Medium Format lens on a crop sensor?

What are the disadvantages in using a medium format lens on a APS-C or smaller sensor?

 

We know that medium format lenses tend to have less resolution than their FF or APS-C counter parts.

 

Some claim that lenses with much larger image circles cause light to bounce internally and therefore a medium format lens on a much smaller sensor is prone to more flares. Is this true?

 

Are there any other things you can think of?

Compared to lens of similar focal length and aperture that is made for your specific camera, an MF lens would be materially heavier and larger, would not have AF, and the aperture would need to used manually.

Some claim that lenses with much larger image circles cause light to bounce internally and therefore a medium format lens on a much smaller sensor is prone to more flares. Is this true?

It will depend on how sloppily you are shooting. Using format adequate lens hoods should help a lot. Yes, I mean a compendium shade.

 

As always: "Apples and oranges?" - Stay somewhat fair, when you are comparing glass; keep in mind when it was calculated & made by whom, pick references accordingly.

Sorry I have no own testing to refer to. My only MF system lens intended for adapting would be a P6 Biogon 120/2.8. The cheapest Chinese adapter would set me back further than the least expensive (plain) k-mount 135/2.8 I own and I'd have other stuff I'd shoot first before resorting to that. Maybe your figures look differently?

We know that medium format lenses tend to have less resolution than their FF or APS-C counter parts

Is that globally true? I don't suspect Pentax to have done their 1000 & 800mms' optics differently for the 35mm mount variant. I failed to see a high scoring 180mm prime in DxO's data base. So maybe a Pentacon six Sonnar is still competitive?

 

What are you planning to achieve / gain? - What limits you to APS? - If it is money: Why do MF lenses look in your reach? Wanting to utilize any kind of heritage glass, I'd recommend getting a moderate resolution FF body, preferably with IBIS. But maybe toes dipping on APS is an option? - Adapters start out below $20...

I used a pre-war Zeiss 180mm F/2.8 Olympia Sonnar on my Sony Alpha 900, which is full frame rather than APS-C:

 

The Olympia Sonnar in Action

 

The quality seemed fine but I did absolutely no scientific testing.

Bought a Mamiya 645-to-Nikon adapter and tried all my Mamiya lenses out on a D7200. I was astounded. Some of those lenses easily outperform film-era Nikkors, but of course there's no auto aperture operation.

 

The crop renders the wide angles fairly useless, since they're too bulky for their focal length, but the standard lenses make great portrait lenses on DX, and the tele lenses outperform anything you can buy at a similar price in a native Nikon fitting.

Has anyone tried Hasselblads on a crop sensor?

Some very notable MF lenses work very well on small format cameras, the Olympia Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 especially.

 

here on a shift-adapter, not sure what the shift is good for, but here it is

 

However, there are other medium format lenses that have fairly low resolution, perhaps because they figured they didn't need more sharpness on such a large negative.

 

Some of the Soviet P6-mount lenses seem to be in this category. Most of the Jena ones are better, I think.

Most of my Hasselblad Zeiss lenses render beautifully on Nikon DSLR sensors, but the bulk and weight are off-putting for anything but special projects. The 50mm f/4, 100mm f/3.5, and 250mm f/5.6 work particularly well. The 150, 120 Makro, 60, and 80 are a bit less impressive but still worthwhile. My ancient 40mm Distagon was dull.

 

As rodeo_joe mentioned, some of the Mamiya 645 glass is extraordinary, esp the 80mm f/1.9 and APO teles which are a bargain at current used prices. The Mamiya wides don't render as well on Nikon DSLR as the 'blad 50/60 Distagons.

 

Medium format lenses can offer rewarding dual-format potential on FX and APS-C sensors if you already own them, but aren't worth buying if you don't. The Mamiya teles being an exception: they outperform most similar manual focus vintage Canon and Nikkor options.

I have a $75 Fotodiox adapter to use Hasselblad V lenses on my Sony A7Riii. The imagequality is excellent, and there is no noticeable vignetting. For about $200, you can get a Fotodiox adapter with tilt-shift capability, well within the image circle of the lenses.

I have a $75 Fotodiox adapter to use Hasselblad V lenses on my Sony A7Riii. The imagequality is excellent, and there is no noticeable vignetting. For about $200, you can get a Fotodiox adapter with tilt-shift capability, well within the image circle of the lenses.

 

Sony A7Riii has a full frame sensor. My question was more pertaining to crop sensors such as APS-C.

 

Does anyone on the forum have experience with MF lenses on crop sensors?

You're splitting hairs: full frame vs APS-C sensor makes no difference with Hasselblad or other medium format glass. I've used my 'blad glass on Nikon D40, D5600, and Sony A6000 APS-C as well as Nikon D700, D610 and Sony A7II full-frame 24x36. No significant working differences, other than those specific to each sensor (color response, resolution).

 

The image circle of the 'blad, 645, or 6x7 lenses is stupid larger than either sensor, enough to make their own size differential irrelevant. If you're expecting to hear horror stories of reflection and flare similar to some reports of using full-frame Nikkors on APS-C sensors, that issue doesn't have quite the same impact with medium format lenses on those smaller sensors.

 

If your goal is amazeballs performance from over-achieving glass on APS-C sensor, rent an Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon or pick up a Zeiss Contax RTS 85mm f/2.8 or ZF.2 21mm f/2.8. By comparison, typical medium format lenses aren't gonna blow you away on small sensors (at best they merely equal the top camera-brand full-frame 24x36 optics, only rare cases like Mamiya M645 300mm APO might surpass them). Medium format glass can give an alternative overall "look" to images, or be turned into excellent shift or stitching lenses using a shift adapter (the 'blad 50mm CFe is esp good for that niche). But they generally won't offer you anything that startlingly different from dedicated APS-C or newer 24x36 glass.

Edited December 3, 2019 by orsetto

I see no reason it would not work on a crop sensor. The big question is do you want to attach a 2 pound lens to a 1 pound camera, with a focal length that of a medium tele?

What are the disadvantages in using a medium format lens on a APS-C or smaller sensor?

 

We know that medium format lenses tend to have less resolution than their FF or APS-C counter parts.

 

Some claim that lenses with much larger image circles cause light to bounce internally and therefore a medium format lens on a much smaller sensor is prone to more flares. Is this true?

 

Are there any other things you can think of?

 

Medium format SLR/TLR lenses tend to be significantly heavier & more expensive than 35mm SLR lenses. Some will have lower resolution but this isn't always the case.

 

I've used a 1930s box camera lens on APSC (adapted vis bellows & a body cap) resolution & flare haven't been an issue yet. If flare does start to show a lens hood made for the FOV you're getting should do a lot to improve matters. In the case of my lens it will still be completely uncoated so more issues with reflections will be expected.

 

The larger image circle can be a huge advantage if you wish to employ tilt or shift.

Re "flare": the type often cited as a potential problem in threads like this isn't the traditional optical flare inherent in lens glass or coatings. People who like to dig for and exaggerate issues claim theres a physical flare when using lenses designed for larger film formats on smaller digital sensors. The story goes, their larger image circle floods the mirror box or (mirorless sensor chamber) with extraneous light, killing contrast and creating additional ghosts from infinite reflections between sensor surface and rear lens element.

 

This feeds into the contemporary mantra of "don't even think of using a lens more than eight years old on today's digital wonder cameras: you must only use the newest $2K primes with nano-super-califrgilistic coatings, death-watch solder-free electronics, and plastic barrels the size of a beer can". All because a handful of vintage lenses have indeed been shown to pump too much extraneous light into some camera configurations. Usually ancient pre-AI Nikkors or manual-focus fast wides/portrait teles on early Sony APS-C and A7 sensors (whose extra-thick cover glass Sony inexplicably polished to an excessively mirrored sheen before re-thinking later iterations).

 

Like many a new issue that never existed before digital, the "flare" problem lies with the ham-fisted design of the sensors themselves: the lenses are as good as they ever were. As resolution soars ever higher, but bonehead primitive sensor aspects become entrenched instead of refined out, opportunities multiply for older lenses to go "obsolete". Sometimes its true of a lens overall, sometimes only in specific use cases: it will continue to be somewhat subjective until we reach the fast-approaching vanishing point where sensors become so ruthless the only lenses usable on them will be cold, clinical, dead, and priced in the stratosphere.

 

Meantime, if you already own some good medium format lenses and want to experiment with them on your APS-C or 24x36 digital camera: go ahead. Adapters are inexpensive, the pictorial results might open some new creative options, and your biggest problem is more likely to be size/weight/clumsiness than internal camera flare. Odds are you won't discover a compelling reason to use more than one or two of your medium format lenses, very occasionally, but its fun to explore.

Edited December 3, 2019 by orsetto

Here is a comparison I made with a Sony AyRiii (42 MP) between a Batis 135/2.8 APO and a Hasselblad 100/3.5. The frames are 100% crops (pixel = pixel). It's a rather demanding shot against a bright sky. Little if any CA in either lens. The crop is from the extreme upper right hand corner of the frame.

 

Batis 135/2.8 @ f/5.6

 

Hasselblad CF100/3.5 @ f/5.6

Hasselblad lenses are prone to flare and spots from any bright source in or even a little outside the FOV. Modern Zeiss lenses are nearly immune to flare, even shooting directly into the sun. That has nothing to do with digital.

 

In older lenses, there is a synergism between flat filters and the flat, reflective sensor, causing a veiling flare or bright center in certain conditions. Avoid using a filter of any sort when shooting into the light, and you should have no problem.

 

The Fotodiox adapter has knife-edge baffles, which should mitigate any problems with internal reflections.

 

Sony A7Riii + Zeiss Batis 50/2 @ f/8 with a B+W UV filter (don't try this with an Hasselblad)

Edited December 4, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

Sony A7Riii + Zeiss Batis 50/2 @ f/8 with a B+W UV filter (don't try this with an Hasselblad)

 

Or with pretty much any other lenses on a current digital camera, save the handful of very new top models with Hubble telescope level anti-reflection coatings, and glass that literally includes the sensor cover as part of the lens optical formula.

 

Torture tests like this will blow 90% of existing lenses into the weeds, on film or digital. Along with solar flare, most medium format lenses will gift you with ugly pentagonal aperture ghosts from their five-blade diaphragms (much cruder than the six to nine blades standard on smaller format lenses).

little off topic, but try this with the Nikkor 28/2.0^^

Conventional wisdom suggests the goal in lens design is to produce the sharpest practical image with the least distortion and fewest aberrations. In other words, what gets through the glass is the only important consideration. Despite improved coatings, not all light is transmitted. A substantial fraction is reflected. The same ray tracing software can be used to account for and minimize the effect of internal reflections, which is precisely what Zeiss and others have done. To a large part, these new priorities are a response to the popularity of mirrorless cameras, and photographers who wish to control their environment rather than adapt to it, as sports, news and broadcast photographers must do.

little off topic, but try this with the Nikkor 28/2.0^^

 

Yes: both my copies of 28mm f/2.0 Nikkor (one a scalloped-barrel NC pre-AI, the other an AIS) are amazing for this sort of shot. They're a giant pain to focus accurately on DSLR, but work very nicely on mirrorless with EVF. Even better for this "direct-into-the-sun" genre is my tiny Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI (the coatings may be obsolete but the optical design rejects head-on flare like a champ). Both are unheralded "sleepers" among manual focus lenses, often dismissed as too old or not as good as their Zeiss Contax RTS contemporaries, yet they excel for this particular type of challenge. Though I haven't tried either of them with a filter mounted during this kind of shot: if filters are thrown into the fray, Ed_Ingold would likely sill get superior results with his newer Sony A7-optimized Zeiss glass.

 

He would also get better results because he's a better photographer. ;)

Edited December 4, 2019 by orsetto

You have to take legacy lenses on a one for one basis. Some perform very well, and others, not so well. My Nikor 55/2.8 ranks with some of the best. I have a collection of Nikon lenses, which tend to be soft in the corners when used on a FF Sony. On the other hand, the back focus distance is long enough to minimize the angle of incidence at the sensor, hence any issues with the thick cover glass.

 

Putting my experience in the simplest terms, if you have legacy lenses, use them, but don't buy them for a mirrorless camera hoping to save money or experience some magical effect.

The legacy glass question gets more and more complicated as each new sensor arrives and the accompanying new glass optimized for them gets larger, heavier, and more ridiculously overpriced. The benefits and drawbacks of new glass vs old get more variable as the price discrepancies increase, depending on the goals of each individual photographer. The two compact legacy manual focus Nikkors just mentioned are a perfect example: they were over-achievers in their day, and still have very useful properties today, but overall can't hold a candle to the latest wide primes or wide super zooms. "Overall" is a very large umbrella, however, and not everyone is so worried about rain that they want to pay for (or carry) that much protection. If an older, smaller lens is staggeringly less expensive and performs well in the specific circumstances you favor in your photography, it can be a good choice. Otherwise, sell a spare child to buy the latest Zeiss or Nikon ZS lens.

 

If you primarily want a fast 28/2 for street or interiors with people (events, restaurants, etc), the old Nikkor is remarkably small and performs very well at middle distances in the center. The edges and corners are never great, but it pays to bear in mind these old lenses were designed for specific purposes: in the 1970s nobody paying the premium for a 28/2 was planning to use it for Yosemite landscape billboards. Good center performance at f/2 -f /5.6 was desired for reportage work, anything else was a bonus. The slower lenses were pitched more toward general purpose and landscape, but the 28/2 still has an ace up its sleeve to make up for its unimpressive corners: amazing resistance to solar and point light flare. If you mostly need a fast wide for people work but occasionally shoot images like Ed_Ingolds example above, the old Nikkor is a good manual focus choice.

 

The 20mm f/3.5 AI and AIS Nikkors share similar traits with the 28/2: not the greatest for infinity landscapes, blah corners, but excellent in the center at close and middle distance, with outstanding resistance to sun and point light flare. Tiny and light, they are a no-brainer to carry along for into-the-sun and nightscape shots that even some modern zooms can't cope with. If your vision for an image prioritizes flare reduction vs absolute ultimate edge resolution, these old mini lenses are still handy tools.

 

All of which relates to the thread topic of using legacy medium format glass on smaller format digital, but in a slightly different context. Due to the size, weight, crop factor and slower maximum apertures, there is usually very little to be gained by choosing a medium format lens over more typical smaller format lenses. It would be hard to justify purchasing such a lens if you don't already own a matching medium format camera. But if you do already shoot a medium format system, occasionally using its lenses on a smaller digital sensor can be interesting.

 

This is especially true if you don't own any Zeiss lenses for your APS-C or FX kit, but do have access to medium-format Hasselblad or Zeiss Jena Pentacon glass. Vintage Zeiss has a "house look" that can make a nice occasional change from modern Japanese lenses on smaller sensors, if you happen to already own such medium-format glass. Otherwise, don't bother: buy a newer small-format Zeiss lens thats far more practical for frequent use. The only medium-format lenses worth buying just to use on smaller digital cameras are the Mamiya M645 APO teles: they are remarkable, the affordable 300mm f/4.5 and 200mm f/2.8 being relative bargains.

Edited December 4, 2019 by orsetto

Again a little off, some days ago out of curiosity I got an affordable Horseman LD, bought a Super Angulon 90/8 and attached my D810.

Weather got cold here so I didn´t go outside for testing, just did some shots inside, and it doesn´t seem unsharp^^

Yes, there are many a nice lens out there that would cover OP's niche 6x3 film requirement. The catch is he wants them to be "very wide" and "very fast", and that is simply not gonna happen with any of the usual suspects. The "fastest" option would likely be a re-purposed smaller format 35mm f/2.8 PC lens, tho most of them are not great performers at f/2.8 across their entire 70mm image circle.

 

Otherwise, loads of good lenses would cover 6x3, like the press/view optics you mentioned or especially the 75mm f/5.6 Mamiya offered specifically to cover Polaroid format on its Universal body (very large image circle, very sharp lens, very good Schneider knockoff). The 100mm f/2.8 Mamiya you referenced would also be superb (similar quality to legendary 'blad 100mm but faster with larger coverage).

Yes, there are many a nice lens out there that would cover OP's niche 6x3 film requirement. The catch is he wants them to be "very wide" and "very fast", and that is simply not gonna happen with any of the usual suspects. The "fastest" option would likely be a re-purposed smaller format 35mm f/2.8 PC lens, tho most of them are not great performers at f/2.8 across their entire 70mm image circle.

 

Otherwise, loads of good lenses would cover 6x3, like the press/view optics you mentioned or especially the 75mm f/5.6 Mamiya offered specifically to cover Polaroid format on its Universal body (very large image circle, very sharp lens, very good Schneider knockoff). The 100mm f/2.8 Mamiya you referenced would also be superb (similar quality to legendary 'blad 100mm but faster with larger coverage).

 

The OP wanted a fast lens thus the 2.8. it is just hard to find a fast speed wide angle MF lens. The Plaubel Makina would be the best choice in my view. It's 6x7 with a great 80/2.8 lens - this is roughly a 38mm lens equivalent.