Menu
What's new
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!

50mm f/0.95 for Fuji GFX

G

gerald.d

Well-known member
Well now, this might be of interest to a few here.

I'm patiently awaiting my copy of the recently released TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95 for use on my Panasonic S1R and Sigma fp using the Leica M-L adapter, and on searching around on the web for news/reviews on the lens, stumbled across this -

50mm f0.95 | Chan'Blog

It's in Chinese, but your browser should be able to do a decent translation job on it.

And yes - it looks as if the image circle on the lens is large enough to cover a crop MF sensor...

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 
L

leitztozeiss

Member
B L said:
I think the Noctilux is in a unique world and untouchable.
Click to expand...
Is that questioned in the review, or are you presenting a general platitude that a $12.5K lens is superior to a $750 lens?

Returning to the original medium format topic, do you know whether the current Noctilux projects an image circle that would cover a medium format sensor, such as the GFX and X1D? I’ve looked and couldn’t find any samples.
 
G

gerald.d

Well-known member
B L said:
Here someone used it on GFX. Looks quite sharp. I understand we must make room for the newcomers.
Flickr
Also a quick search
Click to expand...
Those are with the Noctilux, yes?

Which vignettes hard in the corners, and so every image you link to is cropped, yes?

As is actually mentioned on the blog you link to - "Here are some pictures with the 50mm Noctilux. This lens has much more vignette than the 75mm and a crop becomes essential. Once cropped it is almost equal to 50mm field of view".

So my read of that is that if you use the Noctilux on a 33x44 MF sensor, you don't really gain much because you have to crop back down to a 24x36 frame (which presumably is what the blogger means by "once cropped it is almost equal to 50mm field of view"). So basically the Noctilux has an image circle that just covers a 24x36 frame.

Struggling to understand what the point of putting it on a MF sensor is then. But perhaps I'm missing something.

What does this mean? -

I understand we must make room for the newcomers.
Click to expand...
 
B

B L

Well-known member
[
What does this mean? -[/QUOTE]
Gerald, I meant any new cameras and lenses. Thanks.
 
Godfrey

Godfrey

Well-known member
gerald.d said:
... So basically the Noctilux has an image circle that just covers a 24x36 frame.
Struggling to understand what the point of putting it on a MF sensor is then. But perhaps I'm missing something.
What does this mean? -
Click to expand...
I have several Leica M and R lenses that I've adapted to my Hasselblad 907x. By and large, most of them vignette a little at the corners on the full 33x44 sensor, but work fine at 33x33 square crop. Even if I had to crop to 24x36, there is one benefit from using them on the 907x: the CFVII 50c back's sensor is a full 16bit sensor, so the tonal range and dynamic range of a capture is much broader than the 12 or 14mm sensors in my M or SL bodies was. (I don't know which Fuji camera's sensor this benefit applies to as I understand that not all of them are 16bit sensors.)

Some of the lenses do cover the full format well enough to be used without cropping too, in particular the Macro-Elmarit-R 60 and 100mm lenses when used for work in the close-up range (1:4 magnification and higher). This makes the adaptation very useful to me.

I haven't seen too much value in going for ultra-fast lenses adapted to the larger sensor, however. Just by going to the larger format, you've reduced the depth of field by a stop or so, so an f/4 lens behaves like an f/2.8 lens would on 35mm FF with respect to focus zone and background blur. Most of the time, an f/2 or faster lens used wide open nets so little DoF it's just neither particularly useful nor aesthetically pleasing.

G
 
L

leitztozeiss

Member
Having owned and shot with several versions of the Noctilux over the decades, including the latest, I appreciate that we can now enjoy the sharpness along the plane of focus, rather than just the ‘dreamy’ out of focus areas of all prior versions of the Noctilux (because let’s be honest, prior versions of the Noctilux were expensive character lenses).

One should expect that level of performance, though, for the investment in premium glass, as, for example, one should expect top performance from the best funded Formula One teams. The challenge for manufacturers is approaching the performance bar set by the best with a far lower budget, and that is the allure, to me at least, with experimenting with the Far East glass.....to be potentially surprised by an unforeseen combination, such as the X1D II and the latest VC 35mm f/1.2 III, which covers the medium format frame with correctable vignetting, as shown in the attached corrected image (though with magenta cast at the periphery in color). I left some vignetting, because I don’t mind some in a shallow DOF environmental portrait. The vignette mostly disappears around f/5.6. Unexpected, and interesting......at least to me (not so much to my wife).
 

Attachments

Last edited:
S

Satrycon

Well-known member
Fuji GFX50R + Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH
ACROS-RED Jpg from Camera.
F11, ISO 100, 1/500th, FULL 8256x6192 resized to 1280 for the forum...

In_camera_GFX6867.jpg

Shadow Lift

In_camera_GFX6867-2.jpg



gerald.d said:
Struggling to understand what the point of putting it on a MF sensor is then. But perhaps I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
 
L

leitztozeiss

Member
Satrycon said:
Fuji GFX50R + Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH
ACROS-RED Jpg from Camera.
F11, ISO 100, 1/500th, FULL 8256x6192 resized to 1280 for the forum...

[...]

gerald.d said:
[...]Struggling to understand what the point of putting it on a MF sensor is then. But perhaps I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Gerald was challenging why mount a lens, such as the latest Noctilux, which would need cropping down anyway to near the full frame size. He's not questioning adapting lenses in general, as he's the OP.

Regarding the original topic, Gerald, I have a TTartisan 50/0.95 arriving in later this week, so I'll share results with the X1D here.
 
T

tcdeveau

Well-known member
I have a 50mm 0.95 Noctilux on extended loan but no M to X adapter for the X1D or 907x/CFVII to test it :(

I've read that the IC does not cover the sensor, so that consideration combined with the lack of focal plane shutter on the X1D (and read out time of the ES) hasn't had me curious enough to buy an adapter.

I enjoy the Noctilux quite a bit and it can provide some special results. I have trouble nailing focus with moving subjects even on the Z6, so it can be a frustrating lens to use for my own uses. I can't imagine hitting focus at 0.95 on a larger sensor would be any easier. Perhaps I just need to practice more....or perhaps my toddler needs to sit still a little more :) My biggest gripe with the Noctilux though is its minimum focusing distance is not close enough for my uses.

That said, the TTArtisans stuff does look interesting and I may need to check it out (33x44mm coverage or not). Fraction of the price of a Noctilux and has a 2.3' close focusing distance as opposed to the 3.3' of the Noctilux :thumbup:
 
G

gerald.d

Well-known member
Godfrey said:
I haven't seen too much value in going for ultra-fast lenses adapted to the larger sensor, however. Just by going to the larger format, you've reduced the depth of field by a stop or so, so an f/4 lens behaves like an f/2.8 lens would on 35mm FF with respect to focus zone and background blur. Most of the time, an f/2 or faster lens used wide open nets so little DoF it's just neither particularly useful nor aesthetically pleasing.

G
Click to expand...
Not sure I quite follow you here. If you're talking about a lens designed for MF that is f/2 or faster being neither particularly useful nor aesthetically pleasing, then I would definitely challenge that by bringing up the Mamiya 80/1.9 which I found to be sublime when I had my IQ180.

If you are talking about a lens designed for 35mm that is faster than f/2, then if - as you say - you are reducing the depth of field "by a stop or so" when using it on MF, then the implication is that the lens would behave like an f/1.4.

Ergo, an f/1.4 (or faster) lens on 35mm shot wide open is neither particularly useful nor aesthetically pleasing?

FWIW, I also shot with the Canon 85/1.2 on FF MFDB and it, also, was wonderful.


Jeez. So much negativity from people in this thread about the potential to use this interesting and (relatively) very affordable lens on MF, I'm beginning to wonder why I even bothered to share the news.
 
Godfrey

Godfrey

Well-known member
Gerald:

Note that I said "most of the time", not "all of the time". There are indeed moments when ultra fast lenses used at their large apertures have value if they image well. It's why I'm likely going to get the XCD 80mm f/1.9 as my next Hasselblad lens: by all reports and by the examples I see, it has lovely imaging qualities wide open as well as superb performance when stopped down. What could be wrong with that?

I wouldn't go out and spend $12K for a Noctilux for my MF digital camera, but I might spend a few hundred or even the $4500 or so that the 80/1.9 costs since they supposedly cover the format nicely. By and large, I've found that most of such purchases end up sitting on the shelf a good bit of the time, that's all.

As a practical matter, the moments when such ultra narrow focus zone proves to be the "best" solution to creating a beautiful photograph are somewhat few and far between IMO, but despite that, an inexpensive ultra fast lens is always interesting anyway.

G
 
A

anyone

Well-known member
On a sidenote because there was so much talk about Leica lenses in this thread: did anyone try the Zeiss 50mm 1.5 C-Sonnar on an X1D / 50R? I've been tempted by this lens for a while now but cannot quite justify its purchase as I already have a few very nice 50mm lenses.
 
A

anyone

Well-known member
Thank you, I knew this review already but wondered if anyone here has first hands experience with it.
 
G

gerald.d

Well-known member
Godfrey said:
Gerald:

Note that I said "most of the time", not "all of the time". There are indeed moments when ultra fast lenses used at their large apertures have value if they image well. It's why I'm likely going to get the XCD 80mm f/1.9 as my next Hasselblad lens: by all reports and by the examples I see, it has lovely imaging qualities wide open as well as superb performance when stopped down. What could be wrong with that?

I wouldn't go out and spend $12K for a Noctilux for my MF digital camera, but I might spend a few hundred or even the $4500 or so that the 80/1.9 costs since they supposedly cover the format nicely. By and large, I've found that most of such purchases end up sitting on the shelf a good bit of the time, that's all.

As a practical matter, the moments when such ultra narrow focus zone proves to be the "best" solution to creating a beautiful photograph are somewhat few and far between IMO, but despite that, an inexpensive ultra fast lens is always interesting anyway.

G
Click to expand...
Apologies - I did not take your use of the word "value" in the comment I quoted in its literal, financial, sense, which is clear now what you meant.

I too would never have purchased a Noctilux for MF when I was shooting that format. For me, there were better lenses to spend that $12k on - particularly considering the Noctilux doesn't get close to covering even a crop MF sensor.

$800 however is a whole different ballpark, and especially for those with more limited financial resources, perhaps there is "value" there to be had, even considering the moments where it could be the best solution are few and far between.

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 
W

wallpaperviking

Member
Godfrey said:
I have several Leica M and R lenses that I've adapted to my Hasselblad 907x. By and large, most of them vignette a little at the corners on the full 33x44 sensor, but work fine at 33x33 square crop. Even if I had to crop to 24x36, there is one benefit from using them on the 907x: the CFVII 50c back's sensor is a full 16bit sensor, so the tonal range and dynamic range of a capture is much broader than the 12 or 14mm sensors in my M or SL bodies was. (I don't know which Fuji camera's sensor this benefit applies to as I understand that not all of them are 16bit sensors.)

Some of the lenses do cover the full format well enough to be used without cropping too, in particular the Macro-Elmarit-R 60 and 100mm lenses when used for work in the close-up range (1:4 magnification and higher). This makes the adaptation very useful to me.

I haven't seen too much value in going for ultra-fast lenses adapted to the larger sensor, however. Just by going to the larger format, you've reduced the depth of field by a stop or so, so an f/4 lens behaves like an f/2.8 lens would on 35mm FF with respect to focus zone and background blur. Most of the time, an f/2 or faster lens used wide open nets so little DoF it's just neither particularly useful nor aesthetically pleasing.

G
Click to expand...
[HR][/HR]

I was under the impression that the CFV II was the sensor as the X1D, which is the same as the Fuji GFX 50S and 50R.

Shown to be 14 bit only, not true 16 bit which is found in the newer GFX 100..

I feel I have seen it mentioned a number of times that the claim of 16 bit is a bit of marketing by Hasselblad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top