Apr 042019
Mike Meredith
Apr 042019
Just a test really … and a demonstration of why you need to print big (one of those black blobs on the water is a guy on a board).
Mar 202019
(This is definitely a work in progress; I’ve still got more lens adaptors to buy and more lenses to test)
So I have a new Fujifilm GFX50R with one native lens (63mm) and my fortunes don’t extend to buying more lenses any time soon. Yet I hear that some 35mm lenses will work even though they’re designed to cover the smaller sensor of 35mm (or in many of the cases below 35mm film).
As someone who has been sticking third-party lenses (and I don’t mean Sigma lenses with an EF mount) on my Canon cameras for years the obvious thing to do is buy some adaptors to test the lenses I have.
And on the grounds that I would find this information useful if someone else had posted it (and I’d found it), I decided to put this out there. No guarantees on the accuracy though!
Caveats :-
- No, the images aren’t meant to look good; most of this testing was done inside after a long day staring at a computer screen. The subject is boring, the focus may be off, and if you think these images represent what I’m capable of I’ll just roll about the floor laughing (and I’m not that good). When of course I add the images to this posting.
- If you have to have a “smart” lens adaptor for Canon EF lenses, choose a good one. The first one I bought was rubbish; I’ve since gone with a Kipon branded one.
- The column for “soft vignetting’ is particularly dubious; I’m not great at spotting it in the first place and until I move the images onto a computer screen and take a closer look I wouldn’t guarantee anything.
| Lens | Photo? | Soft Vignetting | Hard Vignetting | Sample (links) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100mm ZE | ✓ | No | No | 1 |
| Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 ZE | ✓ | No | Yes | 1 |
| MC Zenitar 16/2.8 | ✗ | – | Yes | |
| Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm | ✓ | No | No | |
| Sigma 12-24 @ 24mm | ✓ | Yes | Yes | |
| Canon 24-105mm f/4.0 L | ✗ | Yes | Yes | |
| Canon 200-400mm mk1 @ 200 | ✗ | No | No | |
| Canon 200-400mm mk1 @ 400 | ✗ | – | Yes | |
| Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/19mm (1977) | ✗ | – | Yes | |
| Leica Summilux-R 1.4/50mm (1971) | ✗ | Below f/11 | No | |
| Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/35mm (1984) | ✗ | Yes | No | |
| Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/180mm (1975) | ✓ | No | No | |
| Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/90mm (1966) | ✓ | No | No | 1 |
| Leica Macro-Elmerit-R 2.8/60mm (1977) | ✓ | Below f/4.0 | No | |
| Leica Summicron-R 2/50mm (1965) | TODO | TODO | TODO | |
| Olympus OM 18mm f/3.5 | ✓ | – | Yes | |
| Olympus OM 85mm f/2.0 | ✓ | Yes | No | |
| Olympus OM 35mm f/2.8 | ✓ | Yes | No | |
| Carl Zeiss Jena 3.5/135mm | ✓ | No | No | 1 |
Mar 152019
Not.
I encountered this sign today at lunch when walking past a bunch of environmental protesters. I agree totally with their intentions, but this particular message is just wrong.
The earth (if sentient) is just about waking up and wondering what we are – the whole of human history and pre-history (the bits that weren’t written down) is no more than a blink in the eye of the earth. If we successfully cause an extinction-level climate change event (and so far it looks pretty successful), our entire extinction will be just another layer in the geological record – just a bit more unusual than other thin extinction layers.
The earth will quite happily get used to a warmer (or colder if it eventually settles down that way) climate equilibrium and might just (if sentient) wonder where we’ve gotten to.
The earth will go on without us; barely noticing we were here.
We’re not a plague on the earth; we’re a plague on our children.
And when you come down to it, the slogan “We Are A Plague On Our Children” is far better – it’s accurate and more personal, and harder hitting.
Mar 052019
