• 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 / Zeiss 250/5.6 Superachromat on Fujifilm GFX 50S

Zeiss 250/5.6 Superachromat on Fujifilm GFX 50S

May 10, 2017 JimK 9 Comments

This is the 53rd in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here.

Today the big brown truck brought a Kipon GFX adapter for V series Hasselblad lenses. I had had a total lack of success in stacking the Fuji H-to-G and the Hasselblad V-to-H adapters, and really wanted to test the Zeiss 250 mm f/5.6 Superachromat, so I set the Leica R and M lenses aside.

Here’s the scene to evaluate coverage, although I don’t expect any problems, since this lens was designed to cover a 56 mm x 56 mm negative. There was a little wind, so I cranked the ISO up to 1600, and kept all the exposures faster than 1/640 second. Developed in Lr with a small exposure tweak, and otherwise default settings..

 

f/5.6

 

f/8

 

f/11

 

f/16

Coverage is nice and even in all cases. I must have jarred the tripod after the first shot. This is the sharpest series of the ones I tried, so that’s the one I’m showing you. The best strategy with this lens is to focus wide open; focus shift is no problem. I did have a lot of trouble getting the image steady enough to focus well because of the vibrations introduced by my hand. I wish that the GFX had IBIS, that the lens had a tripod collar, or that the adapter had such a collar. Sadly, no to all. This is a sufficiently serious difficulty to make me think twice about using this lens until I can construct a better mounting arrangement.

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 center:

f/5.6

This is excellent.

f/8

 

Not quite as sharp.

f/11

About the same.

f/16

Softer, but not bad.

In the upper left corner:

f/5.6

 

A little light falloff is present; even though I didn’t notice it in the full frame images.  The crop is very sharp for a corner wide open; heck, it’s sharp by any standards.

f/8

The light falloff is gone, and we’ve picked u a tiny bit more sharpness.

f/11

Still very good.

f/16

Starting to soften more, but still very good.

After my experiences with HC lenses on the GFX, I wasn’t expecting much out of this test. I am pleasantly surprised. More than surprised. I am shocked; especially after testing the Leica 280/4 Apo earlier this afternoon. This is quite a lens on the Fuji 33x44mm sensor camera. However, the ergonomics on the GFX are nowhere near as good as the Leica lens. I’ve mentioned the lack of a tripod collar. There are other issues. The focus ring is narrow. The focus action is stiff. This lens may produce some excellent images on the Fuji camera, but it’s not much fun to use.

 

 

 

GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Leica 280/4 Apo-Telyt-R on Fujifilm GFX 50S Fujifilm GFX 50S shutter shock →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    May 10, 2017 at 9:14 pm

    Hi Jim,

    Seems to be a great lens. You don’t happen to own one of the Sonnars 150/4 or 180/4, those lenses have very nice MTF curves, according to HB and Zeiss. Would be interesting to see them compared to the Sonnar 250/4.

    Reply
  2. Phil Lindsay says

    June 24, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    The Fotodiox Hassy V lens to Fuji GFX Body Adapter has a built-in tripod mounting plate. Do you think that setup would be benefical for the 250SA?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      June 24, 2017 at 8:43 pm

      Yes. But you can’t get there by stacking the Fuji G to H and Hassy H to V adapters. They don’t play well together.

      Reply
  3. Cos says

    July 8, 2018 at 2:47 pm

    Hi Jim,

    It would be great if you could compare Zeiss 250/5.6 Superachromat with the new GF250mm lens.

    Best regards,

    Cos

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 8, 2018 at 2:55 pm

      Sorry, but the 250 SA has been sold. I suppose I could see how close I could come to recreating the conditions of the SA shoot.

      Reply
  4. Jean-Claude says

    May 22, 2022 at 11:31 pm

    I use this lens on Hasselblad X system cameras, the advantages are:
    – V to X adapter works with the X-System rotating lens collar
    – Hassy Phocus software has fine optical profiles for all Zeiss V system lenses, and a dedicated 250 Sa profile that corrects mainly vignetting and distorsion (this lens has no chromatic aberration)

    Sharpness is simply mind blowing, sharpness is limited by the 50 Mpix sensor.
    I guess that this lens should even go beyond the pitch of the GFX100 !
    Did somebody try it ?

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fujifilm GFX 50S: Used GFX Gear, Reviews, Adapted Glass and More | Fuji Addict says:
    May 11, 2017 at 10:36 pm

    […] The Last Word – Zeiss 250/5.6 Superachromat on Fujifilm GFX 50S […]

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

    […] GFX, and some doing all right, but none are great. One of the best V-series Hasselblad lenses, the 250/5.6 Superachromat, works well on the GFX, but the ergonomics are not good. Unless you really want to use the corners, […]

    Reply
  3. Really long adapted lenses on the Fujifilm GFX 50S says:
    October 18, 2018 at 7:30 am

    […] tested the Leica 280/4 R-mount tele and the 250/5.6 Superachromat on the GFX, and both did well in different ways. I have several longer full frame lenses that might […]

    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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • 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

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.