View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:59 am Post subject: Focal reducer or FF camera? |
|
|
miran wrote:
Has anyone recently done a big test and side by side comparison (with photos) of various focal reducers vs native FF sensor camera? The reason I'm asking this is because I'm debating with myself the pros and cons of getting a focal reducer for my existing APS-C camera vs upgrading to a full frame camera.
If I should go with a focal reducer I would get one from Minolta MD to Sony E-mount so I could use my Minolta lenses as well as M42 (with an M42->Minolta MD adapter). But there are several quite differently priced options:
1. Metabones SpeedBooster Ultra: >500€. Ridiculously expensive. For not much more one can buy a used A7 Mk1 and have the real deal..
2. Mitakon Lens Turbo II: ~150€. How does it compare with the Metabones? Noticably worse? Bad corners? Worse CA?
3. Viltrox: <100€. Is it complete garbage?
There may be other options as well.
Ideally I'd want an A7 series full frame camera, but that's a lot of money, plus I'd like to keep my APS-C wideangles and AF lenses. Upgrading to FF is a hassle for me and expensive.
But a focal reducer is not quite the same thing as having an actual FF camera? Or is it? What I'm looking for is some sort of test or actual user experience either confirming that a focal reducer is really quite good enough or on the other hand that it is not and that I really should take the plunge and go get an A7 series camera.
Any opinions? Experience? Comparisons? _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7548 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
If you use your camera and lens for video, the Lens Turbo II will be fine. Otherwise, getting an A7 will be a better opinion. Moreover, you can't use most rangefinder lenses on a focal reducer. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
If you use your camera and lens for video, the Lens Turbo II will be fine. Otherwise, getting an A7 will be a better opinion. Moreover, you can't use most rangefinder lenses on a focal reducer. |
Well, I'm not doing any video at all and regarding photography I'd like to get into landscapes a little more, so corner performance would be quite important. I don't use rangefinder lenses, so that doesn't concern me. As I said, an MD->E-mount focal reducer plus a normal M42->MD adapter would cover most of my needs. But as you say, if the performance for still photography isn't good enough... :/ _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
According to this comparison (unfortunately only in German available) obviously the Lens Turbo II from Zhongyi is best:
https://www.valuetech.de/blog/reviews-foto/2017/04/16/speed-booster-fokalreduktor-test-vergleich-metabones-kipon-baveyes-zhongyi
I made similar evaluations but finally I decided not to go for the A7 as several of my existing RF-lenses don't perform well on this camera due to the thick filter stack issue. On the other hand I have enough ulta-wides to satisfy my needs on my APS-C Ricoh GXR-M without any focal reducer. Finally I have already a FF digital camera with a rather complete set of lenses, hence I skipped the A7 project until further.
The old Zhongyi (version 1, Minolta MD to NEX) focal reducer I already have is rarely used because I don't like to use my NEX.
Maybe I should really start selling some stuff..... _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010 Posts: 2587 Location: Indonesia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
I had my lenstubro v1 three years ago, for landscape, I used it with some lenses. some lenses has poor edges, some lenses is good. My conclusion, newer coatin lens is good with it. And my best fit is Rokkor 28/2 or canon fd 28/2 ssc and Distagon 25/2,8
Someday I will buy one of a7 series. but until now, I still use my nex5 with lensturbo, maybe until it's broken _________________ nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 901 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
The speed booster option does have the advantage of giving you a choice of 2 FOV for each of your lenses (boosted or via a simple adapter). In camera cropping a FF image doesn't quite have the same merit IMO, even if modern cameras have enough resolution to manage this.
I have the RJ version for EF lenses on MFT, and use it with a range of other adapters.
I don't think I've printed any of the photos I've taken with it but simply viewing them on the monitor they seem perfectly acceptable (unless I try APSC lenses which it's not supposed to work with).
By all accounts the Metabones is a much better quality adapter, but for the cost my budget one has proved a better investment IMO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
Thank you, that's exactly what I had in mind, except they tested on m4/3 and with only one lens and don't show corner sharpness. But it's better than nothing and quite unexpected results! _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
DConvert wrote: |
The speed booster option does have the advantage of giving you a choice of 2 FOV for each of your lenses (boosted or via a simple adapter). In camera cropping a FF image doesn't quite have the same merit IMO, even if modern cameras have enough resolution to manage this. |
That's a good point!
So far it looks like there are many more pros for a crop camera + lens turbo combination than for an A7. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
IAZA wrote: |
Someday I will buy one of a7 series. but until now, I still use my nex5 with lensturbo, maybe until it's broken |
That's the thing, whatever we have in crop sensor world, even if it's perfectly functional and satisfies all our needs, proper fullframe is always something that's one step higher that we eventually want to have. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7548 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
There is a test which you may be interested. This is the worst case scenario but it does give you an idea how each opinion may result.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/metabones-speed-booster-ultra-review-part-ii-canon-ef-501-2-l/ _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
Oh yes, I remember seeing that review a few years ago, except I wasn't really interested at the time, so it slipped my mind. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 Posts: 901 Location: Essex UK
|
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
miran wrote: |
IAZA wrote: |
Someday I will buy one of a7 series. but until now, I still use my nex5 with lensturbo, maybe until it's broken |
That's the thing, whatever we have in crop sensor world, even if it's perfectly functional and satisfies all our needs, proper fullframe is always something that's one step higher that we eventually want to have. |
If I ever do succumb to FF, I'm sure medium format will simply be that one step higher. By then there might be affordable scanning backs for my large format camera too...
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
baychlen
Joined: 17 Aug 2017 Posts: 39 Location: Spain +/- 3000km
|
Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
baychlen wrote:
The actual question is reducers on FF. Or 6x6 compacts. Still the future will show, as the nano technologies taken place. _________________ 100% DIY homegrown amateur
KO-140M f1.8, 120 f1.8 / 35KM140 f1.8 / Kipronar 90 f1.9, 105 f1.9, 120 f1.9, 140 f1.9, 165 f2.2, 180 f2.2, 200 f2.1 / Visionar 55 f1.6, 130 f1.9, 141 f1.9, 154 f1.9/ Sonnar 180 f2.8 / Beseler 457 f3.5 / Pancolar 50 f1.8 / RO501-1 f2, 502-1 f2, 503-1 f2 / P5 150 f2, 180 f2 / Helios 44-2 f2 / Industar 51, 37 / Kinostar 125, 150 / Tair-3S 300 f4.5 / Pentacon 80 f2.8 / Diaplan 80 f2.8 / Mir-1B 37 / Triplet-6M 100 f2.8, 365 f3.65 / Jupiter 37A / Senkor 150 f2.5 / Leitz Wetzlar 150 f2.5 / Porst 135 f2.8, 35 f2.8 / Rokinon 135 f2.8 / Panorama 200 f3.5 / Meopta 50 f1 / RO-1091A f1.2 / Prokinar 90 f1.9 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
Just to let you know, I eventually bought a Lens Turbo II. I figured I'd still be craving a FF camera no matter which focal reducer I get, so a Metabones Speedbooster was out of the question at the sort of price it goes for (>500€). I'm sure I'll evetually give in and get an A7(x) some time sooner or later. For the time being I'll do with a Lens Turbo.
The Lens Turbo is ok. It arrived direct from China super fast (within a week ) for about 120€. It's quite well built, but there's a bit of play on the camera mount side. I'll have to test thoroughly to see if this affects IQ in any way. So far I noticed with a Minolta MD 35-70 that one side was softer than the other but I'm not sure if this is the fault of the adapter or the lens. Otherwise IQ is good enough for the way I intend to use it (mostly with lenses well stopped down). Center sharpness is very good, corners are ok (but I have no reference, so I can't really comment). Perhaps it adds some CAs across the frame, but nothing dramatic for the most part and easily fixable.
The only real negative for me is the way it mounts to the camera. It doesn't click in place as normal lenses and adapters, but has a kind of breech lock mechanism instead. It's quite fiddly to mount it in the field.
My first outing was with the Minolta MD 35-70/3.5. The first impression is that it'll be good enough. I'm happy.
1. Around 50mm, f/11. The last few pixels along the left side are a bit soft.
.
2. 35mm, f/11 or so
.
3. 35mm, f/8
. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
A comment and a question:
I think that, for folks like me, where I have to choice of spending $150 on a LT II or $1500+ on a FF camera, when your budget is as tight as mine is, the choice is obvious. It's the LT II. I know it isn't the best choice, but it's the choice I can afford. I can assure you, I'd rather be using an FF camera.
Question: have any of you who have used the LT II had the occasion to try it out with an ultra-wide, such as the Tamron or Tokina or Canon FD 17mm lenses? IF so, how do the corners and edges look? Overall sharpness? _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
I think that, for folks like me, where I have to choice of spending $150 on a LT II or $1500+ on a FF camera, when your budget is as tight as mine is, the choice is obvious. It's the LT II. I know it isn't the best choice, but it's the choice I can afford. I can assure you, I'd rather be using an FF camera. |
But a FF camera can be had for as little as $500 with a bit of luck and about $600-650 otherwise. That's what used Sony A7 goes for if you wait a bit. At least that's what I've seen recently when looking a little more closely.
cooltouch wrote: |
Question: have any of you who have used the LT II had the occasion to try it out with an ultra-wide, such as the Tamron or Tokina or Canon FD 17mm lenses? IF so, how do the corners and edges look? Overall sharpness? |
I wouldn't expect much. My widest good lens is a 24mm and it's just good enough in the corners stopped way down from what I've seen so far. I think vintage ultra wides have issues on their own and when you add another optic with its own limitations into the mix, the best you can hope for is just sort of ok. But that's just my assumption. I'd like to see some first hand experience too. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16499 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
I have a Speedbooster and made a comparison here, same f4 94mm printer lens, with and without Speedbooster:
Without:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/sets/72157687103089645
With Speedbooster:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157684397093893
For me this lens is a very sharp one and I wanted to see the effect. See for yourself...
Here is the Kyoei f3.5 180mm lens used with Speedbooster:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums/72157680460057840 _________________ Klaus - Admin
"S'il vient a point, me souviendra" [Thomas Bohier (1460-1523)]
http://www.macrolenses.de for macro and special lens info
http://www.pbase.com/kds315/uv_photos for UV Images and lens/filter info
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kds315/albums my albums using various lenses
http://photographyoftheinvisibleworld.blogspot.com/ my UV BLOG
http://www.travelmeetsfood.com/blog Food + Travel BLOG
https://galeriafotografia.com Architecture + Drone photography
Currently most FAV lens(es):
X80QF f3.2/80mm
Hypergon f11/26mm
ELCAN UV f5.6/52mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f4/60mm
Zeiss UV-Planar f2/62mm
Lomo Уфар-12 f2.5/41mm
Lomo Зуфар-2 f4.0/350mm
Lomo ZIKAR-1A f1.2/100mm
Nikon UV Nikkor f4.5/105mm
Zeiss UV-Sonnar f4.3/105mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f1.8/45mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f4.1/94mm
CERCO UV-VIS-NIR f2.8/100mm
Steinheil Quarzobjektiv f1.8/50mm
Pentax Quartz Takumar f3.5/85mm
Carl Zeiss Jena UV-Objektiv f4/60mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha II f1.1/90mm
NYE OPTICAL Lyman-Alpha I f2.8/200mm
COASTAL OPTICS f4/60mm UV-VIS-IR Apo
COASTAL OPTICS f4.5/105mm UV-Micro-Apo
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f4.5/85mm
Pentax Ultra-Achromatic Takumar f5.6/300mm
Rodenstock UV-Rodagon f5.6/60mm + 105mm + 150mm
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1633 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
miran wrote: |
...The only real negative for me is the way it mounts to the camera. It doesn't click in place as normal lenses and adapters, but has a kind of breech lock mechanism instead. It's quite fiddly to mount it in the field...
|
This mechnism is something what amazes me. I thought some years back about such a solution for a ultra thin extension tube, but did not build it. Too complex for me.
They need it becuse of the protruding rear lens. They could no rotate the lens enough to mount it normaly. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
I also have a Zhongyi turbo II. Only use is with wide angle (mainly 20 and 24mm to get 21 and 26) or rarely with a 50mm to get a very light standard lens (50mm 1.4 gets you a theoretical 53mm f1.0 ...but with a lot of vignetting fully open, 58mm 1.2 gets you 62mm 0.85 but careful with the stick out bit and lot of vignetting).
So you lose the lower vignetting you enjoy with FF legacy lens used on APS-c body
For travelling, this can also allow you to take less lenses with you _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aidaho
Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aidaho wrote:
Antoine wrote: |
I also have a Zhongyi turbo II. Only use is with wide angle (mainly 20 and 24mm to get 21 and 26) or rarely with a 50mm to get a very light standard lens (50mm 1.4 gets you a theoretical 53mm f1.0 ...but with a lot of vignetting fully open, 58mm 1.2 gets you 62mm 0.85 but careful with the stick out bit and lot of vignetting).
So you lose the lower vignetting you enjoy with FF legacy lens used on APS-c body
For travelling, this can also allow you to take less lenses with you |
Can you please show some examples of vignetting on 50mm F1.4 wide open?
I'm contemplating this setup for night shooting, but I'm not sure how practical it is.
Having two lenses in one also speaks to me, as I'm trying to determine which two primes I'll carry around.
I certainly don't mind cheating my way a bit from this constraint by doubling available FOVs with focal reducer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
I wrote too quickly. The vignetting I get with the focal reducer and a light lens on my APS-C becomes the same as the vignetting I was getting when using the lens on a Full Frame camera while, obviously, vignetting is much less on APS-C without focal reducer because the sensor only gets the light from the centre.
So the vignetting is more with focal reducer than without but not more than intended when it was designed for a full frame camera. (...and I can't find my hard drive so cannot include picture) _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|