Hasselblad lenses as well. But if you are looking for the top performers on the digital sensor, then the Mamiya RZ67 or K/L together with the latest generation of Hasselblad Carl Zeiss lenses is the best option.
Then it seems the best medium format lenses to adapt to a different system are the Pentax lenses. I don't know the 645, but the 67 has a slide on all the lenses to stop down and it will stay in either position.
Then it seems the best medium format lenses to adapt to a different system are the Pentax lenses. I don't know the 645, but the 67 has a slide on all the lenses to stop down and it will stay in either position.
You would immediately see the great advantage of the MF macro lens as soon you would be able to tilt it.
Aside from the fact that it may not fully cover the medium format sensor and could be susceptible to chromatic aberrations, this lens is not a macro lens. According to the official Nikon website, this is a NIKKOR telephoto lens with perspective control (PC-E) and high-quality optics, which is ideal for portrait and product photography. It means that the field curvature of this lens may not be corrected for its maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2.Since I already have an 85mm tilt/shift macro in Nikon F mount, I'm not sure what I'd gain.
I totally agree with you, the Superachromats are perfect on digital sensor. My 250 SA produced in 1972 as well.I've shot my Blad 250mm SA on my CFV 50II both with and without a 2x mutar and gotten pretty spectacular results. The 250 and 350 SAs and the 40 IF are supposed to be the best for digital, followed closely by the 100 f/3.5.
Aside from the fact that it may not fully cover the medium format sensor and could be susceptible to chromatic aberrations, this lens is not a macro lens. According to the official Nikon website, this is a NIKKOR telephoto lens with perspective control (PC-E) and high-quality optics, which is ideal for portrait and product photography. It means that the field curvature of this lens may not be corrected for its maximum reproduction ratio of 1:2.
I have the pre-PC-E version, which has the same optics but lacks nano crystal coating. I haven't found field curvature to be an issue, which is consistent with Nikon's badging of the lens as a Micro Nikkor. I've never used it for portraits and likely never will because its size and the inconvenience of a preset aperture.
I've been testing it mainly with an 80mm focal length (effectively 128mm).
Technically, the Mamiya 645 80mm lens remains 80mm when used with the X-T5. The only difference between a native XF lens and a medium-format lens with a similar focal length is the image circle.
Please specify "effective." From what you wrote, I understand that the Mamiya 80mm turns into a 128mm lens on an X camera. As far as I know, it only works in the opposite direction. For example, one can use a Canon TS-E lens on a digital medium format camera to achieve a wider angle of view (TS-E lens covers the digital MF). In this case, one could say that it is an effectively "wider-angle" lens when compared to a full-frame shot.Errr, That's why i used the standard qualifier "effective". Yes, I'm aware of the image circle difference; I do a lot of large format work.
Using the MF lens on the APS-C sensor changes more than the "crop" of the image. Aperture behaves slghtly differently too, in the sense of the depth of field that you would associate with what you are seeing through the view-finder. It also changes as you're now likely to operating at a different distance from the subject to achieve the same field of view. The optical characeteristics of a lens are not solely defined by its focal length.
Sorry to bother you. As a solid medium-format user, I am always confused by the term "effectively" regarding the lens adaptation.I'm not going down the rabbit-hole of discussing what are common concepts in the field.
As far as "effective" is concerned, the focal length is what it is.
When you put the medium format lens on a camera with a frame or sensor size smaller than the lens was designed for, the image ends up being a cropped portion of the lens' field of view. Effectively you end up with a field of view that is the same as if you had used a longer lens (80mm - 128mm in the example quoted) on the larger frame - the one that the lens was designed for.
As far as "effective" is concerned, the focal length is what it is.
When you put the medium format lens on a camera with a frame or sensor size smaller than the lens was designed for, the image ends up being a cropped portion of the lens' field of view. Effectively you end up with a field of view that is the same as if you had used a longer lens (80mm - 128mm in the example quoted) on the larger frame - the one that the lens was designed for.
Thank you for the explanation, appreciate it! Although I still don't understand how this obvious and very common information about format differences would be helpful for using an adapted lens with a particular digital sensor, in the case of the 80mm XF lens (Mamiya 80mm on X crop sensor), the equivalent Mamiya 645 lens will be a 198mm lens but not a 128mm lens as reported by NialerM.
The difference between 80 and 200mm is pretty huge making the knowledge about the lens effectiveness quite useless, in my opinion.
I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from. I'm basing mine on the lens specs and also experience from calibrating for use. That figure of 128mm has the benefit of both having been tested by myself, and also being the figure which others have also derived.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?