Manual Focus Lenses Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch|Quick search    MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Rss feed   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Metabones Speed Booster TEST THREAD
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Manual Focus Lenses Forum Index -> Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fermy



Level 3

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 2237


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.
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html

Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
caerwall




Joined: 11 Nov 2010
Posts: 47


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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
rawhead



Level 3

Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Posts: 1519
Location: Boston, MA

Expire: 2014-04-29

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
_________________
Sony α7R, Pentax 67II, Kiev-60, Hasselblad 203FE, 903SWC, Graflex Norita 66, Mamiya M645 1000s, Burke & James 8x10, Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic (4x5 and 3x4), Century Graphic (2x3), R.B. Graflex Seried D, Rolleiflex SL66E, Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar, Mamiya C330f, a few M42, six P6, three OM, four Hasselblad, two Pentax 67, two Mamiya 645, one Noritar, and a sprinkle of EF. Oh, and an Aero Ektar and Leica Noctilux
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger  No rate
Share
conurus




Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Posts: 13


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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
ManualFocus-G



Level 4

Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 6480
Location: United Kingdom

Expire: 2014-11-24

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
_________________
Graham - Moderator

Shooting things: Canon EOS 6D, Fuji X-E1 and Olympus E-PL5 with Carl Zeiss T*

See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g and my blog at http://backtothefuturephotography.wordpress.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
iangreenhalgh1



Level 4

Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 12818

Expire: 2014-01-07

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.
_________________

bokeh | boh-kay |

1. noun
....an excuse for bad photography
2. a village in Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
Bille



Level 2

Joined: 03 Jan 2013
Posts: 373


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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
Phenix jc



Level 2

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Posts: 395
Location: France


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)
_________________
"Plonger les choses dans la lumičre, c'est les plonger dans l'infini" Léonard De Vinci
f/1.2 club Zuiko : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Rokkor : 50/1.2, 58/1.2 Nikkor : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Third Party : Porst(Fujinon-X) 50/1.2, Porst 55/1.2 Canon : S 50/1.2, nFD 50/1.2, FL 55/1.2, R 58/1.2, nFD 85/1.2 Hexanon : 57/1.2 Nokton : 50/1.1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
fermy



Level 3

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 2237


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.
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html

Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
rawhead



Level 3

Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Posts: 1519
Location: Boston, MA

Expire: 2014-04-29

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).
_________________
Sony α7R, Pentax 67II, Kiev-60, Hasselblad 203FE, 903SWC, Graflex Norita 66, Mamiya M645 1000s, Burke & James 8x10, Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic (4x5 and 3x4), Century Graphic (2x3), R.B. Graflex Seried D, Rolleiflex SL66E, Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar, Mamiya C330f, a few M42, six P6, three OM, four Hasselblad, two Pentax 67, two Mamiya 645, one Noritar, and a sprinkle of EF. Oh, and an Aero Ektar and Leica Noctilux
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger  No rate
Share
Bille



Level 2

Joined: 03 Jan 2013
Posts: 373


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rawhead wrote:

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).


Exactly my thinking. An FD Speedboster would be tempting. For EF, I´d rather get a used 5D.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
caerwall




Joined: 11 Nov 2010
Posts: 47


PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We might get a bit carried away by what the Speed Booster cannot do. First and above all it is not all adapters for all purposes.

However if you have a special need then it makes mores sense. My special need was that I have a good kit of Canon EF lenses already. I also have a good if aging kit of Canon dslr bodies to go with them.

I would be first to agree that there is life in the old dslr body yet I also agree that dslr bodies can do things that mirrorless cameras still struggle with. But the gap is narrowing.

To upgrade my Canon dslr bodies is to replace like with like - there are just so many older dslr bodies you can have hanging around for backup, maybe they could be sold but then you do not have them to save changing lenses, but at some stage they are no longer useful as "extra bodies" (think 10D?) nor by this stage are they worth trying to re-sell. So do I keep my other bodies until they get "like-10D"? or do I churn them over on eBay for the latest and greatest 5DII, churn 5DIII ....? no doubt there is additional advantage there but a 5D still works well enough. If there will be 5DIV and 5DV then do I simply keep going and churning until one day they start looking very much like a mirrorless with a mirror? On Canon simply stops making dslr bodies and leaves your last purchase in the lurch?

EF lenses are not transferrable, at least they were not transferrable until Metabones made them thus. The EF bit meant that the electronic components had to work on any other non-Canon made body and Canon were not exactly going out of their way to help - for some reason I don't really know.

Therefore where I am at? I am not a Sony NEX man nor a M4/3 man and even the Metabones Smart Adapter was not enough to make me move. I had rather play with my Ricoh GXR and M mount module and have fun with them and reserve my Canon gear for special duties. However the release of the Speed Booster changed this. Now it was worthwhile to buy a NEX6 body and a Speed Booster to enable me to have another body to use my Canon EF lenses on. I am not about to compare the combination directly to a 5D (I still own and use one) but it made more sense and less money to buy the Speed Booster and a NEX6 than to buy a 5DIII and have redundant 5D (or spare body). It increases my effective kit without conflicting components.

So I saved on a 5DII and now on a 5DIII, as long as my original 5D still keeps working well I guess I can now hang out for a 5DVI at my latest calculation - that is if Canon dslr's ever make it to that model. My guess is that a professional level Canon mirrorless will be made before then. If so I will have to reconsider my options.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
Phenix jc



Level 2

Joined: 19 Dec 2009
Posts: 395
Location: France


PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caerwall wrote:
My guess is that a professional level Canon mirrorless will be made before then. If so I will have to reconsider my options.

Tom

Is the sleeping beauty going to wake ? Wink
(I'll have to reconsider too)
_________________
"Plonger les choses dans la lumičre, c'est les plonger dans l'infini" Léonard De Vinci
f/1.2 club Zuiko : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Rokkor : 50/1.2, 58/1.2 Nikkor : 50/1.2, 55/1.2 Third Party : Porst(Fujinon-X) 50/1.2, Porst 55/1.2 Canon : S 50/1.2, nFD 50/1.2, FL 55/1.2, R 58/1.2, nFD 85/1.2 Hexanon : 57/1.2 Nokton : 50/1.1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
OPAL



Level 1

Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 167


PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:14 am    Post subject: Metabones system Reply with quote

Folks, the Metabones system is really not new, Zeiss has used an similar system long time ago, but not for 35mm!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
brianc1959




Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 7
Location: Virginia, USA


PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:21 am    Post subject: Re: Metabones system Reply with quote

OPAL wrote:
Folks, the Metabones system is really not new, Zeiss has used an similar system long time ago, but not for 35mm!


Convertible Double-Protar perhaps?

In a sense these do use the focal reducer concept. However, the convertible lenses of a century ago had no space limitations to contend with. They were also very slow lenses - normally about f/6.8 at maximum aperture. Also, this system was not "general purpose": you coudln't use the rear cell of a double-protar as a focal reducer for a Tessar or Planar, for example.

Of course the other Zeiss lens using a focal reducer concept was Glatzel's 50mm f/0.7. However, the rear reducing group in that lens was optimized to work with the front portion, and was not a general purpose adapter.

Or perhaps you had something else in mind? Do tell!
_________________
Brian Caldwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  No rate
Share
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Manual Focus Lenses Forum Index -> Manual Focus Lenses All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group