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!
Fun with MF images - ARCHIVED - FOR VIEWING ONLY
- Thread starter Guy Mancuso
- Start date
- Status
Ed Hurst
Well-known member
Nice shot!
How do you find that the lens performs all round, including into the corners? (Hard to judge from web presentation)
Ed Hurst
Well-known member
Some pictures from the Samuel Beckett Bridge in Dublin. Designed to resemble an Irish harp...
All taken with Pentax 645Z and 28-45mm f4.5 lens.
[/url]IMGP4088_Step5sRGBSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
[/url]IMGP4099_Step7sRGBSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
[/url]IMGP4094_Step5sRGBSMALL by Ed Hurst, on Flickr[/IMG]
All taken with Pentax 645Z and 28-45mm f4.5 lens.
ejpeiker
Member
The center is very good and there's a little falloff into the corners but it's better than I expected and better than the 12mm f/2.8 coupled with the Laowa Medium Format converter - that combo has essentially the same optical formula but by eliminating the mount between converter and lens, the corners are more consistant with each other (at least with my lenses). I have basically only used the lens on one shoot so far but I did do a quick and dirty centering test and did not find any decentering and, as I said, the corner resolution falloff was better than I expected on the ISO test chart. It is much better, for example, than the Nikon 16-35 f/4 at 16mm on a D850. Hope that helps
E.J., thanks for your impressions. I've heard good things about the performance of this lens and wondered if it is adaptable (in my case) to other MF systems like the Pentax 645 MF cameras? As an aside, I was never personally a fan (and stated often here years ago on Getdpi) of the Nikon 16-35mm f4, primarily due to its excessive distortion and other anomalies I observed. Again appreciate your observations.The center is very good and there's a little falloff into the corners but it's better than I expected and better than the 12mm f/2.8 coupled with the Laowa Medium Format converter - that combo has essentially the same optical formula but by eliminating the mount between converter and lens, the corners are more consistant with each other (at least with my lenses). I have basically only used the lens on one shoot so far but I did do a quick and dirty centering test and did not find any decentering and, as I said, the corner resolution falloff was better than I expected on the ISO test chart. It is much better, for example, than the Nikon 16-35 f/4 at 16mm on a D850. Hope that helps
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
ejpeiker
Member
I don't think that would be possible, at least not without some very complex optics as the flange distance on the 645 is dramatically longer than on the GFX. It's easy adapt from a long flange distance to a short one as the adapter just makes up the difference but going the other way is not at all easy.
Ed Hurst
Well-known member
Thanks for that! Are you in a position to compare its performance with the Nikon 14-24 used at 14mm on a D850? For me, that's the key comparison because not only are the focal lengths (angles of view) more similar, but its also a stronger competitor... The 14-24 is superb at 14mm (by the standards of such systems).The center is very good and there's a little falloff into the corners but it's better than I expected and better than the 12mm f/2.8 coupled with the Laowa Medium Format converter - that combo has essentially the same optical formula but by eliminating the mount between converter and lens, the corners are more consistant with each other (at least with my lenses). I have basically only used the lens on one shoot so far but I did do a quick and dirty centering test and did not find any decentering and, as I said, the corner resolution falloff was better than I expected on the ISO test chart. It is much better, for example, than the Nikon 16-35 f/4 at 16mm on a D850. Hope that helps
ejpeiker
Member
I used to own that lens with a D810. The Nikon has a lot more linear distortion as that is it's weak point and the strength of pretty much all of the Laowa lenses. The 14-24 is probably a little bit sharper deep though into the corners.
ejpeiker
Member
By the way Ed, one of the strengths of this lens is that it actually takes screw on filters. 86mm but I have some 95s from my Phase One days that I just step down to 86. It works well for a single filter but if I stack two it does vignette a bit.
D
Deleted member 7792
Guest
I really like this one Alan. Vertical composition, simple color palette, path leading to the tree(s) with yellow leaves remaining... Well done sir.Weardale...
Coincidentally, I just sold that lens because I couldn't get it to work with the X1D II using the Techart adapter. I'm glad it works for you using the 50S. :thumbup:
Joe
.
Yes, unfortunate for us 645D/Z users Ed. Even if there was an optical adapter that took into account flange to sensor/film plane distance differences between the Fuji GFX 50 and Pentax 645, these sorts of adapters generally cause degradation of the image beyond acceptability for most. I had tried a few of these adapters a number of years ago across 35mm systems and all were unacceptable in my opinion.
Dave (D&A)
Beautiful Alan !! and that Tamron 90 SP 90 Macro (I guess its the new version - F017N ?) is doing really fine even on MF. I found it sharper than the 100/2 Zeiss Makro, so one shall not underestimate the Tamron 90 macro.Cold and frosty this morning, but I did manage to find some colour....
(Weardale)
It's encouraging to see your super-pictures with the Canon 24TSE too...
so if i stumble over a tiny bag of money, a GFX-R with that equipment could be reasonable...hhmmm
Which adapters do you use?
KR thorkil
dj may
Well-known member
- Status