Do you use your favorite medium format lens to shoot digital?

[NiallerM]

The format factor comes from the diagonal length ratio between the frames resulting in 1,5-fold and 2,5-fold factors for full-frame and medium-format compared to Fuji X (APS-C).

That's the crop factor. Sensor size is distinct from focal length. My observations with the etup aren't restricted to the image size, although it is generally considered to be a good indicator.

I think you may also be making the mistake that effective focal length is based on a full-frame comparison as a baseline, not on the sensor or film size for which the lens was originally designed..

 

[Alexander6x6]

Also, why do you insist on referring to aperture stops as "speeds"?

Your question must be re-addressed to a native speaker. who introduced the term "fast lens":
"A faster lens means the maximum aperture is larger, and more light will hit the sensor compared to a “slower” lens. This is usually expressed in an “f-number.” The smaller this number is (like F2. 8), the “faster” the lens is, and vice-versa."

 

[NiallerM]

Your question must be re-addressed to a native speaker. who introduced the term "fast lens":
"A faster lens means the maximum aperture is larger, and more light will hit the sensor compared to a “slower” lens. This is usually expressed in an “f-number.” The smaller this number is (like F2. 8), the “faster” the lens is, and vice-versa."

You said:

speed (f-stop wide open)

 

[Alexander6x6]

You said:

> speed (f-stop wide open)

It has the same meaning:

"Lens speed is the maximum aperture diameter, or minimum f-number, of a photographic lens. A lens with a larger than average maximum aperture (that is, a smaller minimum f-number) is called a "fast lens" because it can achieve the same exposure as an average lens with a faster shutter speed."

 

[Alexander6x6]

That's the crop factor. Sensor size is distinct from focal length. My observations with the etup aren't restricted to the image size, although it is generally considered to be a good indicator.

I think you may also be making the mistake that effective focal length is based on a full-frame comparison as a baseline, not on the sensor or film size for which the lens was originally designed..

I spent about eight years actively participating in the projects to adapt medium-format lenses for digital mirrorless cameras. In all those years, you are the first person to tell me that I am wrong.

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on:
Gentlemen - please!
Hat off.
Be cautious about any such analysis where the sensor/frame sizes being compared have different aspect ratios.
When those aspect ratios differ, there are actually four different equivalencies:
1) short dimension of the frame;
2) long dimension of the frame;
3) diagonal of the frame; and
4) area of the frame.
So you can have four different answers, all of which are right, even though their appropriateness depends on the use being made of them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My digital camera Nikon Z7ii has two zoom lens built for the camera 28mm to 200mm and 16mm to 25mm and a 150mm to 600mm zoom lens but for Nikon film camera and has a 2X extender and a Z7ii adapter.

 

[NiallerM]

> speed (f-stop wide open)

It has the same meaning:

"Lens speed is the maximum aperture diameter, or minimum f-number, of a photographic lens. A lens with a larger than average maximum aperture (that is, a smaller minimum f-number) is called a "fast lens" because it can achieve the same exposure as an average lens with a faster shutter speed."

That's a fast lens, not a "fast f-stop".

 

[NiallerM]

I spent about eight years actively participating in the projects to adapt medium-format lenses for digital mirrorless cameras. In all those years, you are the first person to tell me that I am wrong.

What "projects"? Industry run? Can you post the results?

 

[Alexander6x6]

Moderator hat on:
Gentlemen - please!
Hat off.
Be cautious about any such analysis where the sensor/frame sizes being compared have different aspect ratios.
When those aspect ratios differ, there are actually four different equivalencies:
1) short dimension of the frame;
2) long dimension of the frame;
3) diagonal of the frame; and
4) area of the frame.
So you can have four different answers, all of which are right, even though their appropriateness depends on the use being made of them.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The angle of view of a lens is the only parameter that makes it possible to determine the equivalent focal length of the system with different sensor or frame sizes.
One can use the first three parameters you listed for that purpose: the short side, the long side, or the diagonal of each frame.
I use the diagonal of the frame because my final images vary greatly (from 84x73mm to 108x53mm), so using either the short or long side would not be accurate.

See below two Excel tables I created on the topic of our discussion. The first compares standard prime lenses of four systems. The second compares the Mamiya 645 80mm lens adapted to the APS-C system with others in the sense of its effectiveness.

 

[NiallerM]

A spreadsheet in this form is nothing but tabulated assertions. It doesn't gain truth by being nicely presented. What are the workings behind it, and what specs are you referring to in it?

 

[NiallerM]

Moderator hat on:
Gentlemen - please!
Hat off.
Be cautious about any such analysis where the sensor/frame sizes being compared have different aspect ratios.
When those aspect ratios differ, there are actually four different equivalencies:
1) short dimension of the frame;
2) long dimension of the frame;
3) diagonal of the frame; and
4) area of the frame.
So you can have four different answers, all of which are right, even though their appropriateness depends on the use being made of them.

Aye. I'll stop forthwith.

 

[loccdor]

I've done a lot of testing of the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. It would be a good candidate to adapt to digital of any sensor size.

Through testing it on 35mm film I found that the central portion, even with a teleconverter, out-resolves my ability to digitize the film at 36 megapixels with pixel shift, as long as you stop down the lens to f/5.6. Without a teleconverter, it out-resolves wide open.

Then I shot a 6x6 film frame and digitized it with stitching at around 120 megapixels. This was the first time I noticed any aberrations from the lens, it only happens towards the corners of a big MF frame.

Not bad at all for a 5 element lens you can buy for a few hundred dollars.

 

[MattKing]

The angle of view of a lens is the only parameter that makes it possible to determine the equivalent focal length of the system with different sensor or frame sizes.

{Emphasis added}
This is incorrect, because differing aspect ratios force users to prioritize different dimensions, depending on the intended use.
The landscape photographer may be most interested in the long dimension, and therefore use a table of equivalencies based on that.
A wedding photographer may, on balance, care more about the short dimension, so will need a table of equivalencies based on that.
And those two tables will differ, when the choices on the table offer different aspect ratios.
You can always state which assumption you are relying upon - which of the four characteristics you are basing your calculation of equivalencies on - when you share the results of your calculations. That will allow others to determine whether those calculations meet their needs.

 

[Alexander6x6]

I've done a lot of testing of the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f/2.8. It would be a good candidate to adapt to digital of any sensor size.

Through testing it on 35mm film I found that the central portion, even with a teleconverter, out-resolves my ability to digitize the film at 36 megapixels with pixel shift, as long as you stop down the lens to f/5.6. Without a teleconverter, it out-resolves wide open.

Then I shot a 6x6 film frame and digitized it with stitching at around 120 megapixels. This was the first time I noticed any aberrations from the lens, it only happens towards the corners of a big MF frame.

Not bad at all for a 5 element lens you can buy for a few hundred dollars.

I would also recommend you the Calejnar (or Arsat or Hartblei) 150mm/2.8. This lens is smaller than the CZJ Sonnar 180mm and creates excellent images with a very pleasant bokeh. The Vega-28 120mm/2.8 was my favorite lens for a long time.

 

[rulnacco]

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I'll add my bit: my favorite medium format lenses are Hasselblad CF/CFi lenses. I am particularly enamored of the 120mm Makro-Planar and the 180mm Sonnar, both of which are exceptional performers. I saw the sentiment expressed earlier that film lenses on digital produce "disappointing" output--but I can't say that I've found that to be at all the case with my lenses. Now, I'm not using them on some super high megapixel back--I'm using mine on what I could afford: a 2004-era Sinarback 54M that is so primitive it has no screen, no battery, and no memory card slot, so I have to shoot it tethered to my 2012 MacBook Pro. And it produces "only" 22MP--but as the digital back has a fat-pixel Kodak CCD sensor, it's 22 glorious megapixels.

I haven't seen a lot of replies linked to photos--thanks to those who did provide some, as those are the best evidence for using film lenses on digital sensors. Here are three full-resolution portraits I shot at my little portrait studio in Orlando with Hasselblad film lenses and the digital back, in order of focal length. The first and last were shot at F11 or F16 with flash, the middle one was shot with existing light wide open at F4. Make sure to view them at full size to see what they can do; they've had a bit of sharpening applied in post, but really all it's doing is working on what's already there.

120mm Makro-Planar CFi: Benji

150mm Sonnar CF: Jeremiah

180mm Sonnar CFi: Child

I dunno, but to me I can't find any disappointment. Oh, and one more: while living in London, I used another copy of the same back on a Mamiya RZ67--and it was really good on those lenses, too. This one was taken on the 180mm W-N lens, likely also at F16: Peter.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

By the way, if I had GFX, I would consider the focal reducer adapter that allows using the Pentax Super Takumar 105mm f2.4. I think that lens has a beautiful rendering and being able to get that full field of view on a modern digital camera would be amazing.

I have a GFX and use the Pentax 105 on it without a reducer. It is a lovely lens for the format, as is the much-underrated SF 120 soft focus for Pentax 67. I wouldn’t want to use it with a reducer because you’re introducing additional glass that was not in the original lens design, and that would without doubt introduce some degree of distortion.

Another lens I use on the GFX 50Sii is a Contax 85mm f1.4 - it is a match made in heaven. The 85 1.4 is heavy on 35mm, but is compact and FAST on medium format, and it fully covers the sensor even wide open. I’ve also used the Contax 50mm f1.4 on the GFX with some success.

 

[xkaes]

I have plenty of lenses that cover larger formats than my full-frame (24x36mm) digital cameras' sensors, but I see no benefit in adapting them to a smaller format, for any purpose. If they were my only choice, that would be another matter, but photography -- especially making good copies -- is enough work without adding to it needlessly.

 

[wiltw]

I have plenty of lenses that cover larger formats than my full-frame (24x36mm) digital cameras' sensors, but I see no benefit in adapting them to a smaller format, for any purpose. If they were my only choice, that would be another matter, but photography -- especially making good copies -- is enough work without adding to it needlessly.

A lens for larger format simply has a bigger image circle. A 75mm lens for 4x5 format spreads its detail resolution of the subject over a bigger diameter circle, so its lines-per-millimeter detail resolution is inherently lower than a 75mm lens designed for the smaller image circle of a 135 format camera. This is a truism that lens manufacturers like Rodenstock have made known for decades...the resolution spec for large format lens is NOT as numerically high as the lens designed for the small format. So there is no reason to use 75mm from large format camera adapted to fit on the film or digital capture of the small format.
75mm FL is 75mm FL, whether designed to mount on large format lens board or 135 format camera...that means that a subject of a certain size in real life will be IDENTICALLY SIZED at the film plane for a given camera position. At 10' shooting distance, the photographed object which is phycially 1' tall is realy life be imaged as 7.689mm tall at the film plane, regardless if it is in a 135 format frame or in a 4x5 frame. Period. But there be fewer lines of detail to capture that 1' tall object when using the 75mm large format lens. So when you enlarge that object onto a print, the image of that object will be less detailed when a large format lens was used to form that image. Simple optical physics.

 

[Pieter12]

Handy: https://www.photo-digitaltransitions.com/support/lens-visualizer-tools/

 

[Alexander6x6]

Let's stick to the topic of medium format lenses. Large format is a whole different league, especially when it comes to adaptation.

In my initial post, I explained why I adapted my medium format lenses. For me personally it make sense if digital medium format sensor is used.

 

[Pieter12]

Adapted lenses can work well, especially since most of what is considered medium format for digital is quite a bit smaller than medium format film frame sizes so you are using the sharpest part of the lens. However, in my experience using an adapter ends up adding weight and bulk to an already cumbersome set-up, best used on a tripod in most cases. Older medium-format backs don't do high ISOs very well, limiting the use of higher shutter speeds for sharp hand-held shots. Modern IBIS and high-ISO digital MF cameras can overcome that if you are willing to spend the money. But then, why not go all the way and use dedicated lenses instead of repurposing old film lenses unless you are going for a certain look?

For me, the exception to all that is a Hasselblad film body and lens with Hasselblad's digital back or the elusive Rolleiflex/Sinar/Leaf Hy6 or Contax 645 with a digital back. Those bodies don't need adapters to use MF film lenses and can produce wonderful images. Still heavy and bulky, though.

 

[xkaes]

In my initial post, I explained why I adapted my medium format lenses. For me personally it make sense if digital medium format sensor is used.

I somehow missed the part where you stated you were using a medium format sensor. That changes everything, of course.

 

[Alexander6x6]

Adapted lenses can work well, especially since most of what is considered medium format for digital is quite a bit smaller than medium format film frame sizes so you are using the sharpest part of the lens.

Not only this but also for tilt-shift photography.

However, in my experience using an adapter ends up adding weight and bulk to an already cumbersome set-up, best used on a tripod in most cases.

I was planning to buy the widest native lens, the 23mm, for my Fuji GFX. However, I changed my mind after participating in the blind test of wide-angle lenses. The images were shown without the individual lens profiles applied. The awful chromatic aberrations at the edges of the 23mm lens reminded me of typical wide lenses from the '80s.

Furthermore, I have also seen the zoom lens 32-64mm without its lens profile applied: the barrel distortion made this lens looks quite cheap.

The GF 110 is the only one worth buying, but I already have the amazing Planar 110/2, which, when used with the adapter, is as big as a GF lens.

Older medium-format backs don't do high ISOs very well, limiting the use of higher shutter speeds for sharp hand-held shots. Modern IBIS and high-ISO digital MF cameras can overcome that if you are willing to spend the money. But then, why not go all the way and use dedicated lenses instead of repurposing old film lenses unless you are going for a certain look?

If we're talking about top-notch professional medium format lenses, there are no old film lenses. They produce pretty good images, even though they lack individual lens profiles.

For my taste the GF lenses generally produce quite disturbing bokeh, whereas medium format lenses (Pentacon Six, Kiev, Hasselblad, and Mamiya 67) produce a very natural and pleasant falloff. One might call it "a certain look."

For me, the exception to all that is a Hasselblad film body and lens with Hasselblad's digital back or the elusive Rolleiflex/Sinar/Leaf Hy6 or Contax 645 with a digital back. Those bodies don't need adapters to use MF film lenses and can produce wonderful images. Still heavy and bulky, though.

It's very subjective. For instance, the Mamiya 67 and the Pentax 67 feel heavy and bulky to me, but the Kiev-88, my first medium-format camera, feels quite compact and handy.

By the way, the Hasselblad 907x is the first digital back that can be used with a Kiev-88 without limitations. However, the back needs to be modified slightly.

 

[Polov]

i use gfx100s to adapt vintage lens
wollensak 3in/1.9
bausch lomb super cinephor 3in/4in f2
OKC 1-100-1
po108-1
kinoptik 150/2.5