Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
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
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


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.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon is simply a lot sharper lens to begin with.


I wouldn't be surprised either.

The point is, "what is the alternative?"

The answer is, without the Speed Booster, "there is none" or "there are few, and they're VERY expensive".

If you want a lens that performs like a 28mm F2 on the NEX, you have two choices

(1) Use a 28mm F2 lens straight up.
(2) Use a 40mm F2.8 lens with Speed Booster

Regarding (1), in terms of modern lenses, you have the Ultron, and then you have Summicron 28/2 and the Distagon 28/2, both of which cost hundreds of dollars more.

The only thing that will match the price range of the Speed Booster ($600) + 40/2.8 ($150) is the Ultron (about $750 new).

So it's absolutely a fair comparison. It's even more interesting to note that with the Ultron w/o adapter, NEX is using only the center "sweet spot", and yet the SB + Canon 40/2.8 is giving better results corner to corner.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Errm, there is plenty of alternatives. I have a perfectly usable pair of Canon FD 28/f2, it didn't cost Leica (or even SB) money. There are equivalent Zuiko, Minolta MD. etc. I don't think the word "modern" is the key, it becomes relevant when special glasses and too many elements are used, which is not the case with 28/f2 Ultron.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I get it now, the attraction of this thing is more speed, not a converter to make wide angles wide angles again. I do 95% of my shooting at f4-f8 so obviously this thing is not for me. I really can't see the point in a 300 dollar piece of glass to make lenses a bit quicker, but that's just me. I'm sure they will find plenty of customers because there's a lot of people who have an obsession with lens speed.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Errm, there is plenty of alternatives. I have a perfectly usable pair of Canon FD 28/f2, it didn't cost Leica (or even SB) money. There are equivalent Zuiko, Minolta MD. etc. I don't think the word "modern" is the key, it becomes relevant when special glasses and too many elements are used, which is not the case with 28/f2 Ultron.


I said "modern" for a reason, because if you are going to go out and buy things from scratch, then you either have to be patient enough to wait around for that FD/OM/MD 28/2 (and an appropriate adapter) to show up and be content that you just bought a lens the history of which you know nothing about (e.g., past CLA that's introduced misalignment or reversed element, etc) and on which you have no insurance, and understand that you will not get any useful EXIF info, no auto diaphragm etc., or you can go out and buy modern glass that's fresh out of the factories and insured for the next couple of years, get EXIF and auto diaphragming, etc. It's one way to keep everything else equal.

If we are to compare the FD 28/2 with something, then it really should be with a lens that is around 40/2.8 that retailed in the range of $830 after adjusting for inflation (FD 28/2 was list price $413 in 1986, which is $833 adjusted for inflation in 2011: http://web.archive.org/web/20060825203502/http://www.canonfd.com/pricelists/pricelist1986.pdf).

Now, we here at Mflenses are all about finding the hidden gem in the MF world that can compete with and even outperform modern glass, so I won't say it's unfair to bring up FD glass, which has always been regarded highly, but are currently at their low market going prices because of the lack of an easy way to use them on an FF sensor/DSLR. However, even *if* the FD28/2 outperforms the Canon 40/2.8 + Speed Booster combo (which, I would love to see somebody test), that doesn't take away from the fact that it's quite amazing for a hunk of glass that puts four additional elements behind a $150 lens, do what's quite magical (add a stop, make it 1.5x wider), and perform better than a $750 lens corner to corner, only the sweet spot of which you are using.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I really can't see the point in a 300 dollar piece of glass to make lenses a bit quicker, but that's just me.


I understand that you don't understand. That's fair. But, like I said in the other thread, I'm sure you can *imagine*.

I mean, some people spend $5000 to gain 1/2 stop (F1.2 -> F1.0 = Noctilux). Some people spend another $5000 to gain another tiny fraction of a stop (F1.0 Noctilux -> F0.95 Noctilux).

Compared to them, what's $400-600? Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:

Now, we here at Mflenses are all about finding the hidden gem in the MF world that can compete with and even outperform modern glass, so I won't say it's unfair to bring up FD glass, which has always been regarded highly, but are currently at their low market going prices because of the lack of an easy way to use them on an FF sensor/DSLR. However, even *if* the FD28/2 outperforms the Canon 40/2.8 + Speed Booster combo (which, I would love to see somebody test), that doesn't take away from the fact that it's quite amazing for a hunk of glass that puts four additional elements behind a $150 lens, do what's quite magical (add a stop, make it 1.5x wider), and perform better than a $750 lens corner to corner, only the sweet spot of which you are using.


Ohh, I am not crapping on Speedbooster. I've said in the parallel thread that IMHO results that I've seen are very good and exceed my expectations. However, before going all poetic we should really figure out what this thing does and what it does not do. And I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that it outperforms $750 lens with a $150 lens.

First, prices in the photoworld do not always reflect the quality directly, in particular RF lenses cost substantially more for the same optical quality, that's the reality.

Second (and more important), yes we've seen that wide open SB+Canon outperforms Ultron in the corners. However, we have not seen that this is the case at F8. And IMHO it's by far more critical how the corners look like at F8 than how they look like at f2. Furthermore, looking at the stopped down SB shots in the same Fred Miranda thread, the corners on SB do not improve on stopping down as well as one would expect. People are fixated on wide open performance and it looks good, but I really have not seen stopped down comparisons and those are important too, wouldn't you agree?

Third, Ultron is an RF lens tested on NEX-7 sensor and this test can reflect as much on the Ultron performance as on the fact that NEX-7 sensor does not like RF wides.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I suppose we are on Manual Focus lens forum and there is a purpose-bent need to figure out what is the best manual focus lens we can adapt on to the device. Also that a FF NEX will replace it. Good points. But for me the purpose of this device is exactly what it sets out to do:
1) Allow Canon EOS EF lenses to work on an EVIL-type camera body
2) Give a full single f-stop improvement (bonus)
3) Almost cancel out the crop factor on a designed for 35mm film lens on an aps-c sensor
4) Shorten the standard flange focal length of the EOS lens mount
5) Improve the image quality of the lens mounted whilst providing an endless argument in regard to whether it truly has achieved this
6) Perhaps enable certain other fully manual mount adapters to be stacked on to it (a bonus if you wish to try to achieve this and it works)

The latter ability is couched in caveats on the Metabones site amongst which is no guarantee of success and also the warning that this process turn this sophisticated communicating adapter into just another dumb adapter with lens elements inside.

Immediately people are running around trying all sorts of combinations and permutations and complaining if they don't provide image perfection even if they do in fact work?

EOS EF lenses on their own are not going to work on a FF NEX, but such a camera might take dumb adapters for other mount lenses. Good, this is hardly that much difference from putting a similar dumb adapter on a current aps-c NEX body where crop factor might be had but otherwise the cost and performance would be unchanged.

So what is the argument? The argument seems to be that by stacking another adapter on a Speed Booster connected NEX aps-c camera then the resulting combination is an expensive dumb adapter that might not work very well. I agree. That a NEX FF with the same lens and a direct dumb adapter is going to work better, I agree again. But somehow the combination of the first five points made seems to escaped the argument. Maybe I am missing something? Please enlighten me.

It is hard to condemn something that is being asked to do what it is primarily not designed to do well.

Of course there are other purpose designed and built adapters of the Speed Booster type.

Tom


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caerwall wrote:


It is hard to condemn something that is being asked to do what it is primarily not designed to do well.

Of course there are other purpose designed and built adapters of the Speed Booster type.

Tom


Fully understanding the points you made about the caveats stated on the Metabones site about stacking adapters and using MF lenses, I respectfully disagree that it is "primarily not designed to do well" what we want it to do. That is attested by the fact that they have custom mounts that will accept legacy MF lenses by Alpa, Leica R, etc. The technology per se I argue is designed to do exactly what we want it to do--to take legacy FF lenses and attach them on a mirroless APS-C body and giving you a "near-FF experience". It's just that with the particular EF-NEX adapter that most people are talking about, Metabones doesn't want to take the responsibility of damaged adapter and/or lenses due to incompatibility issues (e.g., physically not being able to adapt some wides) by recommending such uses.

Of course I'm of the variety that's far from condemning it Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
All those levers, spikes, ridges and other kinds of appendages sticking out from the back, they have always been our bane. The DSLR makers have never condoned the practice either, and sure there had been casualties in the form of scratched mirrors, irremovable lenses, bent mounts and short circuits. This time, it is the glass elements at stake. There is nothing wrong for a manufacturer to disclaim responsibility for the resulting damages. When eBay is flooded with crude adapters for $6.5 shipped worldwide, and there are thousands of different manual focus lenses out there each with its own unique set of rear appendages, how could any manufacturer not disclaim responsibility? The alternative community has been able to deal with it in the past by experimentation and sharing information, and I believe we can cope with the SB equally well this time, if not even better. Prepare for some filing and cutting, as always.

BTW, conurus here = cyberstudio over @ FM.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great to see you here Conurus, your words are very true! And remember, if you need anyone to test a VS 24-85mm on a 6D for an extended period, just shout Wink


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I really can't see the point in a 300 dollar piece of glass to make lenses a bit quicker, but that's just me.


I understand that you don't understand. That's fair. But, like I said in the other thread, I'm sure you can *imagine*.

I mean, some people spend $5000 to gain 1/2 stop (F1.2 -> F1.0 = Noctilux). Some people spend another $5000 to gain another tiny fraction of a stop (F1.0 Noctilux -> F0.95 Noctilux).

Compared to them, what's $400-600? Very Happy


Well, I'll try to imagine. Smile

Good luck with the speedbooster, I can see it's not for me, doesn't mean it's not going to be very useful to others.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:

(2) buy the Speed Booster now and enjoy the hell out of FF lenses on your *current* NEX body


None of my lenses is compatible with EOS. Except a native Canon EF 50/1.8. Using EOS compatible lenses on a full frame camera hasnt been a problem for the last five years. Or when did the 5D appear?


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Perhaps have we reached the sweet spot of the topic (test thread).

1/We know, from the example, that the SB works (almost) perfectly with EF mount lenses.
If you have FF, AF, EF lenses, there are obviously other solutions for photographers.
But, why not : Your gain is a smaller body, and 1 IL.
The bonus is that you can try the SB with other FF SLR lenses.
(Rawhead is there, if I'm correct)

If you're a vidéo man, things are different. The SB was probably designed essentially for vidéo users.
(It's why the first testers are famous in the vidéo world.)


2/We know, from the example, that the SB doesn't work very well with stacked adapters.
Does the result worth the purchase ?
Are you ready to follow the Conurus's principle ?
conurus wrote:
Prepare for some filing and cutting, as always.

If a FF NEX is coming out, does it still worth the pain ?

Whatever, the answer is yours.

I've given mine regarding the S B Metabones EF mount.
So, I must add this :
If a Nex FF isn't coming out, if the S B is sold in Europe, (if the tests are good - but I have no doubt about that), I'd probably buy the S B in Nikon F mount, as I've a long line of Nikkors (with 1 hole Laughing )
Still cheaper than any Nikon D FF, new or used.
(Not speaking about the happy fellows who have a long line of Zeiss or Leica)


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why do we know that Metabones does not work well with stacked adapters? If it's only the issue with lens protrusions, then I expect it to be solved in the (hopefully) upcoming FD version. FD lenses have those protrusions in spades.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Why do we know that Metabones does not work well with stacked adapters? If it's only the issue with lens protrusions, then I expect it to be solved in the (hopefully) upcoming FD version. FD lenses have those protrusions in spades.


Well, as we've seen, they've made sure all the Canon EF lenses work with it, but stacking an adapter and putting on leses from other mounts some times leads to mounting issues, so there's that.

Metabones also talks about the inevitable introduction of minute amounts of tilt with stacked adapters, which apparently is quite evident with wide angle lenses, so there's mechanical causes for the "degradation" of the IQ that they have no control over.

Like you say, the FD version might ameliorate a lot of issue #1, at which point I might switch over to that (and sell this EF version, as I have very little use for AF).
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4