Metabones Speed Booster

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens

Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens

Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 11 12 13 … 43 44 end

Metabones Speed Booster

alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #1 · Metabones Speed Booster

hiepphotog wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
What I want to see is, say, a 50mm f/1.2 on the 5D III, then the 50mm f/1.2 on the NEX-7, taken from the same spot. They should look (more or less) identical, and I'm curious about the comparison of MTF between those two things, not the difference between a lens with a normal adapter and the speedbooster.

I believe Roger did just that with the Imatest, no?

Yes, that is exactly what he did, albeit with the 5DII, not III.

Jan 22, 2013 at 06:47 PM

Jman13
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #2 · Metabones Speed Booster

Jan 22, 2013 at 07:36 PM

ISO1600
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #3 · Metabones Speed Booster

The blooming troubles me, especially coming from a $1200(+) L prime.
My likely use scenario is NEX-6 + Nikkor AIS primes, like 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4... if an L prime can't hold up, I know these wouldn't.

Jan 22, 2013 at 07:40 PM

AhamB
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #4 · Metabones Speed Booster

Romain wrote:
thanks for the blog post Roger, very interesting and informative, as always.

Agreed. Thanks for the effort, Roger.

Jan 22, 2013 at 07:48 PM

hiepphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #5 · Metabones Speed Booster

ISO1600 wrote:
The blooming troubles me, especially coming from a $1200(+) L prime.
My likely use scenario is NEX-6 + Nikkor AIS primes, like 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4... if an L prime can't hold up, I know these wouldn't.

It is definitely BS when they stated that they wanted to enhance the bokeh by introducing more SA. The increase in center resolution is very welcome, but, to me, I don't want to get a premium lens at a premium price to get the so called "Leica glow" (or in this case the "smoother bokeh")

Jan 22, 2013 at 09:24 PM

alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #6 · Metabones Speed Booster

hiepphotog wrote:
ISO1600 wrote:
The blooming troubles me, especially coming from a $1200(+) L prime.
My likely use scenario is NEX-6 + Nikkor AIS primes, like 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4... if an L prime can't hold up, I know these wouldn't.

It is definitely BS when they stated that they wanted to enhance the bokeh by introducing more SA. The increase in center resolution is very welcome, but, to me, I don't want to get a premium lens at a premium price to get the so called "Leica glow" (or in this case the "smoother bokeh")

The question for me is, how does the blooming look compared to using a faster, wider, bigger and more expensive lens without the adapter?

In time, I will compare the Canon 40 mm 2.8 STM (cheap excellent lens) to the equivalent CV Ultron 28 2.0 (M), and throw in the CV Ultron 40 2.0 SL II as well.

Jan 22, 2013 at 09:58 PM

Jeff Kott
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #7 · Metabones Speed Booster

alundeb wrote:
In time, I will compare the Canon 40 mm 2.8 STM (cheap excellent lens) to the equivalent CV Ultron 28 2.0 (M), and throw in the CV Ultron 40 2.0 SL II as well.

The SB is going to have a lot of us doing lots of comparisons. My first comparison will be using the speed booster with my CV 40 SL II against my Nikon 28/1.4 AFD with a regular F mount to E mount adapter.

Jan 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #8 · Metabones Speed Booster

AhamB wrote:
Romain wrote:
thanks for the blog post Roger, very interesting and informative, as always.

Agreed. Thanks for the effort, Roger.

+1. Thanks Roger.

Jman13 wrote:
....Yes, but I want real world full pics.

Resolution stuff was great from Roger, as were the test charts...hard to get a comparison of the bokeh and how that is affected from using the adapter. What I mean is, if I use the 50L on the 5D II (or any FF body), then I use the 50L on the NEX-7, they ostensibly should have the same level of background blur, etc. I want to see how true that is in real life, and if the rendering of a lens will change significantly with the adapter. It looks like it might, given the blooming bokeh note he made at the end, but it would still be helpful to see side by side shots.

I couldn't agree more.

My OM-D can give me wonderful, clinically sharp images from edge to edge, but I still use a FF camera much of the time. I use a FF camera for the better control over DOF/subject isolation/"pop" and bokeh that my 6D provides over my OM-D.

So what I want to see is real world wide aperture images (f/2.8 and wider) on a NEX vs a FF dSLR.

alundeb wrote:
...In time, I will compare the Canon 40 mm 2.8 STM (cheap excellent lens)....

Yes, please - I love this lens on my 6D.

Jan 22, 2013 at 10:06 PM

alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #9 · Metabones Speed Booster

hiepphotog wrote:
ISO1600 wrote:
The blooming troubles me, especially coming from a $1200(+) L prime.
My likely use scenario is NEX-6 + Nikkor AIS primes, like 28/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4... if an L prime can't hold up, I know these wouldn't.

It is definitely BS when they stated that they wanted to enhance the bokeh by introducing more SA. The increase in center resolution is very welcome, but, to me, I don't want to get a premium lens at a premium price to get the so called "Leica glow" (or in this case the "smoother bokeh")

My understanding from the whitepaper is that there is a small amount of SA at f/0.9 (with f1.2 lenses), but that it was essentially gone at smaller apertures. So, in theory, this may only be something noticeable on f1.2 lenses. We'll have to see more tests, I guess.

Jan 22, 2013 at 10:10 PM

eosfun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #10 · Metabones Speed Booster

I am not convinced what we see in some of the test shots from Roger (thanks for the work and sharing it!

) is blooming. Blooming is in my book a sensor issue rather than an optical aberration. I see spheric aberrations, which is not strange for the kind of primary lens system coupled to the speed booster. In this case some kind of aspheric lenses in the speed booster would possible reduce the effect what some people call "blooming". But as the speed booster is designed as a generic optical system that can connect to all types of lenses the curvature of an aspheric element that gives generic application possibilities in the speedbooster would have been a problem I guess. The speed booster does show exactly what I expected, though it's negative effects are moderate in general, except for the astigmatism that I see in some pictures and is quite annoying. I find Rogers explanation that this probably has it's cause in the mechanic tolerances of the extra mounts the adapter adds to the optical system very plausible.

One thing we should keep in mind with what we see here is that the characteristic of the primary lenses still play an important role. We should not forget that Roger tested a super wide angle lens (14L II) at the edge of optical possibilities of rectilinear wide angles on a full frame and a super fast 50/1.2L It says a lot to me that the 135/2.0L results seems to show the least of residual aberrations in this test. I am very curious to see what some more moderate lenses lenses will do in tests. So far what Roger's test show is really promising. Shooting with a 50L wide open is not the kind of application in landscape photography in general, so some residual aberrations might not be the big problem after all. A documentary reporter style photoseries is more about capturing the atmosphere where small DOF and good bokeh are in many cases more important than the ultimate sharpness and detail rendering. At all this the 50/1.2L is good on a full frame body and what I see here I expect it to be good as well on an APS-C crop NEX body. The 14mm is about a wide FOV and perspective. I guess most photographers stop the lens down in normal use on full frame as well as they will do on a NEX. So there we see promising possibilities too. Altogether I am quite impressed at first sight, I have to admit, better than I expected. I look forward to more test results from different lens-speed booster combinations. To me APS-C suddenly is a more attractive format than it was until now.

Jan 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM

amsterdem
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #11 · Metabones Speed Booster

Speed booster with nex 5n, nothing techinical just seeing how different lens behave. got the 70-200mm and 24mm ts-e and a few others to try

Canon 50mm 1.2L, soft and it becomes plenty soft at f0.9
This image is copyrighted by the owner

Zeiss 50mm MP becomes a pretty fun 35mm 1.4, sharp at center

larger
http://imgur.com/CgQUf3P

Jan 22, 2013 at 10:33 PM

theSuede
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #12 · Metabones Speed Booster

Well, the 50MP looks plenty sharp and contrasty in the corners too...

I'm seeing two entirely different types of comparisons to be made to truly compare the usability of the MB adapter.
1) How good is the adapter with lens "X" compared to using the lens on it's native FF format?
2) How good is the adapted lens "X" compared to the native lens "Y"?

All comparisons in category 1 is a losing battle from an optical PoV. All the aberrations in the adapter have normal, natural polarities, meaning that anything and everything you throw at it from a native lens perspective is going to get worse (than in native format). What's left here is the (maybe) more compact physical format of APS, and freedom of choice. Either with 0.7x speed adapter or no-glass adapters. All lenses become two, seen with this perspective - assuming that you have a no-glass adapter too of course...

Comparisons in category 2 are more relevant in this case. Is a bog-standard 50/1.8 used together with an MB adapter better than using a 35/1.4 on a no-glass adapter? For what lenses is this true?

If the answer is "true" in a wide variety of category 2 cases, then the price for the adapter is very easy to justify. A trio of 35F2.0, 50F1.8 and 85F1.8 quickly becomes the very expensive trio of 24F1.4, 35F1.2 and 50F1.2.

One lens I'd really like to try is the old Nikkor 35-70F2.8. It's compact (large lenses are totally useless for me, why bother? I have FX cameras that do that work better in all cases!), and the range suits a "normal use" walk-around standard lens. It would be like having a native 24-48F2.0 on a NEX, and the base optical quality would hopefully be very good. The adapter would from everything I've seen so far be very suited for most normal zooms, that usually have an exit pupil distance smack in the middle of the MB adapter comfort zone.

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:19 PM

theSuede
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #13 · Metabones Speed Booster

Roger:
Did you shoot any category 1 comparisons? Someone in this thread said so, but I can't find anything like that on your blog. Thank you for the blog, anyway - it's a brilliant resource nowadays - I hope it furthers the knowledge of your customers, and maybe also bring you more customers due to public exposure.

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:22 PM

amsterdem
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #14 · Metabones Speed Booster

nex 7 canon 70-200mm 2.8 II all w/ heliopan nd front thread except last photo, so vignetting is enhanced a little.

Does not exhibit vignetting in video mode (philip bloom has samples), my metabones II did not have vignetting

@70 49mm f2.0
This image is copyrighted by the owner

@200 140mm F2.0
This image is copyrighted by the owner

@70 49mm f2.0
This image is copyrighted by the owner

@200 140mm F2.0
This image is copyrighted by the owner

@200 140mm F2.0 without heliopan ND
This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Jan 23, 2013 at 01:06 AM · View previous versions

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:43 PM

kevindar
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #15 · Metabones Speed Booster

the Suede, I totally agree with you. this would be great for using a small 2.8 zoom, or 1.4-1.8 prime (still small) on the nex system for us phtographers, and be able to use them in the same fashion we do on our full frame's having same dof, same ISO performance (assuming FF will have a one stop iso advantage at the sensor level) etc. I still would love to hear from Roger, how bad was the autofocus. lack of DMF is a huge drawback, esp since autofocus does not work with 3rd party lenses. I own the 85 1.2, 70-200 2.8 ISII, 28-70 2.8, but would have no interest in using those lenses on this body. for me its the 40 stm, maybe my sigma 50 1.4, or a tamron 28-75 2.8

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:45 PM

eosfun
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.12 #16 · Metabones Speed Booster

@ Amsterdam: great photographic material for comparison and getting impressions from one of those still rare MB speedboosters. These add value to Rogers great test. Keep them coming. Thanks for sharing!

Edited on Jan 22, 2013 at 11:53 PM · View previous versions

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:51 PM

Dudewithoutape
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #17 · Metabones Speed Booster

Amsterdem, I believe the focal length stays the same, merely you lose the crop factor, so the 50mm MP is actually a 50mm MP rather than a ~80mm MP and certainly not a 35mm MP. Or are you trying to say its like a 35mm MP was attached to your body, thereby making it 50mm again?

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 PM

amsterdem
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #18 · Metabones Speed Booster

Dudewithoutape wrote:
Amsterdem, I believe the focal length stays the same, merely you lose the crop factor, so the 50mm MP is actually a 50mm MP rather than a ~80mm MP and certainly not a 35mm MP. Or are you trying to say its like a 35mm MP was attached to your body, thereby making it 50mm again?

correct the latter, its more like a 35MP on a crop

also, the AF is ok with the 50L, on the 70-200mm it hunts with the Nex 7, but nothing compared to AF speed on 5d3 or even a 5dC

Jan 22, 2013 at 11:57 PM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #19 · Metabones Speed Booster

amsterdem wrote:
Dudewithoutape wrote:
Amsterdem, I believe the focal length stays the same, merely you lose the crop factor, so the 50mm MP is actually a 50mm MP rather than a ~80mm MP and certainly not a 35mm MP. Or are you trying to say its like a 35mm MP was attached to your body, thereby making it 50mm again?

correct the latter, its more like a 35MP on a crop

also, the AF is ok with the 50L, on the 70-200mm it hunts with the Nex 7, but nothing compared to AF speed on 5d3 or even a 5dC

Thanks for the samples, this is what I've been waiting for.

What I'd really love to see is an image comparison with the same lens on the nex with the speedbooster vs the lens bare on a 5d/5d2/5d3.

Jan 23, 2013 at 12:13 AM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.12 #20 · Metabones Speed Booster

kevindar wrote:
....for me its the 40 stm, maybe my sigma 50 1.4, or a tamron 28-75 2.8

Agreed, I'm not really interested in using huge lenses on a NEX.

Manual focus on the NEX doesn't bother me though, focus peaking makes it doable for me.

I would be interested in using the Canon 40 2.8, zeiss c/y 28 2.8, 50 1.7 and 85 2.8.

Jan 23, 2013 at 12:20 AM

1 2 3 … 11 12 13 … 43 44 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 11 12 13 … 43 44 end