Jump to content

Fast lenses / DOF question


Recommended Posts

I've got two questions ...

The current lenses are not that fast,except the 110mm the lenses are F2.8 or "worse".
​Okay you have the cropfactor of 0.79 for DOF but in dim lighting you'll need to raise the iso a bit quicker.
​When you check the lenses of the competition, it's the same case.
Is it because the lenses would be too big / heavy for F2 or faster ?
Can we expect faster lenses, what do you think ?
​Probably the most mm produced for the gfx would be a 240 / 250mm ?


​Also, if you would compare DOF of the 110mm F2 with a 85mm F1.2 on a full frame camera, which would be the most out of focus ?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got two questions ...

 

The current lenses are not that fast,except the 110mm the lenses are F2.8 or "worse".

​Okay you have the cropfactor of 0.79 for DOF but in dim lighting you'll need to raise the iso a bit quicker.

​When you check the lenses of the competition, it's the same case.

Is it because the lenses would be too big / heavy for F2 or faster ?

Can we expect faster lenses, what do you think ?

​Probably the most mm produced for the gfx would be a 240 / 250mm ?

 

 

​Also, if you would compare DOF of the 110mm F2 with a 85mm F1.2 on a full frame camera, which would be the most out of focus ?

 

 

Realise that the sensor is .78× the size of full-frame and almost four times the size of our APS-C sensors. An f/1.2 would be enormous at any focal length. Longer lenses would have to be stopped down anyway to get even marginally useful depth of field. Shallow depth of field is not a virtue, but an ongoing concern even with an f/2.8 lens. I have quite a lot of medium-format lenses but none faster than f/2.8. One of my most productive lenses was an f/8.0 Schneider SuperAngulon on a 6×10 body. 

 

Reading the reports of some of the 50 shooters chosen to beta test the prototypes, there seems to be a consensus that noise under ISO6400 is not noticeable, and not unpleasant even at ISO6400. What was truth with APS-C must be forgotten with medium-format. Just as with film, it is a different world. However, the difference between a 24×36mm frame to a 6×9cm frame is a bit more dramatic than just going from APS-C to 33×44mm. 

 

When covering major league baseball, I met the staff shooter for the Montreal Expos. He shot a 6×7 Pentax and had an f/4.0 800mm lens. He nearly needed a fork-lift to get it onto his tripod. The thing was HUGE! It weighed17,700g (39lbs). No reason it could not be mounted on a GFX. Though there is a bit of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the choice of a focal plane shutter, it means that pretty much every medium format lens might be adapted to it. Mamiya also made a range of lenses that may also be easily adapted once adapters appear. Many of these were designed for film and may or may not work well with sensors. However, they can be highly affordable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have ever used MF cameras and lenses, you would see that the DOF on a 2.8 is thin and similar to a 35 FF 1.4 lens. Thus that 110/2.0 will be stellar. Remember you can adapt HC lenses on it and they go out to 300mm.

 

well ...no never used MF cameras because of the cost :) but now I'm getting tempted.

​That's why I was wondering ...if I had to choose, the 32-64 F4 or the 63 F2.8, difficult choice ...

​(when you would also buy the 110mmF2)

Link to post
Share on other sites

32-64mm f/4 equivalent to a standard kit zoom—a true wide-angle 25mm to a normal 51mm. 63mm f/2.8 is the equivalent of the ever popular 50mm normal lens. The 110 f/2.0 would be many people's choice as a portrait lens and all purpose short telephoto. The 120mm f/4.0 is a comfortable but not quite as short telephoto with macro capability. The 23mm is equivalent to an 18mm on full frame. It is the threshold of super-wide and awesome for landscape, architecture and environmental portraiture. The 45mm is a wide-normal lens, which some may prefer over the standard normal 63mm. 

 

Like the initial selection of X-Mount lenses, Fuji has selected the most used lenses to cover the basic needs of photographers. With the exception of the 23mm, these are the bread and butter lenses of most working photographers. However, the 23mm strongly extends capability for those who need a super-wide. During the film era, I had a fixed lens 6×10 camera with a 47mm f/8.0 Schneider SuperAngulon with the same coverage that paid for itself hundreds of times over. If the need arose for a GFX, I expect that would be my most used lens.

 

Lacking are the more specialized lenses that may appear in the future. There are no long telephotos equivalent to the X-Mount 100-400mm for sports and wildlife. Likewise, an array of wide and telephoto zooms. Nothing wider than a 23mm and no fisheye. No tilt/shift lens either. Fuji managed to flesh out the original three focal lengths with the X-Mount in a remarkably short length of time and I expect that they will do the same within the medium-format context. The context is crucial. The sensor is quite large compared to full-frame and nearly four times the size of APS-C. The lenses will be comparatively large and heavy. An f/2.0 200mm lens is huge on a full-frame but would be almost unmanageable on a GFX. The same is true of super-telephotos that Nikon F5 shooters use for pro-sports. 

 

In film days, medium format shooters did not often carry an arsenal of lenses like their 35mm colleagues. Two or three lenses were adequate since the images were so large, that cropping was highly practical. The same is true if the reports on the quality of 50MP GFX images is true. Fuji has publically committed to producing lenses with resolutions two times the needs of this sensor. Cropping a 16MP section of an image may well equal or better that of our X-Pro1 or X-T1. We will have to wait until the camera ships and is tested to find out. If so, a 23mm, 63mm and a 120mm may cover most everything a medium-format shooter needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well ...no never used MF cameras because of the cost :) but now I'm getting tempted.

​That's why I was wondering ...if I had to choose, the 32-64 F4 or the 63 F2.8, difficult choice ...

​(when you would also buy the 110mmF2)

 

For my genre (fashion), I'll be good with the 63mm and the 110mm. With the Fuji X system, I only use the 35mm and the 56mm.

 

It depends on what you want to shoot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In film days, medium format shooters did not often carry an arsenal of lenses like their 35mm colleagues. Two or three lenses were adequate since the images were so large, that cropping was highly practical. The same is true if the reports on the quality of 50MP GFX images is true. Fuji has publically committed to producing lenses with resolutions two times the needs of this sensor. Cropping a 16MP section of an image may well equal or better that of our X-Pro1 or X-T1. We will have to wait until the camera ships and is tested to find out. If so, a 23mm, 63mm and a 120mm may cover most everything a medium-format shooter needs.

 

The note about cropping: it is true, especially when Fuji releases their 100 megapixel MF camera. I shot the Phase XF100, and with that much resolution, I didn't want to frame in camera. It made you want to shoot loose. Imagine shooting a full body shot and zooming in at 100% to see a super-sharp, detailed eye.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

All above is good for most. I must say I did find when using my HB 503CW with 250 or 350 lens it was invigorating. Personally I find my normal lens more in the 35mm FL variety. That's why the Fuji 32-64 would fit my needs to a tee.

 

I would very much like to see a 150/2.8  Fuji lens. I loved that lens on my 645Z system even though it was an old pre-digital design and I used it mainly for landscape.

 

Regarding the physical size of MF lenses, did you see how huge that new 50/1.4 Leica S lens is in size?

Edited by algrove
Link to post
Share on other sites

As formats increase, shallow depth of field moves from being a virtue to an ever-nagging problem. 20th century US west coast landscape shooters were known as Group f/64 from their most commonly used aperture. The idea of an f/1.2 lens would have been incomprehensible. Even with our APS-C sensors, many attempts at bokeh masterpieces fail because they simply look like an out-of-focus error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the following with the 120mm at f/9 on the GFX, notice how the right eye is tack sharp and the left one is out of focus.

 

This is at f/9, imagine this at a much larger aperture.Fuji GFX50-091 by Kang Min Lee, on Flickr

 

This surprises me a bit to be honest, it's really shallow for F9.

The IS is tempting me to order one , my bank account is telling me not to :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This surprises me a bit to be honest, it's really shallow for F9.

The IS is tempting me to order one , my bank account is telling me not to :)

 

My fiance doesn't want me to, she says putting money towards the wedding is priority :(

Edited by kangmlee
Link to post
Share on other sites

My fiance doesn't want me to, she says putting money towards the wedding is priority :(

 

Watch out-she is telling you what to buy and you're not even married! Hate to see what happens once you do get married. Hey, why not put the wedding off for a year and then all OK photog wise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Fuji should not have made the GFX 50s with this too small sensor of 33 x 44 mm. It is ridiculous. Fujifilm must reject this dwarf. We need a pro size sensor. Professional size is  60 x 60 mm ! All classical optics will fit than.

The Rollei Baby nor the Yashica 44 were no great camers ( they had a 60 mm optic ). Any sensor size in between is like a motorcar with a stearingwheel not at the left side nor at the right side, but in the middle. That is no good.

 

There are at least three standard negative / sensor sizes. The "normal' size, a smaller size and a larger size. So 60 x 60 mm ( Hasseblad, Rollei etc.). Smaller miniature size ( 35 mm cine film ) at 24 x 36 mm. And the larger 4 x 5 inch.

Of course there was 18 x 24 mm ( Pen F), killed by all that bad photo labs. The pre war 60 x 90 mm, And later 60 x 70 mm and the Fuji 60 x 80 mm. And plenty of View Cameras at any size.  And the in-between analoge size died before the were grown up: Instamatic and APS and 110 etc. etc.

 

I think that the Fuji GFX 50s will become the camera for the "rich" pensionado, who could not buy a Hasselblad during the sixties or the seventies. The GFX is the toy for today's consumer with not enough money to buy a Porsche or a Harley Davidson. Anyway Fujifilm did not listen to the professional photographers. Mr Big Mouth, the self made, not skilled prosumer gots his (non) - medium digital camera. Now noticing, he was penny wise, but pound foolish. He starts whining now.

 

O, please mr. Fujifilm make me optics with very wide apetures, because I need more DOF. Please, make them not too heavy and not too expensive. With small filter mounts, if possible ? The GFX looks like the French Gitroen GS. A brilliant, streamlined car with a weak 1015 cc engine, Less is not always more.

 

Is there anybody home with the 1968 optics of Fuji 690 rangefinder camera. Please ............? Please make me a shift adapter for the GFX-66.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuji should not have made the GFX 50s with this too small sensor of 33 x 44 mm. It is ridiculous. Fujifilm must reject this dwarf. We need a pro size sensor. Professional size is  60 x 60 mm ! All classical optics will fit than.

The Rollei Baby nor the Yashica 44 were no great camers ( they had a 60 mm optic ). Any sensor size in between is like a motorcar with a stearingwheel not at the left side nor at the right side, but in the middle. That is no good.

 

There are at least three standard negative / sensor sizes. The "normal' size, a smaller size and a larger size. So 60 x 60 mm ( Hasseblad, Rollei etc.). Smaller miniature size ( 35 mm cine film ) at 24 x 36 mm. And the larger 4 x 5 inch.

Of course there was 18 x 24 mm ( Pen F), killed by all that bad photo labs. The pre war 60 x 90 mm, And later 60 x 70 mm and the Fuji 60 x 80 mm. And plenty of View Cameras at any size.  And the in-between analoge size died before the were grown up: Instamatic and APS and 110 etc. etc.

 

I think that the Fuji GFX 50s will become the camera for the "rich" pensionado, who could not buy a Hasselblad during the sixties or the seventies. The GFX is the toy for today's consumer with not enough money to buy a Porsche or a Harley Davidson. Anyway Fujifilm did not listen to the professional photographers. Mr Big Mouth, the self made, not skilled prosumer gots his (non) - medium digital camera. Now noticing, he was penny wise, but pound foolish. He starts whining now.

 

O, please mr. Fujifilm make me optics with very wide apetures, because I need more DOF. Please, make them not too heavy and not too expensive. With small filter mounts, if possible ? The GFX looks like the French Gitroen GS. A brilliant, streamlined car with a weak 1015 cc engine, Less is not always more.

 

Is there anybody home with the 1968 optics of Fuji 690 rangefinder camera. Please ............? Please make me a shift adapter for the GFX-66.

 

One slight problem. Where would you source this 6×6 sensor? Phase One has one of the largest sensors at 53.7 × 40.4 mm and Hasselblad at 53.4 x 40.0. Both are 100MP parts. Neither one is even a full 645 format, and much less than 6×6. The term "affordable" is generally not used when describing either. Considering the quality of these sensors, we may never see film sized 6×6+ sized sensors.

 

Shift adapter has been available for some time.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1327314-REG/cambo_99010882_actus_camerabody_with_fuji_gfx.html/?gclid=CjwKEAjw387JBRDPtJePvOej8kASJADkV9TL9qCy1qR5d8SBp2Z9PtcaHPG9aPZFdUMWXDImQcTeGRoCIz3w_wcB

 

There have been many reports of success with adapted Nikon and Canon tilt-shift lenses as well. They have an ample circle of coverage that is sufficient without vignetting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget fast lenses !  They are heavy and bulky. You nullify all the advantages of the compactness of the camera body. 

What is the use to be in a hurry ? With any speed you can shoot a aeroplane. A good tripod will do. Rise the ISO.

 

AMATEURS  AND  PROSUMERS  ARE  LIKE  LITTLE  BOYS; they long for fast cars and fast jets. The speedometer was their obsession.

Today the f-number ?    I prefer a f/3,5 above a f/2,8 and I ignore the f/2,0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear mr Bolch. Anything can be made. Fuji is like the European car industry: DOWNSIZING. It is a real miracle, feeling the power of 1.0 liter engine.

But I prefer a 2.0 liter engine while cruizing at the same speed. It is a miracle to see the quality of Fujifilm. But I prefer ....

 

Why do all the 6 x 6 analog camera companies downsize the format ? Too make everything cheap ? You need more powerful processors and

a new line of optics. So today it is 63 mm in stead of 80 mm ? 

 

 

When all digital started, Nikon started with non-fullframe DSLR. So there was the need for new optics etc. Canon did it in another way, etc. 

Hasselblad asked Fuji/Sony to create the first digital Swedish DSLR. Too bad, they ignored all the 500 C/M users, and again and again.

 

Nobody needs a digital camera that looks like a Pinnball Machine. Photography is very simple. Aperture, shutterspeed and ISO;

everything in Raw, and I press the button. Fuji could/should have made a 60 x 60 mm camera without all the nonsense options. 

 

The Cambo Actus has a huge problem: not all Fuji X cameras fit. The Cambo Actus has a lot of imperfactions, which I had to solve by myself.

All optics which are mounted to the Actus cause the same problem: the focal length is too long, because the GFX sensor is too small. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is obvious that hardly anybody knows the optical technics.

The IMAGE CIRCLE of a 24 x 36 mm ( fullframe ) is to small for any camera that has a larger sensor.

So forget it to put Nikon, Canon etc fullframe optics at a Fujifilm GFX 50s. It is impossible.

Once more: Bokeh and DOV is not for cameras smaller than 60 x 60 cm cameras like  Hasselblad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do all the 6 x 6 analog camera companies downsize the format ? Too make everything cheap ? You need more powerful processors and

a new line of optics. So today it is 63 mm in stead of 80 mm ? 

 

No. Large sensors were very difficult to make, with tiny yields. The Nikon D3 caught the world by surprise when it showed up with a full-frame sensor just about ten years ago. Contax had tried for years to bring a full-frame camera to market, showing it at trade-shows, but never getting into the channel. Finally, Kyocera grew frustrated and killed the whole company. Kodak also produced a full-frame camera that was in most ways a disaster. The D3 represented a true watershed, however, it was initially priced at $5,000US.

 

The problems were far greater on the medium-format side. Early backs acted like scanners, making three passes to create a full-colour image. Of course, any subject movement doomed the exposure. Early one-shot backs used CCD technology, low sensitivity, heat and all the associated problems. Sensors larger than full frame were extremely expensive. Realize that prior to 2014 there were NO medium-format digital cameras with CMOS sensors. So far, no fab has been able to deliver a full 645 sensor, much less a 6×6. At the moment, Phase One offers a 53.7 × 40.4 mm sensor—to the best of my knowledge the largest in the industry. With a normal lens, the camera retails for just under $50,000US. If that is your idea of cheap, then you have a degree of envy.

 

6×6 though vastly popular among film shooters was initially a compromise for camera makers who build cameras with waist-level finders. A square format allowed cropping to either vertical or horizontal format without awkward callisthenics with the camera. While one could shoot a full square format, it usually resulted in being yelled at by the editor(a number of times in my case). With live view monitors, I never expect to see a 6×6 sensor.

 

I would not be so bold as to assert that sensors are now at their maximum size, I don't expect to see a sensor larger than a 645 in anything like the near future. Image quality drives the demand, and current medium format digital sensors are delivering quality comparable to large format film. If in the future, it will be possible to produce a 6×7 gigapixel sensor, I would expect to see them in spy satellites, not commercial cameras. 

Edited by Larry Bolch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistake ! Wrong ! Error ! Incorrectness ! Mr Bolch, cropping was not highly practical in " film days ". Not in Europe

Professional photographers do not crop. For his 6 x 6 cm camera  a real photographer has every optic.

Starting with the wide angle of 38 mm and ending at 500 mm. More than 12 different Zeiss lenses.

And for the view camera at least seven lenses. 

 

The Durst Laboator 138S can be tilted. Not for cropping, but for mural enlargements.

The Laborator is then riding over rail in the darkroom.

 

Fujifilm is not knowing today what real professional photographers need !

Fujfilm has one goal, just selling cameras to the Canon and Nikon freaks.

 

Please read "Colour Photography '68" by Norman Rothschild. He wrote an article on photography in the U.S and Europa.

He also visited Studio 13 in Zürich in Switserland.

The most shocking facts were that European photographers are skilled and graduated craftsmen. 

Their equipement is a modern View camera and a rollfilm camera. Few 35 mm SLR; just for the photojournalists.

And in The United States  every pizza baker with a Nikon acts like a photographer.

That was a great difference, those days.

Today in the whole world every pizza baker with a camera is a photographer.

And that is way they need wide apertures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...