GF 100-200/5.6 with 1.4x TC on GFX 100s

[Painter19]

I have to say that after balancing the exposures and viewing at 200% on my 4K monitor I have to give a slight advantage to the GF100-200 compared to the 200 f2.8. In both resolution and contrast at the edge of the frame. Center too close to call. Just my observations.

Yes, even at 200mm, the GF lens is more consistent in the corners than any of the FF lenses. Some chromatic aberration as it reaches the edges bring a touch of softness, probably helpful to give a gentle blur to the background in some cases. I like this effect. Overall the lens is very good, and not too big or heavy.

Thanks a lot Alpshiker for your comparison images, and comments. I’m a lot less experienced with interchangeable lens cameras, and using lenses from different manufacturers than you guys are, and have heard others talk about damaging their camera mounts when using adapters. Both the Canon and Mamiya lenses look to be very good . It’s good to know about them as alternatives for my GFX50s II. That said, for now I’m so enamored with my GFX camera and the GF lenses I have that I’m reluctant to leave the 'Fuji system’. That could change, though.

Taking the other route, and buying the GF1.4 TC and using it for its’ center crops brings up a few other questions. How large is the good-quality center area (recognizing there is a continuous drop off towards the edges/corners, and that ‘good’ is subjective) in GF1.4 TC-GF100-200mm images center crops, and how does the IQ of those center areas compare with the IQ of the centers from the naked GF100-200mm lens?

I’m headed off to the high desert out of cell service area this morning but will check the thread when I return. Thanks again everyone for sharing your knowledge.

 

[alpshiker]

I have to say that after balancing the exposures and viewing at 200% on my 4K monitor I have to give a slight advantage to the GF100-200 compared to the 200 f2.8. In both resolution and contrast at the edge of the frame. Center too close to call. Just my observations.

Yes, even at 200mm, the GF lens is more consistent in the corners than any of the FF lenses. Some chromatic aberration as it reaches the edges bring a touch of softness, probably helpful to give a gentle blur to the background in some cases. I like this effect. Overall the lens is very good, and not too big or heavy.

Thanks a lot Alpshiker for your comparison images, and comments. I’m a lot less experienced with interchangeable lens cameras, and using lenses from different manufacturers than you guys are, and have heard others talk about damaging their camera mounts when using adapters. Both the Canon and Mamiya lenses look to be very good . It’s good to know about them as alternatives for my GFX50s II. That said, for now I’m so enamored with my GFX camera and the GF lenses I have that I’m reluctant to leave the 'Fuji system’. That could change, though.

Taking the other route, and buying the GF1.4 TC and using it for its’ center crops brings up a few other questions. How large is the good-quality center area (recognizing there is a continuous drop off towards the edges/corners, and that ‘good’ is subjective) in GF1.4 TC-GF100-200mm images center crops, and how does the IQ of those center areas compare with the IQ of the centers from the naked GF100-200mm lens?

I’m headed off to the high desert out of cell service area this morning but will check the thread when I return. Thanks again everyone for sharing your knowledge.

Not owning a GF TC, it looks like I diverted this thread for other purposes. I wish that others who own this accessory will help you in a more appropriate way with your decision. Have a great time out there.

 

[alpshiker]

I have to say that after balancing the exposures and viewing at 200% on my 4K monitor I have to give a slight advantage to the GF100-200 compared to the 200 f2.8. In both resolution and contrast at the edge of the frame. Center too close to call. Just my observations.

Yes, even at 200mm, the GF lens is more consistent in the corners than any of the FF lenses. Some chromatic aberration as it reaches the edges bring a touch of softness, probably helpful to give a gentle blur to the background in some cases. I like this effect. Overall the lens is very good, and not too big or heavy.

From my tests (my copy) 100-200 is quite sharp at close distances, and not so good at longer distances (actually my copy of lens is quite soft on edges)

That would make sense with chromatic aberration and possibly other aberrations. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed since I wanted the lens primarily for landscapes, to complement the 45-100mm. I have yet to find where on the zoom range, edge sharpness starts to lack. Maybe Jim has this already graphed ? If it is only at full reach, one could stay within a sweet spot in the zoom range.

 

[Painter19]

I have to say that after balancing the exposures and viewing at 200% on my 4K monitor I have to give a slight advantage to the GF100-200 compared to the 200 f2.8. In both resolution and contrast at the edge of the frame. Center too close to call. Just my observations.

Yes, even at 200mm, the GF lens is more consistent in the corners than any of the FF lenses. Some chromatic aberration as it reaches the edges bring a touch of softness, probably helpful to give a gentle blur to the background in some cases. I like this effect. Overall the lens is very good, and not too big or heavy.

Thanks a lot Alpshiker for your comparison images, and comments. I’m a lot less experienced with interchangeable lens cameras, and using lenses from different manufacturers than you guys are, and have heard others talk about damaging their camera mounts when using adapters. Both the Canon and Mamiya lenses look to be very good . It’s good to know about them as alternatives for my GFX50s II. That said, for now I’m so enamored with my GFX camera and the GF lenses I have that I’m reluctant to leave the 'Fuji system’. That could change, though.

Taking the other route, and buying the GF1.4 TC and using it for its’ center crops brings up a few other questions. How large is the good-quality center area (recognizing there is a continuous drop off towards the edges/corners, and that ‘good’ is subjective) in GF1.4 TC-GF100-200mm images center crops, and how does the IQ of those center areas compare with the IQ of the centers from the naked GF100-200mm lens?

I’m headed off to the high desert out of cell service area this morning but will check the thread when I return. Thanks again everyone for sharing your knowledge.

Not owning a GF TC, it looks like I diverted this thread for other purposes. I wish that others who own this accessory will help you in a more appropriate way with your decision. Have a great time out there.

Thanks, and no - not at all ! I was the inexperienced one lurching around considering various options. I may well get into other maker's lenses for my GFX camera down the road and really appreciate being informed about options. In my going back and forth I’m considering the GF1.4 TC once again - it’s a day to day thing , but am now thinking to buy one with a trial period to see how it works with my photography. Out the door for the desert now. I want to try a new GF45-100mm f4 I recently acquired and am really loving.

 

[Rodenmg]

Thanks a lot Alpshiker for your comparison images, and comments. I’m a lot less experienced with interchangeable lens cameras, and using lenses from different manufacturers than you guys are, and have heard others talk about damaging their camera mounts when using adapters. Both the Canon and Mamiya lenses look to be very good . It’s good to know about them as alternatives for my GFX50s II. That said, for now I’m so enamored with my GFX camera and the GF lenses I have that I’m reluctant to leave the 'Fuji system’. That could change, though.

Taking the other route, and buying the GF1.4 TC and using it for its’ center crops brings up a few other questions. How large is the good-quality center area (recognizing there is a continuous drop off towards the edges/corners, and that ‘good’ is subjective) in GF1.4 TC-GF100-200mm images center crops, and how does the IQ of those center areas compare with the IQ of the centers from the naked GF100-200mm lens?

I’m headed off to the high desert out of cell service area this morning but will check the thread when I return. Thanks again everyone for sharing your knowledge.

Well here is the GF100-200 @ 200 with the TC1.4 at some pretty good distance. Focused at infinity and snapped at jet crosses the frame.



View attachment 0f587b94144b441d858fe2f3cc110b86.jpg



View attachment 28c8c403beef430a9eb2d97b2f26b173.jpg



View attachment d4f144852a214da89dd90816644fabcf.jpg



View attachment 4df8002f2e204862b1535ad561a7989f.jpg

 

[Painter19]

Thanks a lot Alpshiker for your comparison images, and comments. I’m a lot less experienced with interchangeable lens cameras, and using lenses from different manufacturers than you guys are, and have heard others talk about damaging their camera mounts when using adapters. Both the Canon and Mamiya lenses look to be very good . It’s good to know about them as alternatives for my GFX50s II. That said, for now I’m so enamored with my GFX camera and the GF lenses I have that I’m reluctant to leave the 'Fuji system’. That could change, though.

Taking the other route, and buying the GF1.4 TC and using it for its’ center crops brings up a few other questions. How large is the good-quality center area (recognizing there is a continuous drop off towards the edges/corners, and that ‘good’ is subjective) in GF1.4 TC-GF100-200mm images center crops, and how does the IQ of those center areas compare with the IQ of the centers from the naked GF100-200mm lens?

I’m headed off to the high desert out of cell service area this morning but will check the thread when I return. Thanks again everyone for sharing your knowledge.

Well here is the GF100-200 @ 200 with the TC1.4 at some pretty good distance. Focused at infinity and snapped at jet crosses the frame.

View attachment 0f587b94144b441d858fe2f3cc110b86.jpg

View attachment 28c8c403beef430a9eb2d97b2f26b173.jpg

View attachment d4f144852a214da89dd90816644fabcf.jpg

View attachment 4df8002f2e204862b1535ad561a7989f.jpg

Wow ! - What an informative set of images for me to study ! Thanks very much for them.

 

[Hurwitz CHL]

You can download full size samples from this link if you wish.

What a collection! Must be hard to "narrow my choice to only a handful that I would use on a regular basis, and to three lenses that I routinely carry in my bag for a half day hike."

May I ask which three

 

[alpshiker]

You can download full size samples from this link if you wish.

What a collection! Must be hard to "narrow my choice to only a handful that I would use on a regular basis, and to three lenses that I routinely carry in my bag for a half day hike."

May I ask which three

That's asking which of a shovel or a fork I would take. Depends on the job ! ;-)

As you know, buying lenses did cost an arm and a leg, especially in the medium format systems. So I couldn't resist some of the bargains or steals, when the digital turn-of led a whole herd of analogue lenses to the ditch. I already had P67 lenses from the film era, but as you can guess, photography became during flat days, opportunity for experimentation. However, when the conditions are right and you want to get results, you have to use the adequate tools to make the most of your day.

I always sought to reproduce the high definition of the large format film that I have used, years ago.

Depending on what camera and gear were available, I have had relative success with the Canon 1Ds3 and a Mirex for Mamiya adapter, since 2008.

Things got more serious with the A7R, used with a Rhinocam Vizelex for Mamiya and an adapter for Pentax 67. The lenses I was using at the time were the P67 55-100 and 90-180. Not a particularly light set. I had also a Pentax A35mm f3,5 on shift device for wider views, and the EF 100-400 I for longer reach, for assembled views also. The subsequent A7RII could be fitted to this rig as well, with the added bonus of a smooth digital shutter. I carried also the Mamiya 80mm 2.8 and 110mm 2.8, which were light, tiny and also very sharp.

I tried the Pentax 45-85mm and 80-160 (flare on the second at some settings), which worked well too, with a slightly smaller capture area. But since the A7RII was just so much sharper, it didn't matter, so they were my choice. Then I have used the Rhinocam Vertex with the same camera and lenses.

For people photography, I used some Canon lenses on the MC11 adapter and occasionally the "funtastic" Mamiya 150 2.8

Then got a used GFX50S a year ago, and a Kipon TS for Pentax 645. I used mostly the 45-85 and 35mm. The EF 100-400 II for longer reach. I also played a lot with the Rhinocam Vertex for GFX and a variety of lenses, both Mamiya and Pentax 645 (45-85) and P67. Some lenses are exceptional, like the Mamiya 80mm f2.8, the 110mm f 2.8. Both fill the crop. The P67 55mm f4 is also great. It is really fun to use that gear.

But the bells and whistles on the present forum led me to buy a second hand GFX100S with 45-100 some months ago. And since I had my content of shooting trial shots, I simplified my approach. So now, when I go into the woods, I take the 45-100, the 100-400 and the 35-70 for when I need something wider. Or for walkabouts with no particular reach needed, I swap the 100-400 for the GF100-200, which is lighter. I guess this is the answer you were waiting for, but mind that I seldom shoot single shots, so when I use the 45mm for 3 vertical frames panned, the resulting image is in fact much wider. For I still shoot in order to stitch in post, but only on a single row now that I have plenty of pixels. For tall trees within the forest however, I would take the Kipon shift and the Pentax 45-85 or 35mm on two rows, or the Rhinocam Vertex with those lenses, which can be also panned so you are not bound to a square format.

For casual people photography, I take the Tamron 45mm, the GF 110mm, and the GF 35-70mm. I have tried a Sigma 135mm 1.8 which works well on the Fringer adapter. Shots look great, but of course it is redundant with the 110mm. For portrait in casual photography, I also like the EF 85mm 1.2. The 45-100 should also be a good lens when there is enough light, but I haven't tried it yet for people photography yet, even if it has become my most used lens for static subjects. The great benefit of the GF lenses VS MF lenses on adapter, is the fast accurate focus and also the fact that I don't need to carry a tripod all the time, IBIS and IS combined are awesome. Well, if I haven't lost you at this point, you are likely ready and I wish you fun and enjoyment in your own quest !

Cheers
Paul

 

[Hurwitz CHL]

You can download full size samples from this link if you wish.

What a collection! Must be hard to "narrow my choice to only a handful that I would use on a regular basis, and to three lenses that I routinely carry in my bag for a half day hike."

May I ask which three

That's asking which of a shovel or a fork I would take. Depends on the job ! ;-)

As you know, buying lenses did cost an arm and a leg, especially in the medium format systems. So I couldn't resist some of the bargains or steals, when the digital turn-of led a whole herd of analogue lenses to the ditch. I already had P67 lenses from the film era, but as you can guess, photography became during flat days, opportunity for experimentation. However, when the conditions are right and you want to get results, you have to use the adequate tools to make the most of your day.

I always sought to reproduce the high definition of the large format film that I have used, years ago.

Depending on what camera and gear were available, I have had relative success with the Canon 1Ds3 and a Mirex for Mamiya adapter, since 2008.

Things got more serious with the A7R, used with a Rhinocam Vizelex for Mamiya and an adapter for Pentax 67. The lenses I was using at the time were the P67 55-100 and 90-180. Not a particularly light set. I had also a Pentax A35mm f3,5 on shift device for wider views, and the EF 100-400 I for longer reach, for assembled views also. The subsequent A7RII could be fitted to this rig as well, with the added bonus of a smooth digital shutter. I carried also the Mamiya 80mm 2.8 and 110mm 2.8, which were light, tiny and also very sharp.

I tried the Pentax 45-85mm and 80-160 (flare on the second at some settings), which worked well too, with a slightly smaller capture area. But since the A7RII was just so much sharper, it didn't matter, so they were my choice. Then I have used the Rhinocam Vertex with the same camera and lenses.

For people photography, I used some Canon lenses on the MC11 adapter and occasionally the "funtastic" Mamiya 150 2.8

Then got a used GFX50S a year ago, and a Kipon TS for Pentax 645. I used mostly the 45-85 and 35mm. The EF 100-400 II for longer reach. I also played a lot with the Rhinocam Vertex for GFX and a variety of lenses, both Mamiya and Pentax 645 (45-85) and P67. Some lenses are exceptional, like the Mamiya 80mm f2.8, the 110mm f 2.8. Both fill the crop. The P67 55mm f4 is also great. It is really fun to use that gear.

But the bells and whistles on the present forum led me to buy a second hand GFX100S with 45-100 some months ago. And since I had my content of shooting trial shots, I simplified my approach. So now, when I go into the woods, I take the 45-100, the 100-400 and the 35-70 for when I need something wider. Or for walkabouts with no particular reach needed, I swap the 100-400 for the GF100-200, which is lighter. I guess this is the answer you were waiting for, but mind that I seldom shoot single shots, so when I use the 45mm for 3 vertical frames panned, the resulting image is in fact much wider. For I still shoot in order to stitch in post, but only on a single row now that I have plenty of pixels. For tall trees within the forest however, I would take the Kipon shift and the Pentax 45-85 or 35mm on two rows, or the Rhinocam Vertex with those lenses, which can be also panned so you are not bound to a square format.

For casual people photography, I take the Tamron 45mm, the GF 110mm, and the GF 35-70mm. I have tried a Sigma 135mm 1.8 which works well on the Fringer adapter. Shots look great, but of course it is redundant with the 110mm. For portrait in casual photography, I also like the EF 85mm 1.2. The 45-100 should also be a good lens when there is enough light, but I haven't tried it yet for people photography yet, even if it has become my most used lens for static subjects. The great benefit of the GF lenses VS MF lenses on adapter, is the fast accurate focus and also the fact that I don't need to carry a tripod all the time, IBIS and IS combined are awesome. Well, if I haven't lost you at this point, you are likely ready and I wish you fun and enjoyment in your own quest !

Cheers
Paul

Appreciated for the long, patiently explained post for my vague question.

Really my bad that I thought you meant fixed three lenses. Of course different lenses are suited to different situations.

I am more of a single shot person, but this is my attempt for two row panning, shot with pentax 80-160. Wonder if you could lose the ‘feel’ or the ‘look’ by using panoramic format which is not popular among film era.



And may I ask two specific question?

"Would a composite panorama taken with the GF100-200mm simply panned, be geometrically as good with much less hassle and work? It would have to be tested."
Have you come to a conclusion? (Please say yes so we dont have to go through the hassle and work

How do you modify the mount of the Pentax X1.4 TC for the Mamiya 300mm ULD?

 

[alpshiker]

Appreciated for the long, patiently explained post for my vague question.

Really my bad that I thought you meant fixed three lenses. Of course different lenses are suited to different situations.

I am more of a single shot person, but this is my attempt for two row panning, shot with pentax 80-160. Wonder if you could lose the ‘feel’ or the ‘look’ by using panoramic format which is not popular among film era.



And may I ask two specific question?

"Would a composite panorama taken with the GF100-200mm simply panned, be geometrically as good with much less hassle and work? It would have to be tested."
Have you come to a conclusion? (Please say yes so we dont have to go through the hassle and work

How do you modify the mount of the Pentax X1.4 TC for the Mamiya 300mm ULD?

You are welcome and I had half an hour to kill ;-)

Yes beyond a normal focal length and for that kind of distant shot, you would get a smooth blend and no visible parallax problem with any lens designed for medium format, GF 100-200 included. You need to overlap 1/3 to make sure that any corner problem can be trimmed by the software.

6x12 was a film back I have used a lot.

The modified Pentax x1.4 is a job I did a long time ago and I have not documented it unfortunately. I took a Mamiya 645 extension ring and transplanted the lens element inside. (edited) I used a 52 to 67mm hoya filter adapter in between the two to gain the required extension and to hold the lens group in place. The total extension is 26,5mm. It was not the easiest job however. A Polish seller used to propose such adapters on Ebay a long time ago, which I got inspired from. The positioning of the lens element was not calculated but it produces a consistent image at infinity. The extender works with the Mamiya 300mm f5,6 ULD, Mamiya A 150mm f2.8 and 210mm f4. Not compatible with the A 120mm f4 Macro.

Here are some pics with the finish result, here on Rhinocam Vertex Mamiya 645 lens for GFX:








I picked the lens element from this (left)



Here are some disassembled views:





The lens element is simply sandwiched between the flanges.

 

[Hurwitz CHL]

Thanks for sharing, appreciated it.

I haven't got the skills to do that, but I have bookmarked for future reference.

 

[yaqbpl]

the way teleconverters work they require lens with unresolved sharpness. meaning lens that is able to produce finer details then sensor resolution is able to read. otherwise there is no gain and it could be done just with digital zoom as well. so in general teleconverters has more chance to have gain with 50mp bodies. for 100mp sensor and 1.4x tc lens would have to be able to produce details on level of 140mp. 100-200mm maight not have it. but i guess it has at least 70mp and it is fine for 1.4 tc on 50mp body. anyone tested it on 50mp? do you know where to find lens tests with information about sharpness in mp? dxomark was giving that, but i think they didnt test fujinon gf lenses.

im thinking about buying 100-200, and wanted to confirm it would have gain with tc on 50s ii.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

By way of comparison of GF tele lenses, here is a crop of the central area of a hand held test shot with a recently purchased GF 250 f4 . I do wonder how the 1.4 TC would render on this optic.

 

[Rodenmg]

With every lens I’ve ever “tested” with a TC1.4 verses just cropping the TC1.4 is slightly better. I’ve even done slant edge MTF tests to confirm what I was seeing.



THE problem with using the TC1,4 with the GF100-200 is you effectively now have an f8 lens. If you have lots of light no problem but in less than good light it can be a challenge to use.

 

[yaqbpl]

the question is on what body tests were done. on 50mp teleconverter should work better then on 100mp.

for the light... i have hope in double image stabilization that let use longer shutter speed. maybe also high iso could be fixed in post.

 

[JimKasson]

the way teleconverters work they require lens with unresolved sharpness. meaning lens that is able to produce finer details then sensor resolution is able to read. otherwise there is no gain and it could be done just with digital zoom as well. so in general teleconverters has more chance to have gain with 50mp bodies. for 100mp sensor and 1.4x tc lens would have to be able to produce details on level of 140mp. 100-200mm maight not have it. but i guess it has at least 70mp and it is fine for 1.4 tc on 50mp body. anyone tested it on 50mp? do you know where to find lens tests with information about sharpness in mp? dxomark was giving that, but i think they didnt test fujinon gf lenses.

I don't think MP is a good metric for sharpness.

 

[Ap0ll0n]

the way teleconverters work they require lens with unresolved sharpness. meaning lens that is able to produce finer details then sensor resolution is able to read. otherwise there is no gain and it could be done just with digital zoom as well. so in general teleconverters has more chance to have gain with 50mp bodies. for 100mp sensor and 1.4x tc lens would have to be able to produce details on level of 140mp. 100-200mm maight not have it. but i guess it has at least 70mp and it is fine for 1.4 tc on 50mp body. anyone tested it on 50mp? do you know where to find lens tests with information about sharpness in mp? dxomark was giving that, but i think they didnt test fujinon gf lenses.

im thinking about buying 100-200, and wanted to confirm it would have gain with tc on 50s ii.

I've tested the tc 1.4 + 100-200 on my 100MP GFX 100S ii and the teleconverter works, i.e. IQ is noticeably better (sharper) than just cropping. I've posted results here probably 9 months ago or so.

 

[JimKasson]

the way teleconverters work they require lens with unresolved sharpness. meaning lens that is able to produce finer details then sensor resolution is able to read. otherwise there is no gain and it could be done just with digital zoom as well. so in general teleconverters has more chance to have gain with 50mp bodies. for 100mp sensor and 1.4x tc lens would have to be able to produce details on level of 140mp. 100-200mm maight not have it. but i guess it has at least 70mp and it is fine for 1.4 tc on 50mp body. anyone tested it on 50mp? do you know where to find lens tests with information about sharpness in mp? dxomark was giving that, but i think they didnt test fujinon gf lenses.

im thinking about buying 100-200, and wanted to confirm it would have gain with tc on 50s ii.

If the lens shows aliasing without the TC, then the TC is likely to help.

 

[Rodenmg]

the question is on what body tests were done. on 50mp teleconverter should work better then on 100mp.

for the light... i have hope in double image stabilization that let use longer shutter speed. maybe also high iso could be fixed in post.

GFX100s

 

[yaqbpl]

the way teleconverters work they require lens with unresolved sharpness. meaning lens that is able to produce finer details then sensor resolution is able to read. otherwise there is no gain and it could be done just with digital zoom as well. so in general teleconverters has more chance to have gain with 50mp bodies. for 100mp sensor and 1.4x tc lens would have to be able to produce details on level of 140mp. 100-200mm maight not have it. but i guess it has at least 70mp and it is fine for 1.4 tc on 50mp body. anyone tested it on 50mp? do you know where to find lens tests with information about sharpness in mp? dxomark was giving that, but i think they didnt test fujinon gf lenses.

I don't think MP is a good metric for sharpness.