Speedboaster vs LensTurbo

[stingOM]

http://www.mirrorlessworld.com/?p=6265

[Fabian]

I'm not impressed by the test itself.

[philslizzy]

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

[iangreenhalgh1]

I still fail to see the attraction of these things.

[ForenSeil]

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 ^^

[philslizzy]

[RnR]

[frenched]

I don't get it. Why not just get good glass in the first place and be done with it?

[ForenSeil]

[RnR]

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.

[philslizzy]

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.

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[Aanything]

[JohnBar]

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

[LucisPictor]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[philslizzy]

[Attila]

I am with Ian , one step faster, one step wider not really interesting , especially if I have make compromise in quality.

[fermy]

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.

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[Aanything]

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.