System change from Hasselblad H to GFX 100 II

[90s]

Hello ladies and gentlemen, I am looking for help and advice.
For the last 10 years I’ve been working with the Hasselblad H system, and now I’m planning to switch to the Fuji GFX 100 II.
I have a few questions about lenses, as I’d like to build a complete kit. So far I’m sure about two choices: the GF 30mm F5.6 T/S and the GF 55mm F1.7 R WR.
I’d like to ask about your experience with the TTArtisan 17mm f/4 Tilt-Shift and the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II. Which one delivers better image quality and resolution, especially toward the edges when using the full tilt/shift range? Which of these two would be the better option on GFX?
I’d also appreciate recommendations for a macro lens. The GF system only offers 1:2, and I’m looking for a 1:1 macro with excellent image quality. Manual focus is absolutely fine for me. From what I’ve read, adapters and the flexibility of this system open up a lot of interesting options.
Finally, are there any other lenses you’d personally recommend? I’m also planning to add the GF 250mm along with the 1.4× teleconverter.

I also have a question: Has anyone switched from the H to the GFX? What were their impressions?
I won't deny that I love working with the H and the standard viewfinder. However, the options the GFX 100 II offers strongly motivate me to upgrade my entire system.

Thank you for all your opinions.

 

[John Leathwick]

I've experimented with a wide range of macro options with my GFX with varying degrees of success. Among those that I've tested, the best optical performance comes from a pair of Olympus OM bellows lenses - an 80mm F/4 optimised for 0.5x-2x and a 135mm F/3.5 optimised for 0.5x-0.1x. Although these are more challenging to adapt than some other lenses, their optical performance equals or exceeds everything else that I've tested. I'm referring here not only to their outright ability to resolving detail, but also their flatness of field, and their out of focus rendering. I use them via an adapter board on my F-Universalis, but I have also used them with the OM variable length extension tube and OM bellows. Both cover the 33x44mm sensor of the GFX with ease at their optimal reproduction scales. The image below is a stack of 28 images with the OM 80 at F/5.6 at a taking scale of slightly less than 1:1. The lighter areas are reflections off moisture patches from overnight dew - I should have used a polariser.

I've also used at times a pair of S-K Apo Componon HR's in enlarger lens mounts (60mm and 90mm), whose resolution matches that of the OM bellows lenses. However, their 5-sided aperture openings result in sometimes very busy out of focus areas. The other macro option that I've used a moderate amount is a Mamiya RZ 140mm macro, which is optically on a similar level to the OM bellows lenses, but which weighs nearly a kilo, so is a beast to use. Other lenses that I've heard perform well include the Pentax 645 macro lens, and the Nikon Micro-Nikkor 55mm, but I've not tested either of these.

-John

 

[John Leathwick]

Reflecting on this afterwards, I should have added a comment about the GF250 and TC1.4x. I own both of them and the GF250 in particular I find a great performer with any moving subject. If that is your intended use, I would recommend it without hesitation.

However, if you're after a long lens for static subjects, you might consider one of the Mamiya Apo Sekors, of which I have both the 210mm and 350mm. I mostly use these with a Photodiox RZ67-GFX adapter, which works very well now that I've added some flocking to its internal surfaces - it was flare prone before I did that. I occasionally use them on my F-Universalis, but was only happy doing so after I made a small wooden prop to prevent them tilting the front standard downwards because of their weight. I find them particularly useful for astro photography, preferring manual focus for this application - if you've ever tried to accurately focus on stars with a focus-by-wire lens you'll know why! However, I also find them very useful for landscape and slow-moving wildlife subjects, because in some ways I prefer the rendering of these older lenses to the somewhat clinical and almost overly-corrected rendering of the GF250.

Last, while the TC1.4x in combo with the GF250 performs well, and is great if you only have the GF250 as your longest lens, the Apo-Sekor 350 is noticeably ahead of the GF250/TC1.4x combination. In addition, the TC1.4x works very well with both the Apo-Sekors, with the 350 in particular giving extra reach (490mm) if I really need it.

I've attached an image of a seal feeding her cub taken with the Mamiya 210 that shows its beautifully smooth rendering. The image of Devil's Gap is a rotated panorama with the Apo-Sekor 350mm.

-John

 

[Doppler9000]

John, you are a very good lens salesman photographer.

 

[Doppler9000]

Seriously, though, I really appreciate you sharing your insights.

 

[guphotography]

Hello ladies and gentlemen, I am looking for help and advice.

Wouldn't switching to X camera make more sense to you can retain and keep working with H glass?

 

[90s]

Hi John,

thank you very much for your reply. I really appreciate the time you took, especially for such an interesting and detailed answer.

Several people have already recommended older Mamiya and Olympus lenses to me, but I still have serious doubts about sharpness and overall image quality from optics originally designed for film. At the moment I still own my full H-system lens set, I only sold the camera body, so I keep thinking about what the next step should be.

When it comes to macro, I’ve been using the Hasselblad HC 120mm 1:1 for about ten years. Slightly stopped down, it delivered truly spectacular results. In the GFX system I’ve heard very good opinions about the Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Macro. Have you had any direct experience with this lens?

Sea-Holly






For wide angle work, the TTArtisan 17mm f/4 Tilt-Shift Lens also looks very interesting, but I find it difficult to judge real image quality, especially edge performance. That’s my main concern there.

An intermediate option I’m also considering is the Fuji adapter for Hasselblad that supports the central shutter. That would allow me to work with my HCD 24mm plus HTS 1,5 and keep the macro lens in the system.

As for portrait lenses, I feel that newer optical designs would probably give me better results than older HC 80 or HC 100 lenses. A 250mm would be optimal for my needs, and in that focal length I don’t think I would need anything more.

I’d also like to ask you about your experience with using an electronic viewfinder. How do you feel about the transition from an optical prism?

Personally, I’ve never been a fan of mirrorless cameras. I still work with Canon EF systems and large format as well, and I really like the image on a ground glass.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

@guphotography

I love working with the Hasselblad system. Unfortunately, the Fuji system offers me far more options and flexibility. A much broader base of native and third-party lenses, professional and well-developed video modes, and dedicated cinema lenses. Multi-shot, automatic focus stacking, and many other tools that are very tempting. On top of that, I can use the GFX–H adapter, which allows me to work with lenses that have a leaf shutter and keep 1/800 flash synch.

 

[Thyl]

Wouldn't switching to X camera make more sense to you can retain and keep working with H glass?

I also wonder wether the GF-adapter for H lenses (that is officially intended for Fuji lenses) would also work with the Hasselblad versions of the lenses. Seems they are identical?!

H MOUNT ADAPTER G

By attaching this adapter to the GFX Series cameras, a total of 9 SUPER EBC FUJINON HC interchangeable lenses and 1 teleconverter developed for the GX645AF

www.fujifilm-x.com

 

[Thyl]

I also wonder wether the GF-adapter for H lenses (that is officially intended for Fuji lenses) would also work with the Hasselblad versions of the lenses. Seems they are identical?!

H MOUNT ADAPTER G

By attaching this adapter to the GFX Series cameras, a total of 9 SUPER EBC FUJINON HC interchangeable lenses and 1 teleconverter developed for the GX645AF

www.fujifilm-x.com

EDIT: after a short search, it appears that the Hasselblad H lenses can in fact be used on GF cameras with this adapter. Might be an interesting option.

 

[Doppler9000]

Hi John,

thank you very much for your reply. I really appreciate the time you took, especially for such an interesting and detailed answer.

Several people have already recommended older Mamiya and Olympus lenses to me, but I still have serious doubts about sharpness and overall image quality from optics originally designed for film.

If your doubts are based on the thesis that lenses designed for film cameras are incapable of performing well in digital cameras, you should re-examine your thesis. John and others have conclusively shown that the best film lenses are at least as good as the best current “digital” lenses.

Something to keep in mind - these were very expensive lenses when new. In 1999, the Mamiya 350mm APO that John referenced sold for $4,289 USD, which is currently ~ $8,250, inflated at CPI.

 

[90s]

Thanks for the comment. I’m not suggesting anything and I’m open to all opinions. That said, there are certain real differences between film and digital sensors.
A price from 27 years ago isn’t a valid indicator of current optical performance. The HC 120mm cost over $5,000 about 16 years ago (roughly $6,800 USD today), but that doesn’t really add much to the discussion.

What actually matters are MTF data and proper, complete tests. For now, I’m just collecting information and considering different options.
My goal is simple: the macro lens for the GFX system needs to be better than what I’m using now.

 

[Doppler9000]

Thanks for the comment. I’m not suggesting anything and I’m open to all opinions. That said, there are certain real differences between film and digital sensors.
A price from 27 years ago isn’t a valid indicator of current optical performance. The HC 120mm cost over $5,000 about 16 years ago (roughly $6,800 USD today), but that doesn’t really add much to the discussion.

There are differences, of course, between film and digital sensors. I was simply pointing out that one cannot conclude, a priori, that a lens designed for film is incapable of good performance on digital.

And I agree that high historical prices are not dispositive indicia of current performance - they are, perhaps, necessary but insufficient.

Perhaps there are Mitakon or Venus lenses that will work for you, macro-wise. High quality lenses that cover the 33x44mm sensor @ 1X are a bit thin on the ground. There are various industrial options that will work, from the usual suspects, with the inevitable, inherent trade-offs.

 

[90s]

I agree with you 100%. I have a lot of respect and appreciation for this forum and its users. I’m really impressed by the knowledge here and by how complex the topics are. I regularly browse threads related to MF and LF. I don’t post myself because my knowledge is too limited to contribute anything valuable to the discussion.

For the last 10 years, as I already wrote, I’ve been working with the “dead” H system, and my dream was the H6D-100c I even thought about getting a Cambo Actus. However, the technical and financial challenges cooled down my ambitions quite a bit. Sometimes having no choice is the best choice. In the H system there was only one set of lenses, which had its advantages.

Now, with the switch to GFX, a huge world of different configurations and options is opening up. That’s why I came here to ask you for advice, the sheer scale of possibilities is overwhelming. Especially when you also factor in large format optics, NOVOFLEX bellows systems, or microscope lenses and many other solutions. A macro lens and a very wide T/S are the two types of glass where top optical quality matters to me the most.

 

[algrove]

OP
If you want to try a Mamiya 645 105-210 (Zoom AF ULD) If you life in the CONUS I 'd be happy to ship it to you for say $75.
Lou

 

[90s]

Thank you so much for the offer. I live in England and I’m planning to buy the camera next month. For now, I’m just trying to figure everything out, choosing the right lenses seems like the biggest challenge when switching system

 

[Pieter 12]

How many lenses do you use regularly? Does one really need access to so many? I prefer to limit myself to maybe 3 lenses. If there is a specific lens that you might need, sometimes it makes more sense to just have a body for that one, like the SWC.

 

[Doppler9000]

The sheer scale of possibilities is overwhelming. Especially when you also factor in large format optics, NOVOFLEX bellows systems, or microscope lenses and many other solutions. A macro lens and a very wide T/S are the two types of glass where top optical quality matters to me the most.

On the macro side, the coverage requirements really limit the options.

I don’t recall any microscope objectives that will cover - maybe the Mitutoyo Plan APO, though I doubt it.

The Schneider Macro Varon will cover, as will the Mejiro 110mm. Here is a link to a thread on the latter that may be of interest.

As far as bellows go, the Novoflex BALPRO is good for a new option, as are various older bellows. People like the Pentax 67 bellows.

 

[John Leathwick]

On the macro side, the coverage requirements really limit the options.

I don’t recall any microscope objectives that will cover - maybe the Mitutoyo APO Plans, though I doubt it.

The Schneider Macro Varon will cover, as will the Mejiro 110mm. Here is a link to a thread on the latter that may be of interest.

As far as bellows go, the Novoflex BALPRO is good for a new option, as are various older bellows. People like the Pentax 67

In this vein, I was surprised at the coverage of the OM bellows lenses on my GFX, as I regularly use them (at their nominated scales) with tilt and/or swing, and I haven't had any issues with lack of coverage. One explanation I have heard is that Olympus intended to produce a bellows with movements similar to the Nikon bellows, and designed their lenses with larger than standard 35mm image circles - but never went ahead with their upgraded bellows. An alternative suggestion is that these lenses may have originated in their medical imaging division where larger coverage may have been required. All speculation, but in my testing at 1:1 on my GFX comparing the OM 80 against the GF120 with an extension tube, the OM was a clear winner, particularly in the outer parts of the image where the GF120 fell apart quite badly. They have another unusual feature for a bellows lens, in that the also have a focusing helicoid, so focus adjustments can be made if they are mounted via a tube of fixed length. Finally, I've seen very good tests for the OM 38mm F/2.8 bellows lens, which was designed to cover the magnification range from 1.7x-8x, but I've not tried one.

-John

 

[Doppler9000]

In this vein, I was surprised at the coverage of the OM bellows lenses on my GFX, as I regularly use them (at their nominated scales) with tilt and/or swing, and I haven't had any issues with lack of coverage. One explanation I have heard is that Olympus intended to produce a bellows with movements similar to the Nikon bellows, and designed their lenses with larger than standard 35mm image circles - but never went ahead with their upgraded bellows. An alternative suggestion is that these lenses may have originated in their medical imaging division where larger coverage may have been required. All speculation, but in my testing at 1:1 on my GFX comparing the OM 80 against the GF120 with an extension tube, the OM was a clear winner, particularly in the outer parts of the image where the GF120 fell apart quite badly. They have another unusual feature for a bellows lens, in that the also have a focusing helicoid, so focus adjustments can be made if they are mounted via a tube of fixed length. Finally, I've seen very good tests for the OM 38mm F/2.8 bellows lens, which was designed to cover the magnification range from 1.7x-8x, but I've not tried one.

-John

I’m glad to hear it. I happen to have an Olympus 80mm bellows macro with helicoid in my hoard stash cupboard.

 

[John Leathwick]

Hi John,

thank you very much for your reply. I really appreciate the time you took, especially for such an interesting and detailed answer.

Several people have already recommended older Mamiya and Olympus lenses to me, but I still have serious doubts about sharpness and overall image quality from optics originally designed for film. At the moment I still own my full H-system lens set, I only sold the camera body, so I keep thinking about what the next step should be.

When it comes to macro, I’ve been using the Hasselblad HC 120mm 1:1 for about ten years. Slightly stopped down, it delivered truly spectacular results. In the GFX system I’ve heard very good opinions about the Laowa 100mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Macro. Have you had any direct experience with this lens?

Sea-Holly






For wide angle work, the TTArtisan 17mm f/4 Tilt-Shift Lens also looks very interesting, but I find it difficult to judge real image quality, especially edge performance. That’s my main concern there.

An intermediate option I’m also considering is the Fuji adapter for Hasselblad that supports the central shutter. That would allow me to work with my HCD 24mm plus HTS 1,5 and keep the macro lens in the system.

As for portrait lenses, I feel that newer optical designs would probably give me better results than older HC 80 or HC 100 lenses. A 250mm would be optimal for my needs, and in that focal length I don’t think I would need anything more.

I’d also like to ask you about your experience with using an electronic viewfinder. How do you feel about the transition from an optical prism?

Personally, I’ve never been a fan of mirrorless cameras. I still work with Canon EF systems and large format as well, and I really like the image on a ground glass.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

@guphotography

I love working with the Hasselblad system. Unfortunately, the Fuji system offers me far more options and flexibility. A much broader base of native and third-party lenses, professional and well-developed video modes, and dedicated cinema lenses. Multi-shot, automatic focus stacking, and many other tools that are very tempting. On top of that, I can use the GFX–H adapter, which allows me to work with lenses that have a leaf shutter and keep 1/800 flash synch.

My take on this is that your lens selection should primarily be dictated by what you shoot. I had shot 4x5 film years ago and never forgotten the experience, and when I saw a small Rollei monorail for sale at our local store, I found myself wondering why not? After encountering @rdeloe's blog on his F-Universalis I went that way instead, and rediscovered my love of landscape and macro with camera movements. As a consequence, I sold several of my Fuji lenses - a GF80, GF110 and GF120. I've kept my GF23, GF45, and GF250 but rarely use them and have considered selling them. My initial experience with my F-Universalis was with Mamiya RZ lenses, and in my experience, the best of these (50 ULD, 75M, 110/2.8 and 140 Macro), and particularly those with floating elements, deliver results that are indistinguishable from those from my former GF lenses when used stopped-down for landscape. On the contrary, if I were still regularly shooting moving subjects and subject isolation was important to me, I would have retained my GF lenses, as they leave most other options for dead when shooting close to wide open and when autofocus is important - the GF110mm in particular is a fabulous lens for portrait, and I would buy it again in an instant if that is what I wanted to shoot.

Finally, I should add that with time, the weight of the RZ lenses led me to explore other options and I now shoot mostly with S-K apo-digitars (35, 47), Apo-Componons (60 & 90), Apo-Symmars (120 & 150) and a Nikkor-M 200/8. I shoot a lot in remote landscapes only reachable on foot, and I can carry five of these latter lenses that together weigh about the same as just one RZ lens - I'm in my early 70's and that weight difference is crucial to being able to reach where I photograph. And importantly, the use of these lenses with camera movements opens up options only achievable with focus-stacking with my GF lenses, and with moving subject matter (water, foliage in wind) that is not always achievable - and their performance when stopped down is very close to if not equal to what my GF lenses would deliver at similar apertures.

-John