





I shot my buddy doing some bmx tricks but was struggling to decide between apertures, distance, and trusting C-AF. Besides the portrait I was shooting between f/5.6-f/8 but found I needed to stand far away to have a deeper depth of field. I used a GFX100s II and a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 with the EF fringer adapter.
All images were taken on my 100S II with the fringer GFX to EF mount adapter and edited in Lightroom. What I like most about this lens, besides its sharpness, is the ability to close focus ~16 cm (~6 inches) from the lens to a subject. The damped ring feels great and makes manual focusing a joy. While far from a true macro lens the .29x magnification paired with the gfx sensor allows for more composition options than my gf 50mm f/3.5. Besides #6 all the flowers were no more than 1-2cm wide.
I just got the fringer EF adapter for my 100s II and I have the adapted lens itch. I feel set in my wide lens kit but I’m looking to balance it out with a telephoto. I see the 100-200 GF can be had used for a little over 1k USD but I also see some canon EF L lenses for around the same price. I’m going to be renting the EF 400mm 5.6L soon but I was wondering if anyone had experience comparing gf telephotos vs adapted?
I shoot a lot of landscape and nature photos and find that it's hard to balance exposure of leaves reflecting sunlight. When I try to balance the exposure in post the results tend to come out a little too HDR-ish for my taste. Would a CPL make a big difference here?
There are four versions of each picture
Image ISO in order