Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in
Metabones Speed Booster TEST THREAD
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:51 am    Post subject: phee-oow - the Cannybones Reply with quote

Off to a galloping start. I have a Speed Booster as well. Not being into testing infinity on all mine - I probably should I have but have had no problems with what I have done.

All Canon EF lenses
14mm f2.8
24mm f1.4
50mm f1.8
50mm f1.2
100mm f2.8 macro IS
135mm f2.0

All work like a charm. I did try a M42 - EOS dumb adapter but I got the no lens mounted go away message from the camera - I later worked out I had to set the use shutter with no lens attached toggle. I changed this but have not gone back to the adapter as of yet. I have a few other lenses I can test, have been working my way up the focal scale.

Comments: - I have only seriously used the 100mm so far. Results have been exceptional (to my tired old eyes at least). This lens should auto focus but hunts all over the place so I gave up - I think I can probably get it to work better. For the mean time manual focus is a dream and I have had no problems in getting sharp as a tack images.

I am using a NEX-6 body.

The adapter is made for and obviously works best with EOS EF lenses, there are caveats on the Metabones site suggesting that care should be taken in stacking dumb adapters on to the device. There is also a need to register any non- EOS EF lens.

I have nicknamed this hybrid the "Cannybones" for the want of a better word = CANon+soNY+metaBONES" if it is necessary to spell it out.

Integration between the lens and the body is in reality very good for what difficulties there are in reverse engineering. Auto focus might not be properly there yet but manual focus is a snack and very accurate.



TomC


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, manual focusing on NEX is soooooo nice, I'm not going to miss AF on it at all.

And really, even with the added bulk of the adapter, my Zuiko 50/1.2 on NEX-6 is so compact giving you the kind of images that really, only the M9 + Nocti could give you in such compact form till now (that is, of course, RE: digital).... this adapter is a godsend. I really don't see the need for me to attach the Zuiko lens to my 5Dmk2 any more. Imma gonna see if it's be worth it to mod the 21/2 to fit on the Speed Booster as well.

Anyhoo, more tests coming tomorrow, including some MTF charting if I get around to it Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello

Really interested to see if your Olympus Lenses need to be adapted in some way, on my Olympus lenses it looks like the black ring with the offending fins should be able to be just unscrewed ( though I have not attempted this Laughing ).
Great info so far and a great thread.
I wonder if a Eos- FujiX adapter will be any differ than the Eos-Nex adapter

Good stuff

/s


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, so I just unscrewed that black ring with the fin on the 21mm and it comes off all right, but it retains the aperture mechanism below it, and while that can also be taken out reversibly, you lose access to aperture control, so you can only shoot it wide open.

Definitely not how I want to shoot a super wide :LOL:

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I just went ahead and friggin' removed the fin (it's welded onto the black ring). I rationaliized as follows:

(1) Is it worth it? Of course it is, I wouldn't be using this lens as half as much if I couldn't use it with this new setup of mine
(2) It is reversible? Kind of. I mean 95% yes, since if the fin really is important (I don't know what it was for in the original Olympus system, but I'm quite sure it's useless adapted to my 5Dmk2 OR my NEX), I can always reattach it using metal epoxy (very tough stuff).
(3) Will it devalue the lens? Maybe. But this lens isn't a collector's piece, and I think more people would be wanting to use it with a digital body than an OM film body so they won't care so much about the lack of the fin. If it's really necessary, then read (2) above.

And so there you go. Didn't require much force, just a thin screwdriver wedged between the fin and the black ring (with the ring detached from the lens!!! Don't want to accidentally scratch the rear element!) and wiggle wiggle wiggle Smile

Voila, OM 21/2 on my NEX with near full coverage... though at this wide angle, I'm sure it's going to look quite different in terms of FoV when compared to 5Dmk2.


Fin removed



Attached to NEX6 Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brave man, but like you say better on the camera than in the bag. Interesting to see a few samples at f4 + F5,6.

/s


PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SeanM wrote:
Brave man, but like you say better on the camera than in the bag. Interesting to see a few samples at f4 + F5,6.

/s


Now that this lens is adapted, it'll be part of the test I conduct tomorrow Very Happy

Quick look tells me all vignetting is gone by F8, compared to when mounted on 5Dmk2, you can start to see slight light fall off already at F11. But this is most likely mostly due to the NEX+Bones covering a narrower FoV, since it's acting like a 22.4 mm lens rather than 21mm, that 1.4 mm at this wide angle translates into a pretty big chunk near the corners & edges.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pretty good dpreview report with some tests here: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster

This makes a lot more sense to me compared to the marketing hoopla ("improved image quality compared to FF" Laughing ). Bottom line:

    * Center performance nearly identical to FF
    * Corner performance is obviously worse than FF with substantial increase in CA
    * Vignetting with Tele lenses


Overall, I think the results are impressive and I definitely would be interested in Canon FD -> NEX and Canon FD ->m4/3 versions.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermy wrote:

This makes a lot more sense to me compared to the marketing hoopla ("improved image quality compared to FF" Laughing ).


I don't remember that being claimed by anybody, including Metabones themselves.

The claim always was that you will get

(1) better corner performance with the same lens used with than without the adapter on the SAME CAMERA (e.g. NEX-6)
(2) better MTF performance with the same lens used with than without the adapter on the SAME CAMERA (e.g., NEX-6)
(3) one stop more aperture/T-stop/whatever, in terms of both amount of light and shallow DoF

I do believe all three claims have been more or less confirmed true.

The article is good and now I know why my test from yesterday showed vignetting with my Macro Apo-Lanthar 125/2.5 Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:


I don't remember that being claimed by anybody, including Metabones themselves.

The claim always was that you will get

(1) better corner performance with the same lens used with than without the adapter on the SAME CAMERA (e.g. NEX-6)
(2) better MTF performance with the same lens used with than without the adapter on the SAME CAMERA (e.g., NEX-6)
(3) one stop more aperture/T-stop/whatever, in terms of both amount of light and shallow DoF

I do believe all three claims have been more or less confirmed true.


It could be that my memory plays tricks on me and the claims were regarding performance on the same body. However, I don't believe that any of the 3 claims that you've cited are confirmed to be true. For example, (3) looks to be correct, however in practice you don't get one extra stop of exposure due to pixel vignetting (explained in dpreview article). As for (1) and (2), I certainly haven't seen any reliable data, maybe I've missed something though, in which case I am ready to be corrected.

In any case (1) and (2) are somewhat mute points since who cares about MTF and corner comparison of 35mm and 52mm lenses? I would rather compare MTFs FD 50mm+Booster v FD 35mm or FD 35mm + Booster v FD 24mm at the same exposure.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:

I do believe all three claims have been more or less confirmed true.


That's jumping the gun. So far I haven't seen any pictures that convince me this thing hasn't had some negative effect on IQ, whether it be less sharpness, CA or vignetting.

I'd like to see a test with a very good lens like a Planar 1.7/50 on a FF digital camera and then on an APS-C camera with this speedbooster contraption.

Until someone can demonstrate a result from the speedbooster+APS-C that matches in all regards the IQ of the same lens on a FF sensor, I say this thing is far from proven.

I seriously doubt this is possible and there is always going to be some reduction in IQ with the speedbooster.

Until someone proves otherwise, I'm sticking to that view.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermy wrote:

It could be that my memory plays tricks on me and the claims were regarding performance on the same body. However, I don't believe that any of the 3 claims that you've cited are confirmed to be true. For example, (3) looks to be correct, however in practice you don't get one extra stop of exposure due to pixel vignetting (explained in dpreview article). As for (1) and (2), I certainly haven't seen any reliable data, maybe I've missed something though, in which case I am ready to be corrected.

In any case (1) and (2) are somewhat mute points since who cares about MTF and corner comparison of 35mm and 52mm lenses? I would rather compare MTFs FD 50mm+Booster v FD 35mm or FD 35mm + Booster v FD 24mm at the same exposure.


Not necessarily the same body; the important thing is that it was never claimed that using the adapter on an APS-C mirrorless is going to somehow get you better __insert anything here___ than using the same lens on FF.

Regarding (3), there's a couple things to note here.


First, regarding DoF, there's no question. You WILL get one more stop's worth of shallower DoF.
Next, regarding pixel vignetting, like they say, it always exists, but it's compensated for on the native platform by software. However, if you look at what this forum is aboutmanual focus (vintage) lenses, software compensation doesn't exist anywhere.

So, for example, if I adapt my Zuiko 50/1.2 to my 5Dmk2 and see how much light I gain going from F2 to F1.2, it's actually not even one full stop, let alone 4/3 stopit went from ISO100 1/60s to 1/100s in a test shot i took in my room.

Guess what, it behaves exactly same on my NEX6 with the Metabones adapter--it went from 1/100s to 1/160s

Point being that you "get an extra stop" just as you would "have" that extra stop on a full frame body, which, again, is what is being claimed.

Regarding (2), I think it's self-evident that by compressing everything by a factor of 0.71, you are going to see that much less aberrations.

Regarding (1), I may have to retract, because the more I think about it, you would expect to have better corner performance when you're only using the center part of a larger image circle (i.e., without adapter). I think I got that off of somebody mentioning the use of this on a micro-4/3.

Anyway, I realize that this conversation really doesn't belong in this thread, which I made specifically to post test results (and requests) and not talk about the science and theory behind the adapter Wink



iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


Until someone can demonstrate a result from the speedbooster+APS-C that matches in all regards the IQ of the same lens on a FF sensor, I say this thing is far from proven.


Again, Ian, nobody is claiming that "speedbooster+APS-C that matches in all regards the IQ of the same lens on a FF". Their claims have always been that you will get "faster, wider, and better" lens on the same APS-C body WITH the adapter than you would get WITHOUT the adapter.


Last edited by rawhead on Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:26 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:

Regarding (2), I think it's self-evident that by compressing everything by a factor of 0.71, you are going to see that much less aberrations.


Not at all, you're assuming that the compression process isn't introducing some abberations. I doubt it's possible to design a focal length reducer that doesn't introduce some abberations unless the reducer is specifically designed to work in harmony with a specific lens, as was the case when Zeiss added one to the ultrafast lens Stanley Kubrick used.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:

Again, Ian, nobody is claiming that "speedbooster+APS-C that matches in all regards the IQ of the same lens on a FF". Their claims have always been that you will get "faster, wider, and better" lens on the same APS-C body WITH the adapter that you would get WITHOUT the adapter.


My contention is simply that sticking this thing behind an expensive lens is a self-defeating act because it is bound to reduce the IQ of said expensive lens.

I challenge anyone to provide hard and fast proof to refute this contention.

It's really as simple as that, I'm a skeptic and all the words and theory mean nothing, I need to see proof with my eyes.

Faster I don't care about, wider is useful, better is a claim I seriously doubt. If, as I suspect, it's 'slightly faster, wider and slightly worse' then it's a fail and the manufacturer's claims are untrue.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would really appreciate it if Attila or any of the mods transplant this entire conversation over to the other thread; this is defying the purpose of this new TEST thread I set up here.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


My contention is simply that sticking this thing behind an expensive lens is a self-defeating act because it is bound to reduce the IQ of said expensive lens.

I challenge anyone to provide hard and fast proof to refute this contention.


Ian, you have to first understand and accept that nobody ever claimed that using this adapter on an APS-C camera was ever going to give you better results in *any* domain when compared to using that same lens on a full frame camera without the adapter.

If there is a comparison to be made, it's always between the same body (e.g., Sony NEX-7) using the lens WITH and WITHOUT the adapter.

With that understanding, the *benefits* of the Speed Booster is clear. You absolutely will get

(1) 1.5x wider lens
(2) 1 stop faster lens

you also *might* get

(3) better MTF
(4) less CA

on the other hand, you also may get

(5) lower IQ

Now, for people who *want* (1) and/or (2) above (e.g., me), the question is, are (1) and (2) worth the sacrifice of (5). A lot of that depends on if (5) is real, and if so, how bad (5) is.

From what I'm experiencing first hand, along with what I'm reading on the web, the answer is a definitive YES.

Now, you've said in the other thread, and you're repeating here again that you don't care about faster, and wider is merely "useful"; that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion on what is and is not important. But for many people, that extra stop and 1.5x wider FoV is GOLD. Because, there currently is nothing that will give you an image like this:


Sony NEX6 + Metabones Speed Booster + Zuiko OM 50/1.2


on a mirrorless system, barring a Leica M9 + Noctilux / Canon RF LTM 50/1.2, etc, because there just doesn't exist a 35mm F0.9 lens for an APS-C camera (mirrorless or SLR).

The Speed Booster is really for people who WANT that. It's not for people who are looking to marginally, possibly, increase IQ. So if you *don't* want those things (1 and 2 above), then you aren't interested in this product, period, and I fail to see why you are sticking around for the discussion. For people who *do* want those things, the question becomes one of (possible) tradeoffs. There is much more constructive debate that can take place under that premise.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:

First, regarding DoF, there's no question. You WILL get one more stop's worth of shallower DoF.

Yup.

Quote:

Next, regarding pixel vignetting, like they say, it always exists, but it's compensated for on the native platform by software. However, if you look at what this forum is aboutmanual focus (vintage) lenses, software compensation doesn't exist anywhere.

So, for example, if I adapt my Zuiko 50/1.2 to my 5Dmk2 and see how much light I gain going from F2 to F1.2, it's actually not even one full stop, let alone 4/3 stopit went from ISO100 1/60s to 1/100s in a test shot i took in my room.

Guess what, it behaves exactly same on my NEX6 with the Metabones adapter--it went from 1/100s to 1/160s

Point being that you "get an extra stop" just as you would "have" that extra stop on a full frame body, which, again, is what is being claimed.

Well, I don't think this has been confirmed, has it? Personally, I am quite skeptical that this is true exactly. First, there is 1.07 crop factor, which multiplies the f-stop as well, then there bound to be at least 1-2% light loss in the converter. Then I would think that rays could leave the adapter at more oblique angle than they enter it, which would increase pixel vignetting.

The exposure that cameras chose might be the same, but the resulting picture could be darker with Metabones compared to FF. I think it's worthwhile to test this carefully.



Quote:

Regarding (2), I think it's self-evident that by compressing everything by a factor of 0.71, you are going to see that much less aberrations.


Regarding (1), I may have to retract, because the more I think about it, you would expect to have better corner performance when you're only using the center part of a larger image circle (i.e., without adapter). I think I got that off of somebody mentioning the use of this on a micro-4/3.


Yes, the fact that crop cameras use the best part of the lens is a major reason to doubt (1). Another reason is that Booster does introduce CA, and smears corners a bit (it's clear from dpreview tests). (2) is plausible, but not so clear, since there are competing factors (reduced aberrations v newly introduced ones+using weaker parts of the lens).

The bottom line though is that (1) and (2) are purely marketing claims as they make no difference for shooting. 35mm FOV lenses do not directly compete with 50mm FOV lenses. What is important is how much IQ you lose v the same lens on FF and whether you gain IQ by using booster+longer lens v the equivalent "naked" lens on APS-C.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fermy wrote:
The bottom line though is that (1) and (2) are purely marketing claims as they make no difference for shooting. 35mm FOV lenses do not directly compete with 50mm FOV lenses. What is important is how much IQ you lose v the same lens on FF and whether you gain IQ by using booster+longer lens v the equivalent "naked" lens on APS-C.


Exactly.

My interest is because I shoot wide angle lenses 90% of the time and can't afford a FF camera.

However, if there is some IQ reduction, I don't want it.

Soft wide open pics show me nothing so I encourage people who buy this speedbooster thing to show some proper samples at sensible working apertures.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The other Test Thread, on FredMiranda.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1181879/14

We now have the beginning of a long list of lens with problems or not (infinity, protuding pin, fin, vignetting, etc...)
(And sorry, but what a pity for this old Zuiko mate, imho)

So, I know that I won't buy the Metabones Speed Booster for the time being.

Of course, going FF on APS-C EVIL Mirrorless with SLR lens is magic !

I'll just wait to see if chinese makers are in the run, or if a Nex FF is bubbling under the surface.

What an exciting system anyway !

And I'll watch all the tests, of course.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:

Sony NEX6 + Metabones Speed Booster + Zuiko OM 50/1.2


Love it Smile I'm glad you're enjoying the speedbooster.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a nice shot but there looks to be a good amount of CA. Is that due to the lens or the speedbooster?


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phenix jc wrote:
The other Test Thread, on FredMiranda.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1181879/14

We now have the beginning of a long list of lens with problems or not (infinity, protuding pin, fin, vignetting, etc...)
(And sorry, but what a pity for this old Zuiko mate, imho)

So, I know that I won't buy the Metabones Speed Booster for the time being.

Of course, going FF on APS-C EVIL Mirrorless with SLR lens is magic !

I'll just wait to see if chinese makers are in the run, or if a Nex FF is bubbling under the surface.


My thinking. A full frame NEX might make the SpeedBooster suddenly obsolete.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, maybe I was naive to think I can make a TEST thread and make it stay OT :LOL:

Bille wrote:


My thinking. A full frame NEX might make the SpeedBooster suddenly obsolete.


Not if the FF NEX costs $2500 while a Speed Booster + NEX3 will cost $800 (or whatever).

But you're right, I will be able to afford an FF NEX and if/when the FF NEX comes out, I will purchase it, and probably won't have (as much) use for the Speed Booster at that time.

So your options are

(1) wait till that happens with finger in mouth, not knowing when that happens or if you're going to be able to afford it when it does, or
(2) buy the Speed Booster now and enjoy the hell out of FF lenses on your *current* NEX body, and when the FF NEX *does* come out, resell your Speed Booster for a net loss of maybe $200.

I chose 2.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's a nice shot but there looks to be a good amount of CA. Is that due to the lens or the speedbooster?


Mostly the lens. It's a 50/1.2 lens on a modern sensor, it has CA. Hell my Zeiss Planars and Distagons on 5D have CA.

But, I will make more technical test comparisons. Didn't happen today but hopefully tomorrow.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:
Hmm, maybe I was naive to think I can make a TEST thread and make it stay OT :LOL:


Hey, considering our short attention spans and lack of pictures, we are remarkably on topic Laughing Looking forward to your shots!


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phenix jc wrote:
The other Test Thread, on FredMiranda.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1181879/14


Thanks for the link, very useful info there!

I particularly liked this comment by Mr. cyberstudio there, which I think Ian should read:

Quote:
It appears to me you are on the quest of the ultimate wide angle for landscape and architecture, but I don't think that is the highest design priority of Speed Booster. It is called a Speed Booster for a reason - to emphasize the maximum aperture gain, after all nowhere else on earth will you get a 17/1.0 (from a 24/1.4).

From page 5 of the white paper: "The left-most plot indicates that the Speed Booster has a very small amount of undercorrected spherical aberration at f/0.90, but this was done intentionally to improve the bokeh when the Speed Booster is used with ultra high speed f/1.2 objectives."

This is lovely for that low-light shallow depth-of-field shot, but most likely detrimental for landscapes. Let's also remember that it does increase center sharpness every single time. And also for the 40/2.8 STM+SB vs Ultron 28/2 test, the former beats the latter corner to corner.

So to be fair, the Speed Booster is already more versatile than anyone would have hoped for. It is not going to dethrone a Distagon 21/2.8 on D800, but then that had never been the intended application.



I think his take is spot on.

The adapter is first and foremost a "Speed Booster", *not* a "Wide Angle Converter". The latter function is a happy side-effect of the former intent.

If your primary concern is to shoot a wide angle lens stopped down to F11 and getting the least amount of aberrations & distortions, then the Speed Booster is not a product you should be looking at.

I just think it's Brian Caldwell working his magic when, like shown in the Fred Miranda forum that an FoV/DoF equivalent lens, i.e., CV Ultron 28/2 straight up vs. Canon 40/2.8 STM with the Speed Booster, the latter beats the former corner to corner. That is amazing.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:


I just think it's Brian Caldwell working his magic when, like shown in the Fred Miranda forum that an FoV/DoF equivalent lens, i.e., CV Ultron 28/2 straight up vs. Canon 40/2.8 STM with the Speed Booster, the latter beats the former corner to corner. That is amazing.


I wouldn't be surprised if Canon is simply a lot sharper lens to begin with. Do you have a couple of suitably spaced lenses from one stable (E.g. 35 and 50mm Zuikos)? I realize that for many people the Ultra speed is the most attractive aspect of this thing, but if it gives just ultra speed with sharp center and blurry corners, it's one level of usefulness, if it gives that plus a good lens stopped down, it's completely different level of usefulness.

Bottom line: if you can do such test with the lenses of about the same level, I would really appreciate it.