getting one or two.

Thats the way it is. The GFX is simply bait. It’s the lenses. Oh, the lenses.

Rich

 

[John Crowe]

So you are getting about 44mm x 59mm at 90MP. Very cool! Yes the detail one gets through shifting/stitching is amazing. Generally speaking for landscapes you will never see moustache distortion. Just keep shooting away. Thank-you for correction on the Pentax models, that sounds right.

Yes, I seemed to luck out with my 50 Shift. Although it has severe separation which means I cannot shoot with the sun in the direct centre of the lens. Even a few degrees off centre and it is not a problem.

 

[John Crowe]

This is a shift/stitch of 9 images from the Mamiya 645 50mm f4 Shift and Kipon Shift adapter on Canon 5DSR. Resultant file is 1.1 GB, 12555x16354 pixels, about 54mm x 70mm equivalent sensor, 204 MP. 42" x 54" at 300 pixels/inch.

Mamiya 50mm f4 Shift on Canon 5DSR

Below is a 100% crop from the island on the left.

100% crop

 

[Rob de Loe]

This is a shift/stitch of 9 images from the Mamiya 645 50mm f4 Shift and Kipon Shift adapter on Canon 5DSR. Resultant file is 1.1 GB, 12555x16354 pixels, about 54mm x 70mm equivalent sensor, 204 MP. 42" x 54" at 300 pixels/inch.

Mamiya 50mm f4 Shift on Canon 5DSR

Below is a 100% crop from the island on the left.

100% crop

That looks very fine! Your copy definitely is better than the one I had.

 

[Rob de Loe]

So you are getting about 44mm x 59mm at 90MP. Very cool! Yes the detail one gets through shifting/stitching is amazing.

With the longer lenses that have bigger image circles there's of course lots more potential to make huge images. For a 205 MP image (16,512 x 12,384) I need 9 frames (three rows of three). That requires an image circle of 110mm on my GFX 50R. I can pull that off starting with my 120mm lens. I've done it to see if it can be done; perhaps one day I may actually need that (but I doubt it).

 

[Rob de Loe]

THEN . . .

Rent a few GF lenses. Any GF lenses. Prime. Zoom. It doesn’t matter. If you dare, rent the 110mm f/2. Shoot lots of images. Shoot a lot wide open.

The angels will sing.

No matter which GF lens.

You will not have to wonder about using the adapted lenses any more. You will quietly nod your head in new-found understanding and put them away and spend all your time plotting how to acquire GF lenses. You will not be content with just eventually getting one or two.

Thats the way it is. The GFX is simply bait. It’s the lenses. Oh, the lenses.

Rich

Those angels must be fully occupied singing for other people. My admittedly small sample of GF lenses (63/2.8 and 50/3.5) has yet to summon any singing angels. Maybe they'll come for the 45-100 (if the store ever gets around to shipping it that is).

I think the angels prefer people who shoot wide-open, which I almost never do. Wide-open, it's hard to beat those GF lenses. But I have a bunch of adapted lenses that do just as well or better at the apertures I use (typically f/8 and smaller). Of course none of my adapted lenses can autofocus, but then no GF lenses can do tilt-shift. So it all comes down to what you need (right tool for the job and all that).

To the OP I would say, for the price of an adapter you can find out for yourself whether or not your M645 lenses please you. I would say if you're going to bother with an adapter, get a shift, or tilt-shift, adapter so that you can at least take advantage of the larger image circle of the M645 lenses.

 

[Rich42]

THEN . . .

Rent a few GF lenses. Any GF lenses. Prime. Zoom. It doesn’t matter. If you dare, rent the 110mm f/2. Shoot lots of images. Shoot a lot wide open.

The angels will sing.

No matter which GF lens.

You will not have to wonder about using the adapted lenses any more. You will quietly nod your head in new-found understanding and put them away and spend all your time plotting how to acquire GF lenses. You will not be content with just eventually getting one or two.

Thats the way it is. The GFX is simply bait. It’s the lenses. Oh, the lenses.

Rich

Those angels must be fully occupied singing for other people. My admittedly small sample of GF lenses (63/2.8 and 50/3.5) has yet to summon any singing angels.

LOL.

I had always thought my 105mm Pentax 67 SMC f/2.4 and SMC 200mm f/4 lenses were very, very special. After all, they are . . . used on my 645N film camera.

Nothing else I've used on MF film cameras has come close. Maybe they are excellent specimens out at the end of the manufacturing bell-shaped curve for those lenses and I got lucky when I bought them.

I've only used a borrowed GFX100 for a total of a few afternoons. (My very own GFX 100s is somewhere out in the supply-chain ether and will arrive in the fullness of time.)

I really liked those two lenses on the GFX100. But after admiring the images and thinking the lens-making art was just as good years ago as now . . .

. . . I got to play with the 63/2.8. Ya, know. I coulda sworn there were some female soprano voices coming from somewhere . . . Maybe it was my neighbor's stereo.

Then I used the 110/2. Mio Dio. Musica dal cielo.

;-)

Rich

Maybe they'll come for the 45-100 (if the store ever gets around to shipping it that is).

I think the angels prefer people who shoot wide-open, which I almost never do. Wide-open, it's hard to beat those GF lenses. But I have a bunch of adapted lenses that do just as well or better at the apertures I use (typically f/8 and smaller). Of course none of my adapted lenses can autofocus, but then no GF lenses can do tilt-shift. So it all comes down to what you need (right tool for the job and all that).

To the OP I would say, for the price of an adapter you can find out for yourself whether or not your M645 lenses please you. I would say if you're going to bother with an adapter, get a shift, or tilt-shift, adapter so that you can at least take advantage of the larger image circle of the M645 lenses.

 

[Rob de Loe]

THEN . . .

Rent a few GF lenses. Any GF lenses. Prime. Zoom. It doesn’t matter. If you dare, rent the 110mm f/2. Shoot lots of images. Shoot a lot wide open.

The angels will sing.

No matter which GF lens.

You will not have to wonder about using the adapted lenses any more. You will quietly nod your head in new-found understanding and put them away and spend all your time plotting how to acquire GF lenses. You will not be content with just eventually getting one or two.

Thats the way it is. The GFX is simply bait. It’s the lenses. Oh, the lenses.

Rich

Those angels must be fully occupied singing for other people. My admittedly small sample of GF lenses (63/2.8 and 50/3.5) has yet to summon any singing angels.

LOL.

I had always thought my 105mm Pentax 67 SMC f/2.4 and SMC 200mm f/4 lenses were very, very special. After all, they are . . . used on my 645N film camera.

Nothing else I've used on MF film cameras has come close. Maybe they are excellent specimens out at the end of the manufacturing bell-shaped curve for those lenses and I got lucky when I bought them.

I've only used a borrowed GFX100 for a total of a few afternoons. (My very own GFX 100s is somewhere out in the supply-chain ether and will arrive in the fullness of time.)

I really liked those two lenses on the GFX100. But after admiring the images and thinking the lens-making art was just as good years ago as now . . .

. . . I got to play with the 63/2.8. Ya, know. I coulda sworn there were some female soprano voices coming from somewhere . . . Maybe it was my neighbor's stereo.

Then I used the 110/2. Mio Dio. Musica dal cielo.

;-)

Rich

Maybe they'll come for the 45-100 (if the store ever gets around to shipping it that is).

I think the angels prefer people who shoot wide-open, which I almost never do. Wide-open, it's hard to beat those GF lenses. But I have a bunch of adapted lenses that do just as well or better at the apertures I use (typically f/8 and smaller). Of course none of my adapted lenses can autofocus, but then no GF lenses can do tilt-shift. So it all comes down to what you need (right tool for the job and all that).

To the OP I would say, for the price of an adapter you can find out for yourself whether or not your M645 lenses please you. I would say if you're going to bother with an adapter, get a shift, or tilt-shift, adapter so that you can at least take advantage of the larger image circle of the M645 lenses.

I'm waiting for something from Vietnam and surely hope it wasn't on the Ever Given... I'd forgotten what it's like to wait forever for things coming in the slow mail.

I hope your 100S gives you as much pleasure as the lenses! Gosh we're spoiled with excellent kit these days, aren't we?

 

[John]

As title suggests, has anyone ever used a Mamiya 45mm F/2.8 N Lens with a GFX camera such as the GFX 50R? If so, what is your impression of it? Thanks!

 

[dual12]

I've never used the 45mm. I used the 35mm and 55mm on an old Kodak 645 back years ago and they were good. You might see some slight aberrations, but they're easily corrected.

Currently, I use the 80mm 1.9 and 2.8, 110 2.8, 120mm macro, 145mm 4 soft focus, 150mm 3.5, 200 2.8 APO, and 300 5.6. I like all of them. They're not as sharp as gfx lenses, but they don't cost nearly as much either. I'm planning to add at least one more gfx lens, but I'll still keep the Mamiyas. I like them.

 

[dual12]

And make sure you get the manual focus version. You won't be able to control the aperture on the AF lenses and will have to shoot wide open only.