Metabones Speed Booster
/forum/topic/1181879/34

1       2       3              34      
35
       36              47       48       end

DtEW
Registered: Mar 29, 2013
Total Posts: 93
Country: N/A

perost wrote:
DtEW wrote:
perost, the play is probably a problem with the Contax CZ Planar 1,7/50 T*. I have the same lens and had a similar play issue with it using a Fotodiox adapter. I ended up having to make some tape shims to reduce the play.

Interesting, did you just put some tape on the mount, or something more elaborate?


That is precisely what I did. I cut some rings out of clear packing tape (smooth, even thickness, no stretch) with a circle cutter (works like a drafting compass). Instead of applying the entire ring to the surface of the mount, I cut it up into segments in order to modify its tightness. Shorter segments = less tape overall = looser; longer segments = more tape = tighter. Of course, if you had packing tape of varying thicknesses, that would work even better in dialing out just the right amount of play.

On a related note, I'm having fun with the SB, and currently doing a comparison at the ~28mm perspective using the Contax CZ Distagon 2,8/28 vs. Sigma 19mm vs. SEL1018@18mm in a natural shooting setting, just a scene at urban tourist spot (Fisherman's Wharf). Haven't decided how I will post the comparison shots, nor all the conclusions that can be derived from it.

But some impressions I have is that 1) 18mm is indeed the SEL1018's worst FL, and that 2) the Sigma EX DN primes are amazing even irrespective of their bargain price. But the 28mm Distagon w/SB 3) can exceed the Sigma 19's center apparent resolution; 4) is much worse in the corners, but about as good as the SEL1018@18mm; 5) suffers from longitudinal CA, but that is mostly remedied by LR4.

Instead of comparing just across f-stops, all comparisons were done between roughly-equivalent f-stops (i.e. same DoF, which means about the same exposure time).

Edit: backtrack on corner performance between Sigma 19 vs SEL1018. I recall an old test I did with my large bookshelf at home, and coming to the opposite conclusion in favor of the SEL1018. Perhaps the elsewhere-discussed field curvature of the Sigma 19 helped in the particular scene I used yesterday.



perost
Registered: Mar 16, 2013
Total Posts: 51
Country: Sweden

DtEW wrote:
perost wrote:
DtEW wrote:
perost, the play is probably a problem with the Contax CZ Planar 1,7/50 T*. I have the same lens and had a similar play issue with it using a Fotodiox adapter. I ended up having to make some tape shims to reduce the play.

Interesting, did you just put some tape on the mount, or something more elaborate?


That is precisely what I did. I cut some rings out of clear packing tape (smooth, even thickness, no stretch) with a circle cutter (works like a drafting compass). Instead of applying the entire ring to the surface of the mount, I cut it up into segments in order to modify its tightness. Shorter segments = less tape overall = looser; longer segments = more tape = tighter. Of course, if you had packing tape of varying thicknesses, that would work even better in dialing out just the right amount of play.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I tried putting on a few pieces of tape, and it did lessen the amount of play. It still won't lock unless I jiggle the lens around a bit though, but at least the SB + Planar 50/1.7 is now what I would consider usable. I'll have to experiment a bit to see if I can find a better solution.



freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5854
Country: United States

So I got the R to NEX SB on Tuesday. I took some shots for comparison on the a99 and then converted my Leica Vario-Elmar 35-70 back to an R mount for the SB. I obviously need to adjust for infinity, since the fence I was using for test shots was 3m away, and focus on the a99 was at 3m. To get the same focus @ 35mm on NEX with SB, it was closer to 8m.

That aside, at 35mm, it was about what I expected, slightly less sharp corners with much more pronounced fringing, but good and sharp in the center out beyond the 3rds marks. But zooming in beyond 35mm, I see an issue that gives me pause. When zooming in on my static subject with the lens mounted on the a99, I didn't have to change focus (3m, after all, is 3m, whether you're using a 35mm, 50mm, or 70mm). While shooting with the NEX plus SB, I assumed the behavior would remain consistent, so I didn't bother to check focus at any other focal length after I'd established it at 35mm. Low and behold, the focus shifts drastically when zooming. Is anyone else out there using zooms and seeing this behavior? Sorry if this has already been covered. I may have dozed off while reviewing the first thirty-four pages.



EB-1
Registered: Jan 09, 2003
Total Posts: 22930
Country: United States

freaklikeme wrote:
So I got the R to NEX SB on Tuesday. I took some shots for comparison on the a99 and then converted my Leica Vario-Elmar 35-70 back to an R mount for the SB. I obviously need to adjust for infinity, since the fence I was using for test shots was 3m away, and focus on the a99 was at 3m. To get the same focus @ 35mm on NEX with SB, it was closer to 8m.
That aside, at 35mm, it was about what I expected, slightly less sharp corners with much more pronounced fringing, but good and sharp in the center out beyond the 3rds marks. But zooming in beyond 35mm, I see an issue that gives me pause. When zooming in on my static subject with the lens mounted on the a99, I didn't have to change focus (3m, after all, is 3m, whether you're using a 35mm, 50mm, or 70mm). While shooting with the NEX plus SB, I assumed the behavior would remain consistent, so I didn't bother to check focus at any other focal length after I'd established it at 35mm. Low and behold, the focus shifts drastically when zooming. Is anyone else out there using zooms and seeing this behavior? Sorry if this has already been covered. I may have dozed off while reviewing the first thirty-four pages.


I suspect that the adapter is not producing the correct distance to the image plane. Commonly with zooms, that will make it varifocal. You would see the same effect with an extension tube.

EBH



LeadyGonzales
Registered: May 19, 2011
Total Posts: 422
Country: Switzerland

... some more from Sechseläuten in Zurich, Switzerland 2013.







- L.



freaklikeme
Registered: Apr 08, 2005
Total Posts: 5854
Country: United States

EB-1 wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
So I got the R to NEX SB on Tuesday. I took some shots for comparison on the a99 and then converted my Leica Vario-Elmar 35-70 back to an R mount for the SB. I obviously need to adjust for infinity, since the fence I was using for test shots was 3m away, and focus on the a99 was at 3m. To get the same focus @ 35mm on NEX with SB, it was closer to 8m.
That aside, at 35mm, it was about what I expected, slightly less sharp corners with much more pronounced fringing, but good and sharp in the center out beyond the 3rds marks. But zooming in beyond 35mm, I see an issue that gives me pause. When zooming in on my static subject with the lens mounted on the a99, I didn't have to change focus (3m, after all, is 3m, whether you're using a 35mm, 50mm, or 70mm). While shooting with the NEX plus SB, I assumed the behavior would remain consistent, so I didn't bother to check focus at any other focal length after I'd established it at 35mm. Low and behold, the focus shifts drastically when zooming. Is anyone else out there using zooms and seeing this behavior? Sorry if this has already been covered. I may have dozed off while reviewing the first thirty-four pages.


I suspect that the adapter is not producing the correct distance to the image plane. Commonly with zooms, that will make it varifocal. You would see the same effect with an extension tube.

EBH


Interesting. Thanks, EB. I did not know that. I haven't worked with any other adapted zooms on the NEX, so this is a bit new to me.



CronoDL
Registered: Jul 21, 2011
Total Posts: 129
Country: United States

These are two recent ones with the SB. First one is with an OM 28mm f2, and second one was taken with Nikon Series E 50mm 1.8.


Walking and Talking by DannyLamNYC, on Flickr


People By the River by DannyLamNYC, on Flickr



sculptormic
Registered: Feb 05, 2012
Total Posts: 1481
Country: Netherlands

This afternoon I had a chat with these ladys.







LeadyGonzales
Registered: May 19, 2011
Total Posts: 422
Country: Switzerland

another one with the Planar 85mm 1.4 ...

- L.



ken.vs.ryu
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Total Posts: 3543
Country: N/A

what do I shoot with the fisheye in the house? quick test of the peleng 8mm on the speedbooster.



perost
Registered: Mar 16, 2013
Total Posts: 51
Country: Sweden

As I wrote earlier I had some issues with the fit of my Planar 50/1.7 AEJ. Adding some tape lessened the amount of play, but it still wouldn't lock without jiggling it around a bit. Which meant that I couldn't add much tape, since it needed some play to work. In the end I fixed the issue by throwing some money at it, i.e. I bought a new Planar 50/1.7 MMJ which fits perfectly. It looks to me like they might have subtly changed the mount on the MMJ vs. AEJ, since the MMJ is silver instead of black. Or it might just be that the MMJ is newer. So now I have three Planar 50/1.7, maybe I should sell one...

But unfortunately I'm disappointed in the performance of the SB with the Planar 50/1.7. At f/2.8, where I do much of my shooting, it's only acceptably sharp in the middle and quickly deteriorates towards the borders. Stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 improves the performance as expected, but the corners never really become sharp. I expected the corners to not be brilliant, but unfortunately it's not only the corners that are bad at f/2.8, but also the rest of the border. The Yashica ML 50/1.9 is similar, though not as bad, while the Sonnar 85/2.8 and S-Planar 60/2.8 are pretty sharp across the whole image. Here's an ad hoc test chart shot with the Planar 50/1.7 which demonstrates the issue (shot with the MMJ, but my AEJs perform the same):

I don't know whether I should blame the SB, the camera or the lens. But I'll probably end up selling the SB due to this, since it just doesn't seem worth it if I can't use the Planar 50/1.7 with it.



LeadyGonzales
Registered: May 19, 2011
Total Posts: 422
Country: Switzerland

oh pretty bad.

I have the "impression" that i do have a similar case with my rokkor 50 1.2.

even the rokkor 58 1.2 seems to be much better on 5D MarkII than on SB.

35 1.4 distagon is nice on SB.

thanks for showing this. it looks like, that only some lenses work acceptably well with SB.

- L.



LeadyGonzales
Registered: May 19, 2011
Total Posts: 422
Country: Switzerland

today i went out and took the Planar 85mm 1.4 and the Distagon 35mm 1.4, 5D MarkII and Speed Booster.

Again I come to the conclusion, that the differences are not huge. Seems, that these 2 lenses are fine on the SB.

example Distagon 35mm 1.4 HFT (RAW and same presets)





The upper one is Canon, a bit more contrasty...

-L.



sculptormic
Registered: Feb 05, 2012
Total Posts: 1481
Country: Netherlands

Good to know Leady. Can't judge for myself because I have no FF Canon.

Some tiny flowers.







SyncGuy
Registered: Mar 31, 2012
Total Posts: 7
Country: Singapore

So disappointed...
Dropped Metabones an email if there are any plans for Pentax K mount lenses for the SB and their reply is "No... No plans.."

:/

Oh well....



xbarcelo
Registered: Nov 04, 2010
Total Posts: 602
Country: Spain

You'll have the lens turbo adapter from Mitakon that apparently will be cheaper and will have a Pentax K to NEX adapter (rumours, I know, but it seems it's coming).

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nince-different-lens-turbo-adapters-to-be-launched-this-year/



serhan_
Registered: May 08, 2006
Total Posts: 443
Country: United States

Here is the Chinese post with the test shots for the adapter:
Shenyang new product Jiao Zengguang mirror (Nikon AI turn the NEX interface) the trial notes

xbarcelo wrote:
You'll have the lens turbo adapter from Mitakon that apparently will be cheaper and will have a Pentax K to NEX adapter (rumours, I know, but it seems it's coming).

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/nince-different-lens-turbo-adapters-to-be-launched-this-year/



Dudewithoutape
Registered: Oct 07, 2009
Total Posts: 1093
Country: United States

SyncGuy wrote:
So disappointed...
Dropped Metabones an email if there are any plans for Pentax K mount lenses for the SB and their reply is "No... No plans.."

:/

Oh well....


I'm waiting on further reviews before buying, but the Chinese "Lens Turbo" in PK mount is already available on eBay for ~$200 to US.



inglis
Registered: Feb 24, 2011
Total Posts: 328
Country: United States

cannot wait for comparisons!!
nice Michiel!!!
Leady, I need to get to Sechseläuten one day!! Böögg, burning winter! Very cool sounding from the Wikipedia article! I have an interest in the continuation and or cultural impact of guilds together with the reinvention of the Middle Ages in the 19th and early 20th centuries!
Mamiya 80mm C 1.9 Canon SB on Nex 5n with #1 extender



DtEW
Registered: Mar 29, 2013
Total Posts: 93
Country: N/A

So I took the Speed Booster + EF 100mm f/2 USM out this weekend for some shooting at a bouldering competition regional final. I'm very pleased with way the Speed Booster disappeared (as if I was shooting a manual-focus FF) behind a modern lens, but also that long FL + wide open (due to interior lighting and the need to freeze action) = candid action w/low DoF = quite the challenge for my manual-focus-fu. But the 10fps of the NEX made "point of crisis" timing of explosive moves and falling competitors a no-brainer.

Two pros on-site (one associated with a sponsored competitor, the other associated with the venue) shooting Nikon pro-bodies didn't have my problems nailing critical focus, but I haven't seen anything from them to suggest that they had as much ease with timing.

EXIFs are as exported from camera, i.e. SB multiplier included.

"1/250 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


"1/320 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


"1/250 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


"1/250 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


"1/400 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


"1/400 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


"1/320 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


"1/320 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"


A sitting duck!
"1/320 f/1.4 ISO800 70mm"
"

These last two shots are for context, if you've no idea what the overall setting of a bouldering competition looks like.

SEL1018 @ 10mm f/4 1/80 ISO800


SEL1018 @ 10mm f/4 1/100 ISO1600



1       2       3              34      
35
       36              47       48       end