• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 50S / Two Leica R-mount 180s on Fujifilm GFX 50S

Two Leica R-mount 180s on Fujifilm GFX 50S

May 13, 2017 JimK 7 Comments

This is the 57th in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here.

The Leica R-mount lenses seem to belong on the GFX. The size is right. The focusing throw is good. I never had the scratch — or the desire, if the truth be known — to experience those lenses on their native cameras back in the day, but from a handling perspective, they fit the GFX better than the a7RII or the M240. We’ve seen that the 280/4 Apo-Telyt-R works well on the GFX, even though it can’t cover the whole sensor. I’ve got two Leica-R 180s: the 180 mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyt-R and the 180 mm f/2.8 Elmarit-R (Version II, with the 67mm filter threads) . Unfortunately, I don’t have the Apo version of the latter lens.

All images developed in Lightroom with default settings except for white balance set to Daylight. All crops focused at the taking aperture. I made three sets of images, and picked the sharpest. At any given f-stop, the images were so close in sharpness that I might just as well have done the picking by throwing darts. I think I’ve got manual focusing dialed in on the GFX. The Leica R-mount lenses are much more pleasant to focus then the M-mount ones because of the longer throws.

Looking at coverage:

Elmarit f/2.8

 

Elmarit f/4

 

Apo-Telyt f/3.4

All have a moderate amount of corner falloff, with the Apo-Telyt doing better.

Elmarit f/5.6

 

Apo-Telyt f/5.6

 Now they are both about the same, and a 4:3 image should be possible with a bit of corner lightening.

Elmarit f/8

 

Apo-Telyt f/8

 

Elmarit f/11

 

Apo-Telyt f/11

 

By f/11, the Elmarit’s coverage is evener.

I’m going to show you some very tight crops; here’s how to use them. The dimensions of the GFX sensor are 8256×6192 pixels. If we make a full-frame print from the GFX on a printer with 360 pixels per inch native driver-level resolution, like the Epson inkjet printers, we’ll end up with a 23×17 inch (58×44 cm) print. The 318×246 pixel crop you’re looking at will end up 0.8333×0.6833 inches (2.12×1.74 cm). Let’s imagine that you or your viewers are critical, and will look at the 22×17 inch print from about 18 inches (conventional wisdom is that the distance would be a little greater than that, or 28 inches (the diagonal), but you did buy a high-resolution camera for a reason, didn’t you?).

The next step is dependent on your monitor pitch, which you may or may not know. Turns out, you don’t have to know it. Just take the 253% crops and view then at 1:1. How high are they? Get out your ruler and measure, or just guess. Let’s say they are 6 inches high. 6 inches is about 7 times 0.8333, so in order to view the crops the way they’d look from 18 inches on the print is to view them from 7 times as far away, or 10.5 feet.

Everything here scales proportionately. If the image on your screen is bigger than 6 inches, increase your viewing distance by the ratio of your image height to 6 inches. If you think your viewers are going to almost get their nose to that print and look at it from six inches, divide that 10.5 feet by 3, and look at the image on the monitor from three and a half feet away.

On a 30 inch 4K display, a 1:1 presentation of these crops will be about 4 inches, so to simulate the effect of viewing the print from 18 inches, you’ll want to back up to about seven feet. A couple of feet for a 6 inch print viewing distance. On a 17 inch laptop 4K display, a 1:1 presentation of these crops will be about 2 inches, so to simulate the effect of viewing the print from 18 inches, you’ll want to back up to about three and a half feet. A foot for a 6 inch print viewing distance. 

In the upper center:

Elmarit f/2.8

 

Elmarit f/4

 

Apo-Telyt f/3.4

 

The Apo-Telyt is sharper, and the rendering is more realistic. The Elmarit is no slouch, though.

Elmarit f/5.6

 

Apo-Telyt f/5.6

 

The light is different — those pesky clouds again — but I’d still give the nod to the Apo=Telyt.

Elmarit f/8

 

Apo-Telyt f/8

I still like the Apo-Telyt better, but it could be the lighting differences.

Elmarit f/11

 

Apo-Telyt f/11

 

Now both are getting soft because of diffraction.

At the upper left corner of a 1:1 crop:

Elmarit f/2.8

 

Elmarit f/4

 

Apo-Telyt f/3.4

 

With the exception of the Elmarit wide open, these are strong performances. The Apo-Telyt is superior.

Elmarit f/5.6

 

Apo-Telyt f/5.6

 

The Apo-Telyt is excellent. The Elmarit is very good.

Elmarit f/8

 

Apo-Telyt f/8

Both are well above acceptable. The Apo-Telyt is better, but you’d never notice the difference in a print.

Elmarit f/11

 

Apo-Telyt f/11

 

The Apo-Telyt retains it’s superior sharpness even as both lenses are affected by diffraction.

In the upper left, a bit more off-axis than the corner of a 4:5 crop:

Elmarit f/2.8

 

Elmarit f/4

 

Apo-Telyt f/3.4

None of these renderings is bad. 

Elmarit f/5.6

 

Apo-Telyt f/5.6

 

The Apo-Telyt is top-notch. The Elmarit isn’t far behind.

Elmarit f/8

 

Apo-Telyt f/8

Both are still hanging in there.

Elmarit f/11

 

Apo-Telyt f/11

 

Both of these lenses work fine on the GFX. The good fit with the body size and the easy focusing is a bonus.

 

 

 

 

 

GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Leica 90/2 Summicron-M ASPH on Fuji GFX 50S Really long adapted lenses on the Fujifilm GFX 50S →

Comments

  1. Mike Aubrey says

    May 13, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Which version of the f/2.8 is this? Version I, the super heavy one with the tripod mount screw hole on the bottom or version II without?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 13, 2017 at 11:57 am

      Version II. I’ll make that clear. Thanks.

      Reply
  2. Andras says

    November 18, 2018 at 4:34 pm

    Hi, thanks for this very informative combination! I’ve a apo-macro-elmarit-R 100mm 2.8. What do you think could the gfx do with this lens? Would the lens hold up and be worth it regarding lens circle & resolution, if maybe a gfx 50s comes my way someday? I’m still undecided if the lens is worth keeping for my a7r3. Thanks for any answer. Best regards andreas

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 18, 2018 at 9:14 pm

      There are some coverage issues with that Leica lens on the GFX. It’s a lovely lens mechanically, though, and is a joy to use. If you’re going to be using it on the a7RIII, be aware that the Sony 90/2.8 is in almost all respects a better lens, and you could probably sell your used Leica for quite a bit more than it would cost to buy the Sony new.

      https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-leica-r-1002-8-apo-macro/

      Reply
  3. Tada says

    May 19, 2019 at 10:44 pm

    Hello Jim,

    Thanks for running this incredibly informative site. Perhaps I haven’t been able to find the article, but have you tested any Leica R zooms with the GFX? In particular, the Vario-Elmar R80-200mm.

    Thank you in advance.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      May 20, 2019 at 7:37 am

      …have you tested any Leica R zooms with the GFX?

      I have not. Sorry.

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fujifill GFX 50S — summary says:
    May 22, 2017 at 9:11 am

    […] Unless you really want to use the corners, you’d be better off with Leica R glass in similar (180mm and 280mm) focal lengths. A lot of the Hasselblad V-series lenses can’t utilize the […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.