View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:50 pm Post subject: Bokeh with and without focal length reducer |
|
|
wolan wrote:
Hi,
I think have read somewhere that focal length reducers like Lens Turbo and SpeedBooster impact to some extent the bokeh and make it less pleasant. Have you ever noticed any difference?
I have not done extensive tests, but I do not notice any visible difference in my pictures.
Thanks. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16497 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
That was shot using a 94mm Printer lens, with and without Speed Booster (0.72x) all wide open (f4)
without:
with:
without:
with:
without:
with:
I would assume the difference gets more prominent when using much faster lenses. _________________ 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 |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16497 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
Here now using a f1.6/100mm VISIONAR
Without:
with:
_________________ 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 |
|
|
RnR
Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 283 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
RnR wrote:
Crikey... that last cat photo...
_________________ Currently shooting with Fuji X-E2s + Metabones Speedbooster + m42 and CY glass 💕
Cheers, Hasse |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:16 am Post subject: Re: Bokeh with and without focal length reducer |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
wolan wrote: |
Hi,
I think have read somewhere that focal length reducers like Lens Turbo and SpeedBooster impact to some extent the bokeh and make it less pleasant. Have you ever noticed any difference?
I have not done extensive tests, but I do not notice any visible difference in my pictures.
Thanks. |
From a logical point of view there shouldn't be any difference as the focal reducer acts similar to a teleconverter just the other way round; i.e. it takes the ready picture from the lens and is just decreasing the scale. However, that effect may give you the impression that the bokeh looks slightly different due to the size difference of the final picture. I did compare some pictures taken with and without the Zhongyi Lens Turbo under exactly the same conditions and I was not able to detect any real differences in bokeh. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gud
Joined: 06 May 2017 Posts: 35
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gud wrote:
One with a roof, looks like 3d image, both versions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Well, the examples above don't seem to indicate any significant difference.
I was thinking that, since a focal reducer increases the FOV of a lens, hence making a wide-angle a wide-angle again with a crop-sensor camera, for instance, that perhaps what people are noticing is what one might expect to see, bokeh-wise, when shooting with a wide angle. That is, since a WA lens tends to have a greater depth of field, less bokeh will be evident due to the nature of the lens. Perhaps this is what people are seeing without realizing that this is normal WA behavior?
I gotta say, though, there certainly isn't any of this evident in the example photos above. _________________ 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 |
|
|
kds315*
Joined: 12 Mar 2008 Posts: 16497 Location: Weinheim, Germany
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kds315* wrote:
cooltouch wrote: |
Well, the examples above don't seem to indicate any significant difference.
I was thinking that, since a focal reducer increases the FOV of a lens, hence making a wide-angle a wide-angle again with a crop-sensor camera, for instance, that perhaps what people are noticing is what one might expect to see, bokeh-wise, when shooting with a wide angle. That is, since a WA lens tends to have a greater depth of field, less bokeh will be evident due to the nature of the lens. Perhaps this is what people are seeing without realizing that this is normal WA behavior?
I gotta say, though, there certainly isn't any of this evident in the example photos above. |
Funny, just wanted that to be noticed, 'cause I can't see differences either _________________ 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 |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10462 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
As Michael indicates, we'd be more likely to see differences under marginal conditions, for example, under high-contrast lighting a bare lens might show black background, but green background with reducer. . _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10462 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Pixel peeking could reveal visible differences. Where to look?
A better way to compare is to subtract the bare lens raw image from the reducer raw image, leaving an image showing only the differences.
Hmm, now I wonder how the subtraction technique for viewing image differences would work for comparing lenses!!! _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 393 Location: Bremen, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
Minolta MC 58/1.2 with Speedbooster (Zhongyi mk I, 0.72x):
(click for full resolution)
Without Speedbooster:
(click for full resolution) _________________ Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10462 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Excellent Boris_Akunin. Thanks! _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 393 Location: Bremen, Germany
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
I did some comparisons back when I had a Fuji X-E1, here's some more:
Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 ("Bokina") with Speedbooster (eff. 65mm f/1.8) vs Minolta MC 58/1.2 without Speedbooster:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kaktuskontrafaktus/sets/72157648665163670
Minolta MC 58/1.2 with Speedbooster (eff. 41mm f/0.85) vs Minolta MC 35/1.8 without Speedbooster:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kaktuskontrafaktus/sets/72157648655432267
I wasn't too impressed with the fast Minoltas on the Speedbooster but the 90/2.5 worked really well:
(wide open, eff. 65/1.8, 35mm equiv. 100/2.8) _________________ Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9097 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Well, one thing I noticed with the photos taken with your Minolta MC 58/1.2 is that there is a substantial difference in Depth of Field between the two photos -- exactly what one would expect between a "normal" and a "wide-angle" shot. Or in this case, short tele and normal. But the background bokeh remained unaffected. An interesting result.
Further, I think your Zhongyi Mk I is doing an excellent job. Makes me want to get a Mk II all the more. _________________ 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 |
|
|
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010 Posts: 2587 Location: Indonesia
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
I tried biotar 75 with and without lens turbo.
Busy backgorund like trees, on edges will be noticeable different. like Michael said. different FOV
non busy background - no different _________________ 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 |
|
|
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
wolan wrote:
IAZA wrote: |
I tried biotar 75 with and without lens turbo.
Busy backgorund like trees, on edges will be noticeable different. like Michael said. different FOV
non busy background - no different |
I think this is a different problem. Lenses like the Helioses and the Biotar show some swirly bokeh, which is more visible on full frame cameras or by using focal length reducers, just because it happens mostly at the border of the FX frame. So camera like the Fujis (APC-s), would cut the most interesting part of the field of view. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ahblack
Joined: 07 May 2015 Posts: 27 Location: Singapore
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
ahblack wrote:
The thing with Speedbooster is that you get FF (almost) image circle onto your cropped sensor, which means you get to go closer to achieve the angle of view of your desired shot. And because of that, your focus point got nearer and your background will be more blurred (better bokeh in someone else's sense).
In my case, I was using the Zhongyi Lens Turbo mk2 (Fujifilm X-T1 + Fujinon EBC 50mm f1.4)
normal adapter
Depth of View by Lee Wooi Chun, on Flickr
Lens Turbo
Depth of View by Lee Wooi Chun, on Flickr
I hope this is the answer you are looking for. _________________ Sony A7ii | CV15iii | Batis 25 | Zeiss Sonnar 50ZM | CZJ S 135
https://www.flickr.com/photos/b1ack/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wolan
Joined: 30 Jun 2015 Posts: 576 Location: Zurich
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
wolan wrote:
Thank you very much. Your test definitely answers the question.
ahblack wrote: |
The thing with Speedbooster is that you get FF (almost) image circle onto your cropped sensor, which means you get to go closer to achieve the angle of view of your desired shot. And because of that, your focus point got nearer and your background will be more blurred (better bokeh in someone else's sense).
In my case, I was using the Zhongyi Lens Turbo mk2 (Fujifilm X-T1 + Fujinon EBC 50mm f1.4)
normal adapter
Depth of View by Lee Wooi Chun, on Flickr
Lens Turbo
Depth of View by Lee Wooi Chun, on Flickr
I hope this is the answer you are looking for. |
_________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/149089857@N03/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|