Still working some video editing kinks lol! I'll figure out how to cut less abruptly and how to get a higher quality screen recording by the next video.
I use this lens very often on GFX. Probably just as much as my 32-64. I have started using the Contax 135mm2.8 -- a great option for a longer focal length than this.
Hey Josh, I bought the lens because of you and when I was researching adapters I found that Kipon makes a focal reducer for it (hard to find but it's out there) and supposedly the final result should match the 645 FOV. I will give it a try and post a review on youtube when I get it all in my hands. Thanks for the video, beautiful photos.
Also Hexanon AR 57mm f1.2 and Rokkor MD 58mm f1.2 are grate options, covering with no vignetting. I actually prefer Hexanon on my GFX 50Sii, it perfoms better than Rokkor and Nokt... Nokt is better on the corners though... Tried Olympus OM 50 and 55mm f1.2 both are too soft...
@@glenho1335 Yes, all of them vignette on GFX sensor... 55mm,57mm, 58mm are better than 50mm... But on the end it is not a big deal, easy to correct in the LR...
The lens is incredibly sharp wide open if you can nail the focus. I use it on a 5D mkll with a split screen and usually I can be quite accurate, but I guess medium format can make nailing focus even more difficult, especially if you are not shooting from a tripod.
I am a long time M645 user, since 1975 to today and I now well most of the lenses of the system. 80mm 1.9 optical formula never changed (and it was ever considered as soft at 1.9), but some others changed including 80mm 2.8 and 45mm 2.8. The original 80mm 2.8 was relatively weak at 2.8 and 4 and was really top starting at 5.6. (the Hasselblad 80mm 2.8 Planar was much much better at 2.8). The following version 80mm 2.8N with plastic housing a different glass type for one lens was better by one stop being excellent at f:4. 45mm 2.8 existed even in 3 optical versions. Using these lenses on a digital camera gives sommetimes different results as on film and it depends on the sensor type (deepness of pixel wells) sensor microlenses and thickness of the filter stack in front of the sensor. In general my old M645 lenses give very nice results on my Hasselblad X1D (similar sensor to GFX 50). The M645 lens lineup has many specialty lenses that simply don't exist in current digital MF cameras like: 80mm shift, 145mm soft focus, 500mm reflex. An intesting M645 lens is the 80mm Macro as sharp as best lenses known today, or the 150mm 4 or second version 3.5 that was as sharp as the Sonnar 150mm f:4 on B&W 25 ISO 20"x30" enlargements. The very best MF lens I ever owned, even better that todays best modern lenses is for me the Sonnar 250mm Superachromat, even a 50 Mpix MF sensor isn't fine enough to completely show his excellence.
How did you find the 80 1.9 on your x1d? I’m aware of the e-shutter limitations, just curious if it has real world implications on slow/static portraits I’d be interested in shooting. I’ve been very keen about getting this lens for my x1dii for portraiture for a long time, and although I can’t utilise flash with it, the results look amazing in natural light situations.
I use the M645 system since its launch in 1974 with a big bunch of lenses. The 80 1.9 isn't very sharp wide open and if f:4 is OK for you image style the very best with the biggest 3D pop is the 80 macro f:4 ! Today I use my old M645 lenses with an adapter on my Hassy X system cameras. The M lenses that have the most character and utility for my use are: 80 macro f:4 50 shift f4 145 SF f:4 500 reflex f:8 I don't use 35, 45, 80 2.8, 150, 300 M645 lenses because native camera lenses are better or more convenient I just ordered a TT Artisan 90 1.25 with Hassy mount, curious to see what it will be able to do ?
I am using my Mamiya 80mm f1.9 on my Z7 with Vertex adapter, it gives me true 6x6 after stitching in the LR... It gives really distinct medium format look, with huge resolution... Only problem that I have to ask person to freeze while I'm taking 4 pictures with Vertex instead of one, otherwise stitching will fail... Forget about running kids shooting in this case, unless they are in the mood for posing ...
I traveled to Berlin in 2019 with GFX Mamiya 50R & 80mm 1.9 - the combo is amazing. Shot the city at night, absolutely beautiful. The Mamiya 45mm 2.8 is also wonderful.
Didn't notice any abnormal or distracting vignetting while shooting or editing. Maybe I'll make a more technical review of the lens and test for vignetting, fringing, and any other potential issues. If I had the extra money I'm sure the GF 80mm f/1.7 would be nice to have, but I'm perfectly happy with the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. I don't see myself getting the 1.7 anytime soon haha!
Now you got me considering this Fuji/Mamiya combo. Been wanting a 1000s with the 1.9 for a while. Now that I’ve recently discovered this combo I wouldn’t mine selling my XPro 3 and putting those funds towards it. Great video!
is that a C version or N? thanks for that info. I have got a 45mm f2.8 n, which is my first lens on gfx,and the next two lenses I also want to buy artisan 50mm f0.95 and Mitakon 65mm f1.4.But I think this 80mm one will be my final lens on gfx 50s.So there will be 45mm-50mm-65mm-80mm lenses grouped, just a little confused and crazy.the reason for 45mm is just I had used a 65mm on mamiya 7,and the Mitakon 65mm is i had used a 105mm on Pentax 67.i think they are equivalent.The crazy 50mm f0.95 lens on gfx is used to achieve the same depth of field effect as a 4x5 format.And the final 80mm lens is a pure portrait lens for me.
Another alternative is the Rokinon (or Samyang) 85mm T/1.5 cine. It opens wider, has smoother and long focusing throw. I haven't used the photo version Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 yet but I've heard that they are optically the same.
Thank you for this video. I have this lens and i wondered how it would render on a GFX. I am thinking of buying into the GFX system and using my Mamiya lenses
The later versions of this lens were a lot sharper wide open. I opted for a Zeiss Biometar 80 2.8 with a pentacon/mamiya adapter and using that on my GFX50R is a total dream. It’s a tiny bit smaller but pretty much a fantastic bargain lens for the GFX. Very similar results to the mamiya.. not quite but similar enough.
would love to try that. The softness is somewhat part of the charm with this lens, it has so much character, but there are times I'd love it to be perfect and keep the separation.
Thanks for posting this. I’m interested in the GFX system but likely only going to adapt vintage film lenses. I have a few Pentax 67 and 645 and this Mamiya was also on my list of lenses to consider. Great examples
interesting... If you have an Instagram feel free to send me photos/videos of what's going on and I might be able to help. I'm working on a video for the 110mm lens next week too, so maybe that might help too. But my Instagram is @joshpshanks
Mamiya lenses are nothing special. Personally I'd recommend the Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 T* over this. It's 35mm but covers GFX sensor no issues. Zeiss is better glass and their lenses have a nicer character.
@@joshshanksphoto I own that lens. It might be better for photography because they say its a bit sharper, but its known among filmmakers that for filming the 1.9 is far superior due to its creamier character. Christopher Nolan used the 1.9 in Interstellar and the batman movie which tells alot.
Most of the good ones I see are between 400 and 600 usd. I got mine for a little under 600 after tax and shipping from Japan, so not too bad. Keh usually has some lower quality ones around that price so if you can find something around there that's good quality I think that's a pretty good price, especially compared to the price of Fuji gf glass
N is glass newer, C is heavier and had a metal build. From people I know that have tried both those are the real obvious differences, the differences in optical quality are pretty minimal. Based on that I would say it wouldn't make a difference to me which one I got
You try to explain your lens incorrectly - its called 3D pop. It is induced by the Chromatic aberrations in the lens, and the lens designer has mastered the areas of de-focus in the foreground and background blur/bokeh to give you that 3D pop. Chromatic aberrations (mostly) and longitudinal aberrations (To a lessor extent) create depth and ambience. Even video games designers consulted with lens designers to introduce CA's, lens bloom and flare into games to create a more organic look, thats lens digitized and inorganic. Theoria Apophasis explains why CA's are in really expensive Zeiss lens - "It creates real depth". As he (Ken Wheeler) describes it akin to wearing 3D glasses at the cinema, but its happening in a single lens (3D movies are shot with twin lenses). Pro photographers have been demanding that the lens makers remove CA's from lenses. It improved sharpness but not depth or ambience, and tend to appear more sterile looking. Photographers prefer to use photoshop to create ambience nowadays, when its readily available in many lenses.
If you're gonna use someone like Ken Wheeler as a source you'd better find another source to corroborate that. Not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I'm surprised to hear his name cuz I thought people stopped listening to Wheeler 5 scandals ago. I'll watch his video on the Zeiss lenses and aberrations for you later though
@@joshshanksphoto When I first got into digital photography many years ago, I read all the magazines and CA's were the enemy. Lenses with purple fringing were BAD. Yes I agreed purple fringing is bad and I won't buy that lens - NOW I BUY THAT LENS! I was in a conversation on a forum deciding on the Pentax designed 11-17mm fisheye which is also the Tokina 11-17mm fisheye. I complained about the purple fringing, to which a Photography school teacher responded that CA's are there by design, and the lens was designed by Takayuki Ito and Jun Hirakawa. I was a little offended by this BS that CA's are there by designed. Jun Hirakawa now works at Tamron. Some of these lenses designers making these terrible lenses with CA's move on to Sony and other major manufacturers. douglasviewfinder.blogspot.com/p/known-pentax-lens-designs-and-designers.html Very few people discuss lens design and why CA's are there. Now you either believe it or not. Theoria Apophasis discusses it, and you don't like him, and I do not like him either, but he is 110% correct. CA's have made there way into video game design. Too much CA's looks bad, but the right amount gives depth. The video below is by a video games graphics designer. Yes he explains the usual chestnut that purple fringing/CA's in photography are bad. But pay attention to the photo of the building @ 1:55 - the image on top is clean, the image below with CA's blurry but HAS DEPTH. But thats an extreme case example shown, but none the less there is depth. Watch the full video and research what I'm saying here, because its real and why Vintage lenses have more ambience than modern sterile lenses, all because of CA bigotry and simply not understanding how lenses work. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fvm84W1HMfs.html Here is an example of in video game CA's on and off. There are numerous videos showing this. CA's is true depth, purple fringing is bad. Ca's create ambience, purple fringing looks ugly. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iVqYPD2_-c4.html
