Same here. I found the P645 55 pretty much unusable for interiors due to flare, but the Hassy 50 to be much better. However, the Canon 50 TS-E is a league apart from them.I also have a P645 55mm that I don't love... Mine suffers from flare from above. This example looks very good indeed..
That Canon 50mm TS-E though, looks amazing fully shifted at 12mm
Thanks for the test, very helpful....
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
thoughts on architectural photography with Fujifilm GFX, image circle and lenses
- Thread starter haihan
- Start date
wallpaperviking
Member
Hi Chris,
Any idea if these Mamiya 7 lenses would work better with the BSI sensor of the GFX 100? Would movements be possible if it was attached to a bellows type system? Would you be able to use the 43mm or would the rear interfere?
Thanks again for all your input!
philippe8456
New member
Hi,
I search sample of architecture from Fuji GFX 50 with the last Pentax 35 HD with maximum shift and Contax 645 35mm with maximum shift. For the Contax, at f11, is the liveview usable for interirors ? Many Thanks !
I search sample of architecture from Fuji GFX 50 with the last Pentax 35 HD with maximum shift and Contax 645 35mm with maximum shift. For the Contax, at f11, is the liveview usable for interirors ? Many Thanks !
rdeloe
Well-known member
I don't shoot interiors, but I do work in some very dimly lit forests where I'm frequently using f/16. The liveview display on the GFX 50R/S cameras starts to slow down and becomes a bit coarser in these conditions, but there's plenty of gain to allow me to compose and focus easily (with magnification).
Unless you're working in near darkness you won't have any trouble with liveview and f/11.
Unless you're working in near darkness you won't have any trouble with liveview and f/11.
With the Pentax, smaller shifts only before distortion appears. It works quite well shifted vertically in landscape orientation, but laterally (or vertically in portrait orientation) hits complex distortion very quickly. I wouldn't want to focus at f11 with either lens though, that would be tricky for interiors.
Hi,
What do you think about this new Canon EF Lens to Fuji G-mount T Smart Expander 1.26x (GFX)?
What do you think about this new Canon EF Lens to Fuji G-mount T Smart Expander 1.26x (GFX)?
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
I ordered mine direct from Metabones as soon as it was announced. The adapter is great, if a bit flakey - at least, I had to try a few times to get lenses recognized. The problem is quality control on Canon's side. I bought a 16-35/4 to go with the adapter, as that would be a perfect focal length range for me. Alas, the lens was decentered. Slightly, but enough to make the resolution pointless. I'm not going to play the "buy four copies to get one good one" game. For the 135/2 and even 85/1.2, it's an amazing alternative to existing lens options.
So 135mm and 85mm work well with this expander?
guphotography
Well-known member
I shoot with 50R with Canon 24mm TSE, Pentax H FA 35 and Hasselblad CFE 50mm. As Owen commented, maximum shift in landscape works fine, distortion can be easily corrected in C1 under Contax 35mm lens profile, but portrait orientation shift gives unusable result, especially if you plan to stitch.
I'm much happier with the current focal lengths, saves me any stitching in the post production, plus 4.3 ratio captures just the right amount of ceiling and ground.
Let me know if you need more information on this setup please.
marc aurel
Active member
Has anybody managed to use the Schneider Kreuznach 35mm LS f/3.5 for Phase One on a GFX or any 44x33mm digital back WITH SHIFT? I would like to see how it performs. That focal length is very important to me - and Fuji has fallen into silence about native shift lenses ;-(
But there seems to be no adapter for the modern Phase One lenses for GFX that fits. Novoflex has an M645 adapter, but they say it does not fit physically with XF 645 bayonet mount. Does anybody know one that fits physically? (I can live with fixed aperture that I preset on a phase one body)
Capture Integration has an article where they mounted this lens on an Alpa camera (https://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one-lenses-on-an-alpa-camera-yes/) and could shift 12mm before they started seeing the edge of the image circle. But they did not test for image quality. Has anybody else?
Would be glad about any information.
But there seems to be no adapter for the modern Phase One lenses for GFX that fits. Novoflex has an M645 adapter, but they say it does not fit physically with XF 645 bayonet mount. Does anybody know one that fits physically? (I can live with fixed aperture that I preset on a phase one body)
Capture Integration has an article where they mounted this lens on an Alpa camera (https://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one-lenses-on-an-alpa-camera-yes/) and could shift 12mm before they started seeing the edge of the image circle. But they did not test for image quality. Has anybody else?
Would be glad about any information.
rdeloe
Well-known member
I wish! I'd own one already if it were possible on my GFX 50R + VX23D outfit.
The flange distance for this lens in a Schneider Electronic shutter is 39.4mm, so it will be about that in a Copal 0 shutter. The rear barrel is 43mm and it projects 17.4mm past the mounting surface. GFX cameras have a flange distance of 26.7mm. That puts the rear of the lens inside the cavity of the GFX 50R at infinity. If you could mount it (I can't on my outfit), you'd have very little shift room. Worse, I've read (but not seen for myself) that it has horrendous lens cast on this kind of sensor.
marc aurel
Active member
Hi redeloe,
I am not sure we're talking about the same lens. The one I mean is made for the Phase One XF camera system, not for view cameras.
Best - Marc
I am not sure we're talking about the same lens. The one I mean is made for the Phase One XF camera system, not for view cameras.
Best - Marc
rdeloe
Well-known member
Ah, my bad. You are absolutely right. Sorry for the confusion Marc.
wallpaperviking
Member
Have you had any further experience with using the Metabones? I am thinking of getting one to try and was wondering if it would work with the Canon 24mm TS-E II? I would take a slight resolution loss if it gave me that equivalent focal length (and the 17mm with full shift). Does this adapter effectively enlarge the image circle so that you would be able to do an "effective" rise of 12mm (in 35mm full frame terms). So 16.5mm of front rise in GFX terms?
If the adapter essentially gave you the same resolution as using the GFX with the Canon 24mm TS-E II and then having to crop (only using the amount where "sharp" rise was able to be recorded) then it would be worth it to me, just in terms of capturing what you see at the time...
Any information would be much appreciated! Would be using the lens stopped down only, around f11 or so.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Alas, I no longer have the Fuji GFX. I did not make frequent use of the adapter, as the native Fuji optics were so good. And I have very poor luck with adapter connections.
--Matt
wallpaperviking
Member
No worries, thanks for the response back
wallpaperviking
Member
I have a number of lenses that I use (mainly) with front "rise" on my GFX. I have the Canon 24mm TS-E II, Pentax 645 35mm A, Olympus 35mm Shift, Pentax 67 45mm and the Hasselblad 50mm FLE. I have also just ordered the Canon 50mm TS-E Macro.
Too many 50mm (ish) lenses I reckon, am going to cull some. I also have the native 32-64mm and like a lot of others, find this to be great.
Just wondering what the best technique is to use the 32-64mm in situations where correct perspective is required and you do not want excessive foreground? In effect, simulating what a TS-E lens does.
Is it best to tilt up and digitally correct perspective that way? Or is it better to do a wider shot, have verticals straight, then crop into the image?
Both these techniques result in a smaller file but am wondering which is an easier technique and results in less file loss? If cropping into the image, you are losing some on the wide end whereas I feel not so as much as tilting up and then correcting verticals in post.
Would also be nice to be able to see the result on location. I have tried this with the Fuji App and then Photoshop on my phone but to say that is a clunky process is an understatement!
Thanks, look forward to hearing any thoughts
Too many 50mm (ish) lenses I reckon, am going to cull some. I also have the native 32-64mm and like a lot of others, find this to be great.
Just wondering what the best technique is to use the 32-64mm in situations where correct perspective is required and you do not want excessive foreground? In effect, simulating what a TS-E lens does.
Is it best to tilt up and digitally correct perspective that way? Or is it better to do a wider shot, have verticals straight, then crop into the image?
Both these techniques result in a smaller file but am wondering which is an easier technique and results in less file loss? If cropping into the image, you are losing some on the wide end whereas I feel not so as much as tilting up and then correcting verticals in post.
Would also be nice to be able to see the result on location. I have tried this with the Fuji App and then Photoshop on my phone but to say that is a clunky process is an understatement!
Thanks, look forward to hearing any thoughts