Cool to see Rorslett and Caldwell at the same page

Some full size samples using longish Leica R glass:

http://winklers.smugmug.com/KHW/Pics-by-Date/2013-01-16-Speed-Booster/27591952_X3mbQ2#!i=2323081513&k=DKpBzgX

From the Leica forums here:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-r-leica-flex/268595-metabones-speed-booster-2.html

I'd say the corners look slightly soft but generally this is good performance. Looks like more comparisons to come in that thread.... Obviously more fast wide/normal examples would be nice to see.

Something that people are saying is that why not just wait for a FF NEX rumoured for this year? It's a good question however given the pricing of the RX-1 I would assume that the Nex 7N or whatever even with this adaptor will still be significantly cheaper and probably noticeably smaller. What do you guys think?

When you've got a bag that contains Canon, Zeiss, Mamiya, Oly, Nikon, & Leica ... all readily adaptable to FF (Sony, Nikon, Canon) ... it's a tough pill to swallow to be so limited in your glass choices by the available adaptors. Maybe if I owned a Leica 19 that was getting chewed up by the crop I'd feel different. There may be some limited application, but I don't see it as compelling reason for a platform change from FF if your interest are WA/UWA.

I'd like to think that at least an adapter for "The King" would be available, but that's yet to be seen.

Beni wrote:
Something that people are saying is that why not just wait for a FF NEX rumoured for this year? It's a good question however given the pricing of the RX-1 I would assume that the Nex 7N or whatever even with this adaptor will still be significantly cheaper and probably noticeably smaller. What do you guys think?

Some of us just don't like waiting. I would never have bought the RX1 if there was a FF NEX available.

Beni wrote:
Something that people are saying is that why not just wait for a FF NEX rumoured for this year? It's a good question however given the pricing of the RX-1 I would assume that the Nex 7N or whatever even with this adaptor will still be significantly cheaper and probably noticeably smaller. What do you guys think?

I think some real comparisons between the smallest APS-C NEX and a possible FF NEX will be interesting and not necessarily render the SB useless. With a FF NEX you will also need an expensive adapter to be able to use all the nice FF lenses.

If you can wait, something good will come along anyway, but I won't hold my breath for a FF NEX being avaliable on the shelves for the next 24 months.

I am also wondering about the pluses and minuses of a full frame Nex vs. a crop Nex with the speed booster, and am in the camp of those who would like to go small if possible, especially to be able to use range finder glass.
The FF Nex even in crop mode might not work well with wider Contax G and M glass. If the FF Nex is optimized for full frame, wider G and M glass will likely have substantial color issues in the corners. In that case, a crop Nex with the speed booster might have advantages for those who would like to use rangefinder glass and SLR glass on one camera.
Any thoughts?

I'm pretty sure any full-frame NEX would have a crop mode, since the a99 does. Then the performance of rangefinder glass would be about the same as with APS-C NEX's, depending on the pixel density.

Oh my, Vignetting with Tele-Lenses, as shown by khaw on dpreview

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3369560

I don't see the point in using the SB with tele lenses.

Focal length reducer on a tele on APSC sounds like a backward concept to me

alundeb wrote:
I don't see the point in using the SB with tele lenses.


+1. IMO the SB presumably shines for lenses up to ~ 50 mm.

alundeb wrote:
I don't see the point in using the SB with tele lenses.


You still get a 1 stop improvement in light. Also, just because it's a tele, doesn't mean that longer is better.

EG 100/2 Macro-Planar. On APS-C, at 150mm it becomes quite a different lens IMO use-wise. Making it actually 100mm-equiv FOV, and giving me f/1.4-level shutter speeds, makes it more interesting for using indoors w/ people.

Also, if you take the lens and both regular adapters and SB adapters in your bag, you've got two lenses for the weight of one, for the most part. 180/4 and 127/2.8. . .just switch adapters.

Taylor Sherman wrote:
alundeb wrote:
I don't see the point in using the SB with tele lenses.


You still get a 1 stop improvement in light. Also, just because it's a tele, doesn't mean that longer is better.

EG 100/2 Macro-Planar. On APS-C, at 150mm it becomes quite a different lens IMO use-wise. Making it actually 100mm-equiv FOV, and giving me f/1.4-level shutter speeds, makes it more interesting for using indoors w/ people.

Also, if you take the lens and both regular adapters and SB adapters in your bag, you've got two lenses for the weight of one, for the most part. 180/4 and 127/2.8. . .just switch adapters.





I should have been more precise. The link shows some vignetting with a 280 mm lens and severe vignetting with a 560 mm lens.

Above a certain focal length, around 200 mm, it is generally easier to get a lens that is shorter and one stop faster. That is what I had in mind.

The two lenses for the weight of one is a good point. I'll buy that

Anyway, mine shipped today. Estimated arrival in one week.

Brian Caldwell responds to the vignetting issue,

at Nikongear

"To be honest, it never occurred to me that the SB would be used with ultra-long lenses like the 560/5.6 Telyt! Judging from the lens diagram published by Leica, it appears that the exit pupil is a very long way (>>200mm?) from the image plane, and that's the problem here."

Beni wrote:
Something that people are saying is that why not just wait for a FF NEX rumoured for this year? It's a good question however given the pricing of the RX-1 I would assume that the Nex 7N or whatever even with this adaptor will still be significantly cheaper and probably noticeably smaller. What do you guys think?

There's a few other advantages here. The first is that I can retain the reach advantage (ie the higher pixel density) of the APS-C sensor when needed. So I get to have the shallower DoF and better SNR of FF (or at least something approaching it) when using the Speedbooster and can still get the long-lens advantages of APS-C by using native lenses or glass adapted with a regular adapter. With the FF NEX I'm stuck using a lower-MP crop mode if I want the extra reach.

Frankly the Speedbooster has made me re-evaluate my system decisions. Looks like I'll be going EF+NEX rather than Nikon+NEX (basically where I am today) or Alpha+NEX (the other option I was seriously looking at, and one I have part of a system with). That's of course in terms of bodies, lenses are far more a case of buying the lens I want with the EF/NEX pairing than being stuck to a mount (the biggest problem with the other two options, especially the Nikon one).

mortyb wrote:
alundeb wrote:
I don't see the point in using the SB with tele lenses.


+1. IMO the SB presumably shines for lenses up to ~ 50 mm.

I can see uses up to around 135mm, but as a practical matter 85mm would be about the limit for me. In this it's a case of rendering, a fast 85 is generally a much better portrait lens than the APS-C equivalents in the 50-60mm range.

I'd never consider using one for anything longer than 135, and even then the few 135's I'd be considering are slow and specialized (135STF or Soft Focus) and thus less likely to have issues.

IMO, I would only use this adapter for fast -50mm glass, like a 50/1.2 and a 35/1.4, but to each his own.

Don't forget that bringing up the full circle of a FF lens into an APS-C sensor means that the non stellar corners of many SLR wides will enter into the picture. If you add the unavoidable losses produced by the speed booster optics, we have a far from perfect scenario.
So, with long glass vigneting and with most of the shorter wides which won't shine.. Hmm. $600 is quite an investment for me.
Yes, I'm playing the devil's advocate, but old age has taught me to mistrust miracles in optics.

I've spent the morning testing it. Going to take me a while to write the blog post, but the summary is pretty straightforward:

As long as you don't mind giving up a bit of resolution and adding a bit of astigmatism, it does exactly what they say.

Videographers will be thrilled with it. Landscape photographers would not.