This is the 74th in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here.
When I was testing the GFX 50S, I did a lot of work with adapted lenses. I’ve received information about many lenses that I did not test from a reader named Robert Jones. I think it’s sufficiently interesting to post here.
Take it away, Robert:
I wanted to mention a really nice, manual focus telephoto that I think is under the radar for many people. The lens is a Kowa Prominar. The Kowa comes in several mounts, but I think the Nikon mount version makes the most sense as it can be used on many brands with a simple adapter added between the lens and the camera. I got the lens off eBay from a Japanese dealer. There is a main head unit, which contains 1 fluorite along with 2 extra-low dispersion elements, and a round 9-bladed diaphragm. Between this unit and the camera are 1 of 3 possible tubes (“mount adapters” per Kowa), used one at a time, which create a 350/4, a 500/5.6 or a 850/9.6 telephoto lens. I got the 350 and 500 units. There is no glass in the 500mm tube, but the 350mm tube has several elements (I think the 350mm tube is behaving like a Speed-Booster).
Since the lens breaks into 2 (or 3 or 4 pieces) it fits smaller camera bags unlike most 500mm lenses. And the weight is rather light at 2 kg. Kowa also makes a special fluorine-coated protective filter (95mm) for the main unit. While the focus is manual, it’s very smooth, having both coarse and fine focusing rings. Close focus is 3 m. Using the EVF on the NX-1 together with MF assist makes using the lens easy (easier than using LV on my D810 in bright light; surprisingly, the NX-1 seems to have better resolution that the D810 with this lens).
This lens works amazing well on the GFX. It is sharp across the whole field. Only the extreme corners benefit by stopping down 1 to 2 stops. With the 2 adapters I flexibly have a 350mm (f/4) and a 500mm (f/5.6). I’ve tested it against the latest Nikkor 400/2.8 FE on a D810 (both a rented unit and a personally purchased unit) and the Kowa was easily superior (I sold the 400/2.8 FE). The Kowa is manual focus but MF is easily done on the GFX. I especially like it at 350mm. For most subjects wide open to 1-stop down is great.
I also tested the following lenses on the GFX:
1. Leica 180/2.8 APO. It is perfect. (I’m selling the Mamiya 200/2.8 APO which is a cheap imitation of the Leica APO). The Leica 180/2.8 APO at f2.8 is simply remarkable; no need to stop down. Easily as sharp as the Fuji 120/4 macro.
2. Nikkor 24, 45 and 85 PCE lenses. All work well (unshifted), but the 85 PCE is the best, esp as another macro lens. Wide open it is excellent with no fall-off. The 24 and 45 are only usable wide open unless set up with a second body.
3. Nikkor 58/1.4-G (latest version). Very nice, using a G-adapter. (I have the 85/1.8-G, but did not test.)
4. Nikkor 20/1.8-G. A surprise. With the G-adapter (maybe about f5.6?), it has excellent sharpness and contrast in the margins. (I do not have the Fuji 23mm to compare; I would imagine that the Fuji is better.) I will happily use it as a 16mm equivalent.
5. Nikkor 70-200/4 (latest version). Lousy.
6. Pentax 67 55/4 and 200/4. The 55/4 (latest version) is an incredible lens, esp around f5.6 to f8. It focuses very close and can function quite nicely as a macro lens. I’ve used this lens on the Pentax 645D and found no equal at this focal length. The 55/4 is easily travels in the prime Fuji lens territory. The 200/4 simply pales in comparison to the above Leica or the Mamiya 200/2.8 APO; it’s a no go.
7. Pentax 645 lenses. I’ve only tried the 75/2.8. Mediocre at best. Since the Leica 180/2.8 APO is so good, I see no reason to deal with the 150 or 200 Pentax. Since the Kowa 350/500 is so good, I see no reason to deal with any longer Pentax 645 lenses.
8. Pending on arrival of AF converter: Contax 55/3.5, 80/2.0, 140/2.8 and 210/4. (I still own these from my Contax 645 days.)
9. Pending on arrival of AF converter: EF lenses such as the 17 and 24 shifts, 100 macro. But with the 120 Fuji macro, why bother with the latter?
I own a CO 60mm APO. The Leica 180/2.8 APO, the Pentax 55/4, and the KOWA 350/500mm are in the same league. I think the new Fuji 120/4 runs in the same circles.
Where exactly is your test on the Leica 180/2.8 APO? I can’t find it anywhere on your blog, and I don’t want too spend close to €4000 and then get disappointed 😉
Looking forward to your test of the Contax 645 lenses, too!
I’ve never tested the Leica 180/2.8 Apo. I have tested the non-Apo version, and it was good but not great. I have also tested the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt, and it was excellent. Maybe Robert can comment; this was a guest post.
Is it possible to change the Aperture setting on the Kowa Prominar (nikon mount) on the GFX or do you need to set prior on a Nikon body?
Aperture ring is manual and answered my last question. However, I have done some online searching to see what I can find about the Kowa Prominar IQ.. In one comparison with the Canon 500mm — where I could determine the comparison was using 100% crops– the Canon was far superior. The 100% crop examples with higher level Canon or Nikon, I have seen are ok but not outstanding. Technique of course is important and of course cannot know from what I have seen. I would love to see some comparisons you made with the Nikon 400mm. It is an intriguing system. Surprised not more on the web about this lens.
In regards to the Prominar, my tests were comparing the Nikkor 400/2.8 FE against the Kowa on the D810 body, and comparing the Samsung NX1 vs the D810 using the same Kowa lens. The cameras were on tripods (as when I did the test using the GFX) with mirror lock up on the D810. The Kowa easily bet the Nikkor, both in micro-contrast, color and sharpness.
I’ve previously owned the Canon 500/4 IS but there was no over-lap with the Nikkor or Kowa so I cannot comment on differences. Perhaps I have an exceptional copy of the Kowa, but I think not. It is one of the few lenses for photography that literally uses fluoride elements.
I much prefer the Kowa over any other telephoto, not only because of the image quality, but because of the size and weight. If someone were using it for BIF, then the lack of AF would probably be an issue. I don’t take many BIF, so not a problem for me.
When I ordered the Kowa, I dealt with a gentlemen in Japan directly. (I travel there frequently.) I think the poor information about this lens is directly related to MF and unfamiliarity with Kowa. I’ve been in photography for decades and remember the Kowa 6 along with other similar cameras. Kowa makes very good optics.
Regarding the Leica 180/2.8 APO, I’ve owned a few copies of it over the years. In fact, about 12 years ago, I owned both the 180/2.8 APO and the Leica 180/2.0 APO (along with the 240/4 APO). While the 180/2.0 was a stellar lens, I could see no difference between it and the 2.8 version from 2.8 onwards. Due to the size, cost and weight differences, I sold the 2.0 (and regrettably the 240/4 too) and kept the 180.2.8 APO.
I re-purchased the 180/2.8 APO two years ago to use with my D810 (now gone). I converted it and most other Leica lenses to a Nikon mount.
I did a comparison this weekend on the GFX using the Leica 180/2.8 APO with a Voigtlander 180/4 APO (Nikon mount). The Voigtlander had the same sharpness at f4 that the Leica had at f2.8. At f4, the Leica was superior in the corners. At the plane of focus both lenses were equal (aside from f-stop).
I then decided to look at the DOF. I was focused at about 3 meters and looking at the DOF at 6 meters. Oddly, the DOF of the Voigtlander at f4 looked like the DOF of the Leica at f5.6. This was consistent across various f-stops. This implication is that the bokeh is quite different (esp when using the Lecia at f2.8), with the Leica being superior. I have no idea why this is.
This weekend, I did some other comparisons with the GFX using many other lenses that I’ll forward to Jim in a day or so [SIgma 35/1.4 Art (Nikon mount), Zeiss 25/2 (Nikon mount MF), Contax 645 lenses (55, 80, 140, 210), and a ZhongYi Optics Mitakon Speedmaster 85/1.2 — it is surprisingly good at ≥ f2.0].
Hi Robert, thank you for sharing this information with us, this is very useful indeed. I am wondering if you could also share your experiences with Sigma 35 art and Contax 645 lenses on GFX.
Thank you and best regards,
Cos
Robert
On your advice, I ordered a Kowa Prominar in a Nikon Mount and the 500mm adapter. You were right.. I am amazed at the image quality. I just took a bunch of shots at a target about 20 feet away. I have adapters so I tested on the Nikon D850, Fuji GFX, and Sony A7RII. For comparison I used the Sony 100-400 with 1.4x — to 490mm and the 200-500mm Nikon. These are not optically as good as your 400/2.8 but I was amazed. The Kowa blew away the Sony 100-400 on the Sony and was clearly sharper corner to corner than the Nikon 200-500mm. I tested at F5.6, 6.3, 8 and 11 (except Sony 100-400 +1.4x- f8, 9,11. Do not have a comparable lens for the GFX. The Kowa Prominar gets a little better 5.6 to 6.3 but not much.. Really incredible wide open. I had to say I was very skeptical but now I am a believer.. Mark
Mark,
Would it be possible to share some pictures you took with Kowa and GFX on flickr.com?
Best regards,
Cos
Late for the party. But I have a bunch of Pentax gears and recently onboard with Fuji gfx.
Come to my surprise was that Pentax k mount 77mm f1.8 limited actually became a normal lens for me on gfx 50r without any problems when adapted. Even at f2.8 has almost no visual dark corners. At F8 even at extreme corners has no smear on details.
Pentax 645 lenses I do agree 75mm is not even as sharp as 77mm limited even one is FF one is 645. However! It’s usable! 120mm macro kinda suffer sharpness at infinity. However, close up are fine!
Although hasselblad 80mm f2.8 CF has very good sharpness. But due to its age and coating, the color rendering simply can’t match any of the Pentax lenses manufactured after 1990s.
I would say 77mm is probably one of the most amazing lens on gfx…. It’s so sharp I even forgot it was was a film lens….