View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
stingOM
Joined: 27 Sep 2007 Posts: 3168 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2012-12-27
|
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:55 pm Post subject: Speedboaster vs LensTurbo |
|
|
stingOM wrote:
http://www.mirrorlessworld.com/?p=6265 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fabian
Joined: 04 Dec 2011 Posts: 254
|
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fabian wrote:
I'm not impressed by the test itself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
The test are a bit crap. Any slight difference in focus on a macro subject like that is going to look bad. Useable? Well mine are and no one here has complained about the sharpness. They dont know when its used in my photos.
I have tried to do meaningful lens tests and find focusing the hardest thing to do _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I still fail to see the attraction of these things. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
Test is very unscientific indeed.
But I've already seen so many samples where the lens turbo added glow, changed bokeh, etc., that I also believe that the Speed Booster is way better optically. But lens turbo is not bad at all, also makes a lot fun and is much cheaper.
What get is what you pay for ^^ _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
ForenSeil wrote: |
Test is very unscientific indeed.
But I've already seen so many samples where the lens turbo added glow, changed bokeh, etc., that I also believe that the Speed Booster is way better optically. But lens turbo is not bad at all, also makes a lot fun and is much cheaper.
What get is what you pay for ^^ |
I agree entirely. I have noticed artifacts but they can be controlled. Bokeh doesnt bother me much so I'm happy with mine.
The extra aperture with long lenses is a boon. My Rokkpr 200mm f3.5 is almost a whole stop faster. That makes a helluva difference in reducing camera shake.
And you know what? it is much shorter than my normal MD adapters. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RnR
Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 283 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
RnR wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I still fail to see the attraction of these things. |
* Makes lenses wider
* Makes lenses faster
* Makes lenses sharper
* Its 'transparent' to the rendering and bokeh of the lens
* Makes CA's and such smaller
* Is approximate 5mm shorter than the equivalent 'dumb' adapter, which means an slight improvement to the handling of dense glass lenses on lightweight mirrorless bodies
Plenty of attractions But only really makes sense if you have a number of lenses that can share the Metabones adapter. _________________ Currently shooting with Fuji X-E2s + Metabones Speedbooster + m42 and CY glass 💕
Cheers, Hasse |
|
Back to top |
|
|
frenched
Joined: 16 Feb 2013 Posts: 395 Location: MD USA
Expire: 2014-06-17
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
frenched wrote:
I don't get it. Why not just get good glass in the first place and be done with it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
frenched wrote: |
...Why not just get good glass in the first place and be done with it? |
You can't get anything out of good glass without FF body.
It's simply not the same to use a 50mm lens on FF than on crop.
Of course you can use an 35mm instead and have about the same effective focal length like before.
But even the cheapest good and fast manual 35mm lenses (like Canon FD 35/2, Minolta MD 35/2,...) are 5-10x more expensive their to 50mm counterparts. 35mm F2 only gives you ~50mm F2.8 DOF on 1.5x crop and their IQ is inferior compared to their 50mm counterparts as long as you don't buy an modern or very expensive 35/2 lens. But even with comparable sharpness you still won't have the original bokeh and DOF than with an 50mm on an FF camera or with focal reducer.
Focal reducers are much cheaper then FF bodies.
And it's often cheaper to buy an focal reducer + good and fast 50mm lens than an ultra fast 35mm lens etc.
Similar with 85mm lenses... to get the same as with an 85mm F1.4 on FF you would need an ~60mm F1 on 1.5crop or 42mm F0.75 for MFT and so on. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RnR
Joined: 11 Jul 2012 Posts: 283 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
RnR wrote:
Below is the MTF (@f2.8 ) of the Zeiss 85mm f2.8. The m43 sensor would only capture out to the 10mm mark. With the speedbooster it goes out to the 15mm mark (hope my napkin calcs aren't wonky ) The effective crop factor is x1.42.
So the best part of the lens, and a stop of light to use as needed.
Sometimes I think of the Speedbooster as a sensor upgrade rather than a lens adapter. The groovy thing about this sensor 'upgrade' is that I can move it from body to body. Its a one time cost for all my bodies, present or in the future. _________________ Currently shooting with Fuji X-E2s + Metabones Speedbooster + m42 and CY glass 💕
Cheers, Hasse |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
Its like saying why do people bother with Soligors or Rokkor lenses when SMC Takumars are so much better, why not buy them instead? Or just buy a full frame body and a f1.4 Planar if you want to use the full frame and get speed.
Some of us cant afford that.
So, why get one? Until recently was there was no mirrorless that was FF. This is a way of getting the max out of your lens and with the extra aperture almost thrown in for nothing.
There is a certain amount of snobbery on this forum. Which is why when I make posts using the lens turbo I omit to say I have used it. People say how sharp the lenses are not knowing what is behind the lens. For me the proof is in the pudding. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I agree there is snobbery, but I'm just skeptical, I understand the appeal of faster and wider, but I'm skeptical about the claims of sharper and less aberrations, I would ted to think the opposite would be the case. Also, is it really transparent to the rendering?
I guess I shall remain skeptical until I try one myself with several lenses that I know very well and be able to gain my own impression. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2187 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I agree there is snobbery, but I'm just skeptical, I understand the appeal of faster and wider, but I'm skeptical about the claims of sharper and less aberrations, I would ted to think the opposite would be the case. Also, is it really transparent to the rendering?
I guess I shall remain skeptical until I try one myself with several lenses that I know very well and be able to gain my own impression. |
After using the lens turbo for a while i drew som conclusions:
It is useful, obviously, as in some occasions an extra stop or some degrees of dof comes handy.
It does impact iq, IMHO, particularly on wides, particularly at infinite, more so at wider apertures.
The images range to usable to almost as good as with the plain lens.
I wouldn't bet it doesn't introduce aberrations or increases sharpness, but more accurate testing would be needed to me to claim anything about these.
Is it worth €99? Definitely yes.
Then, I don't know how better the speed booster is. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JohnBar
Joined: 21 Jun 2012 Posts: 581 Location: Liverpool
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JohnBar wrote:
I think they have a perfect use for video, where only 2MPixel is required and the extra stop is good for low light.
My only reason for not getting a Lens Turbo is the blue dot thing............, but they may fix it in version 2
I would like to try it on a Pentax 4/28-135mm which I bought for £10, should give a nice 2.8 lens _________________ Rectilux 3FF Series single focus anamorphic attachments
http://www.transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/rectilux-3ff.html
Regular News on https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rectilux/704770636267200 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
frenched wrote: |
I don't get it. Why not just get good glass in the first place and be done with it? |
Because sometimes there is no other "good glass".
My LensTurbo PK-FX allows me to shoot with the real FoV of a 14mm lens when I adapt my Samyang 2.8/14 to my Fuji X-E1.
That's not possible otherwise. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Aanything wrote: |
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I agree there is snobbery, but I'm just skeptical, I understand the appeal of faster and wider, but I'm skeptical about the claims of sharper and less aberrations, I would ted to think the opposite would be the case. Also, is it really transparent to the rendering?
I guess I shall remain skeptical until I try one myself with several lenses that I know very well and be able to gain my own impression. |
After using the lens turbo for a while i drew som conclusions:
It is useful, obviously, as in some occasions an extra stop or some degrees of dof comes handy.
It does impact iq, IMHO, particularly on wides, particularly at infinite, more so at wider apertures.
The images range to usable to almost as good as with the plain lens.
I wouldn't bet it doesn't introduce aberrations or increases sharpness, but more accurate testing would be needed to me to claim anything about these.
Is it worth €99? Definitely yes.
Then, I don't know how better the speed booster is. |
So it's a tradeoff, more width and speed at the cost of some quality.
Personally, I would prefer maximum quality, and very few are the situations where I have felt the need for more width or more speed, bu that's just due to how I shoot and what subjects I tackle, I can understand how more width and speed would be more important to someone else. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
I agree there is snobbery, but I'm just skeptical, I understand the appeal of faster and wider, but I'm skeptical about the claims of sharper and less aberrations, I would ted to think the opposite would be the case. Also, is it really transparent to the rendering?
I guess I shall remain skeptical until I try one myself with several lenses that I know very well and be able to gain my own impression. |
Do remain skeptical Ian I notice the difference and like to pretend I dont, just to justify the £85 expense.
So I've not got a F1.4 rokkor does that mean it will be equivalent to f1?? wow!! _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I am with Ian , one step faster, one step wider not really interesting , especially if I have make compromise in quality. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Well, let's be rational. We are routinely making compromises in quality to save some money. I get the character argument and all that, but really any modern 50mm AF lens (e.g. Sony SEL 50mm or Zuiko 45mm) wipes the floor with Helios in any measurable IQ category, let alone in convenience. Yet we love our Helioses, because mostly they do the job just fine, for a couple of bucks.
So here we have something that magically turns our cameras into FF cameras at the expense of some IQ. Well, we know the price of that, the A7 costs $1500, Lens turbo costs $125, the IQ penalty appears to be not that large, the savings are 10x. Honestly, I am on the fence with all that, it seems inevitable that I'll get A7 at some point in the future, but the cost of lens turbo is almost trivial already. _________________ 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 |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but the reason why I like the Helios or the Jupiter-8 isn't anything to do with the quality, it's the character. They have aberrations and flaws that give them their unique character.
If I wanted to maximise quality, I don't need to buy a modern lens, I can select my Minolta MD 1.7/50 or Konica Hexanon 1.7/50, compared to modern AF versions, they leave nothing to be desired. I haven't had the Zuiko 45mm, but I have owned two copies of the Canon EF 1.8/50, and it's nothing special at all, doesn't get acceptably sharp until f4, doesn't reach it's best in sharpness until f5.6, and worst of all, it's semi-disposable build quality means it will fall apart after a year or two. I have used the Sony 1.8/50 too and it's better than the crappy Canon but isn't any better than the 30 year old Minolta AF 1.7/50 I have, and is far cheaper and nastier in build quality, it certainly won't last 30 years like the Minolta has.
Lens Tip compared the Sony to the Minolta:
http://www.lenstip.com/121.1-article-A_history_of_Sony_Alpha_-_Minolta_AF_50_mm_f_1.7_versus_Sony_DT_50_mm_f_1.8_SAM_Introduction.html
They also compared a 50year old Nikkor 50 to the modern version:
http://www.lenstip.com/117.1-article-50_years_of_Nikon_F-mount_%E2%80%93_Nikkor-S_5_cm_f_2_vs._Nikkor_AF_50_mm_f_1.8D.html
The thing is, the standard lens of 50, 55 or 58mm was perfected by the 1960s and the best of that decade like the Contarex Planar 2/50 or the Topcon RE Auto Topcor 1.8/58 are still amazingly good, far better lenses than most of are photographers. Where progress has been made is elsewhere - coatings have become more advanced, enabling more complex designs, computers have made it possible to design ever more complex lenses, and the benefits are seen in the ultra wide and ultra long lenses and those evil zoom things that are all the rage now. Honestly, the majority of the effort in optical design in the last 40 years has been to create zoom lenses of good quality and in the case of all but the widest and longest primes, the best of half a century ago is still very competitive today.
The one thing that is going to make old lenses less attractive for some people is the development of very high pixel count sensors with very small pixel pitches less than 5 microns. Quite simply, there will come a point when sensors are of a resolution beyond what old lenses designed long before the digital era are capable of matching. Personally, I think that's a bit of a moot point because those levels of resolution are completely unnecessary overkill for most applications, but progress is progress and there will come a time when all cameras are too high in resolution for old lenses to suit them. However, that's at least a decade away I think and besides, there will still be plenty of us enjoying shooting film with our antique lenses.
I can understand the appeal and benefit of these turbo booster things to some people, but for the way I shoot and the subjects I chose, the benefit i feel, just isn't there. I do 90% of my shots on APS-C at f5.6 or f8, trying to maximise the performance of my lenses by using them in their peak performance envelope, I also usually prefer to use a tripod than shoot handheld. Sometimes I have to stop down further for deeper dof, which sacrifices some quality to diffusion, sometimes I have to stitch several images together to achieve the fov I want. I've developed my own style and techniques that suit me, and there isn't a place for a booster in there, but that's just me and I can imagine how others would have a place for a booster. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2187 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
The whole point is:
The trade off in quality is almost neglectable under some conditions.
If you never happen to shoot in these condition, or rarely need that extra stop, or 80% of your shots are landscapes, then you Don't need the lens turbo.
Otherwise it's a nice and cheap tool - that you can unmount when you Don't need it. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|