Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2019 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?

  
 
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Has anyone bought, tried, or considered this new item? It turns a 50mm F1.4 on a Canon M into the FF equivalent of a 57mm F1.0. Unlike the other Metabones Speedboosters, it does not have to translate Canon electronics into Sony or Fuji or Olympus, so--in theory at least--IS, AF and exif should not be a thing that becomes iffy. According to Metabones, it does report the adjusted exif except for lenses that will be faster than F1.0, in which case it does the adjustment but reports the original in order to not be a problem with some Canon bodies that can't deal with F0.9.

For someone like me with an M50 and a bag full of EF lenses including some fast primes and F2.8 zooms, this $479 could just upgrade a bunch of lenses. That includes the 50/F1.2 to a 57mm F0.9. Now that's what I call a low light lens. Not to mention the 300 F2.8 to perform like a 340mm F2 or the 500 F4 working like a 570mm F2.8?

Just announced in May, so far it's impossible to find a review or test report. Anyone here?



Jun 12, 2019 at 03:47 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Options for other brands exist- and none are cheap.

I've thought about them, but I have a hard time with the price- I also don't have f/2.8 zooms or professional primes personally preferring to rent glass when needed instead.

So the appeal is there if you have the glass, but at the same time, it's a hard sell relative to just using a larger camera.



Jun 12, 2019 at 07:39 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


I paid 150 for the viltrox, and it works very well.


Jun 12, 2019 at 11:13 PM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Thanks guys. I was just hoping someone had bought the new Metabones. John, I don't care about a larger camera. Most of the time, my M50 with Tamron 16-300 is all I need. Sometimes the Sigma 8-16 when very wide is the goal. However, over the last 15 years my wife has acquired a lot of stuff and currently uses a 5DSR. Our trips and day outings wouldn't lend themselves to renting lenses, so she buys what she needs. Also with Canon QC, it is essential to use Microadjust to calibrate the autofocus, if that is critical--and we've got a couple of Canon lenses that would be a problem without microadjust. (Yes, we've sent them to Canon in California to fix...waste of time and shipping.) On occasion, I've bought for her a lens or other equipment she wanted. It's her hobby, and with kids long grown up and gone, we can afford it. And she never complains when a box of 1,000 rounds of 9mm ammo shows up on the front porch. :-)

As you probably know, there are no really good, fast lenses in the EFS mount, and hardly any lenses at all in the EFM mount. Prior to the M50, I used a Canon SL1, aka baby Rebel. I moved to the M50 largely to be able to shoot video more easily and with the eye level viewfinder. The 15-45 kit lens is all I have in the M mount, so the Canon EF to M adapter is on the camera pretty much all the time. I can use the full frame EF lenses and do when needed, and often it is for the large aperture, which comes with the necessity of using 1.6 times the focal length field of view. Plus, the novelty of having effectively a 57mm F:0.85 lens is a great fun idea. But again...most of the time my compact M50 and Tamron 16-300 are all I need.

The Viltrox is a little softer than I'd like, at least from the samples I've seen, which is why I was hoping to see some Metabones pix before I buy. I've seen some from the EF to M43 Speedbooster and was encouraged. If the image quality is as good as those, I have no problem with the $479 price tag.

Anyway thanks again guys. I'll have to either wait or take my chances now. Hmmm.



Jun 13, 2019 at 06:50 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


I haven't seen a softness with the Viltrox, but maybe I am not picky. Taken with the M50 and an old Sigma 50 1.4 and Canon 100L.

https://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/i-z54sHj3/X5
https://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/i-CLTLb3b/X5

Buy it from B&H and if you don't like it, utilize their return policy.



Jun 13, 2019 at 07:26 AM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


TeamSpeed wrote:
I haven't seen a softness with the Viltrox, but maybe I am not picky. Taken with the M50 and an old Sigma 50 1.4 and Canon 100L.

https://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/i-z54sHj3/X5
https://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Miscellaneous-Items/i-CLTLb3b/X5

Buy it from B&H and if you don't like it, utilize their return policy.


Those look pretty good. Nice kitty. Clearly, if I'm happy with a Tamron 16-300, I must not be too picky either. The pictures from the 16-300 with the M50 (after Tamron updated the firmware) are noticeably better than with the SL1. That may be because the 16-300 was back or front focusing and the SL1 doesn't have AF microadjust...and the mirrorless M50 doesn't need microadjust. Or maybe the firmware update also fixed a stabilization issue I didn't know about.

Good point about B&H returns policy. I guess I should order quickly, so I don't risk getting someone else's return, eh? Thanks again.
Bill



Jun 13, 2019 at 08:08 AM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Just announced on DPReview: MS Optics 50mm F1.0 for Leica. $1,700. From my wife's camera bag, a few of the lenses I'll have available if the Metabones Speedbooster IQ is OK:

16mm F2.0 (formerly 14mm F2.8)
40mm F1.4 (formerly 35mm F2--the old one with the buzzy AF)
57mm F1.0 (former 50/1.4)
57mm F0.85 (former 50/1.2)
96mm F1.2 (former 85/1.8)

And here's a novelty lens based on the venerable EF 28-135 F3.5-F5.6 IS:
32-153mm F2.5-F4 IS...now there's an interesting lens. Fairly compact, light weight, and now surprisingly fast. I'm really looking forward to trying this lens, which currently just collects dust. It could be an OK walkaround lens.

Others that could be transformed with a one-stop faster max aperture: 24-70/F2.8, 24-105/F4, 70-200/F2.8, 100/F2.8 macro, 100-400/F4.5-5.6, 300/F2.8, 500/F4 (as a 568mm/F2.8 or with the 1.4 extender as a 795mm/F4...and dare I say it...500/F4 with the Speedbooster and 2x extender= 1136mm/F5.6).

Of course, if we had to buy these lenses, the economics collapse violently. However, we own them already, having acquired stuff over about 15 years, so all I have to spend today is $479.



Jun 13, 2019 at 09:14 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


burychka wrote:
Just announced on DPReview: MS Optics 50mm F1.0 for Leica. $1,700. From my wife's camera bag, a few of the lenses I'll have available if the Metabones Speedbooster IQ is OK:

16mm F2.0 (formerly 14mm F2.8)
40mm F1.4 (formerly 35mm F2--the old one with the buzzy AF)
57mm F1.0 (former 50/1.4)
57mm F0.85 (former 50/1.2)
96mm F1.2 (former 85/1.8)

And here's a novelty lens based on the venerable EF 28-135 F3.5-F5.6 IS:
32-153mm F2.5-F4 IS...now there's an interesting lens. Fairly compact, light weight, and now surprisingly fast. I'm really looking forward to trying this lens, which currently just collects dust. It could be an OK walkaround lens.

Others
...Show more

Metabones Speedbooster decreases focal length, it doesn't increase it. So all your calculations are wrong in terms of the adjusted focal length



Jun 14, 2019 at 03:53 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


No the calculations are correct.

For example, the equivalent FL of an 85mm on an M series camera is 85 x .71 x 1.6 = 96mm.

In an approximate description, an APSC no longer has a 1.6 crop factor, it has a 1.1x crop factor.



Jun 14, 2019 at 05:41 AM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


D.Hussey wrote:
Metabones Speedbooster decreases focal length, it doesn't increase it. So all your calculations are wrong in terms of the adjusted focal length

You're right about the .71 factor decreasing effective focal length, but then the small Canon sensor size crop factor increases it by 1.6 times. So we have .71 X 1.6 = 1.136 as the combined crop factor/effective FL change. Side note. The same optics are apparently used in other APS-C adapters, which are typically 1.5 crop factors, so those come closer to "breakeven". .71x1.5=1.065.

Worthy of note. The smaller Canon sensor provides one potential benefit in that its corners are a bit inside the image circle projected by the lens. In theory that should reduce issues of vignetting and also softness in the corners, both of which are likely exacerbated by the Speedbooster optics.



Jun 14, 2019 at 07:10 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Correct, the speedbooster does indeed as a bit of vignette and corners aren't very sharp. It is great for portraits, but I doubt landscape shooters are going to like the booster effects.


Jun 14, 2019 at 09:51 AM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Fingers crossed that the Metabones Speedbooster will have at least slightly better optics than the Viltrox...since I'm paying three times as much for it!


Jun 14, 2019 at 11:21 AM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Metabones Speedbooster EF to EFM has arrived. Quick and dirty tests. I've not compared these lenses on a full frame body yet, but I do have some recollection of their strengths and weaknesses. As to the adapter: Came in a box from B&H with only one deflated air pillow and so was left to bounce around in the box. Fortunately it has its own protective plastic box as well and was undamaged. No manual provided, so I am at a loss as to the purpose of a small button to the left of the top. I can't detect any change when I press it. Have sent inquiry to metabones tech support. It is heavy and feels substantial. Lenses are a tight fit.

All the lenses I've tested had AF lock just as quickly as if the Speedbooster were not there. No focus issues at all on newer or older lenses.

Except for the 50/1.2 all show the modified F stops in the M50 viewfinder. That is, the 50/1.4 when wide open, reports F 1.0 in the viewfinder and in Adobe Bridge. Lens focal length and identification show differently for primes and zooms. Focal length used is reported as the actual focal length times .71 for all lenses, so the 50 shows as 35, the 24-105 zoomed wide shows as 17mm. As to lens I.D., primes show the original focal length, so the 50 shows as 50. Zooms otoh show as I.D. the zoom range modified by the .71 factor, so that 24-105 is identified as a 17-74.

I did quick tests with the camera on a tripod pointed at the brick wall in back of my house. I use that for tests because it is easy to see sharpness differences, distortion, and vignetting. I have an outdoor clock that I include to see detail and CA. Overall, all the lenses I tested were sharp in the center and softer in the corners, however not much, and I could almost say the lenses performed about like they do on a ff camera. In each case, if I stopped down to the native max aperture, I would have to say they were very close to the original FF performance.

Adobe RAW. I routinely use the lens corrections tool in Adobe RAW (CC). With the Speedbooster, the program did not auto detect the lens as it normally would. However, if I selected the lens from the drop down, the corrections--distortion, vignetting, and CA--were as they should be. With the 50/1.2, the 50/1.4, and the 28-135, a bit of manual purple fringing correction was needed. For the other lenses Adobe's built in corrections were all I needed, except for the ancient 35/2, which I guess is missing from Adobe's database. Interestingly, that lens had almost no distortion, vignetting, or CA even wide open at the Speedbooster F1.4.

Here are the lenses I've tested so far. I don't have an online site to upload, or I'd be glad to do that. For each lens, I tested it wide open, then stopped down 1, 2, and 3 full stops. I've not fully tested, but I did try a couple of wide open shots of a foreground object, and the background bokeh looked really good with both 50's, the 85, the 28-135, and the 35/2.

50/1.4 boosted to 1.0

50/1.2 boosted to 0.85

28-135 boosted to F2.5 - 4. This old lens was a pleasant surprise. The old rubber focus ring is sticky, though. Bridge sees it as a 20-95mm zoom. Effectively 32-152 F2.5-4. Interesting.

24-105 boosted to F2.8. Nothing short of spectacular. Pretty sharp in the corners, Adobe RAW fixed 100% of distortion, vignetting, and CA. Reports to Adobe as a 17-74 (times 1.6 makes it effectively a 27-118/F2.8. Now that 's a walking around lens. Imagine the size and weight of a 27-118/2.8 as an actual full frame lens.)

85/1.8 boosted to 1.2 Effectively a 96/1.2 with nice bokeh.

35/2 boosted to 1.4. Effectively a 40mm F1.4. Odd duck, eh? This was always an underrated lens with noisy AF (fast but sounds like a wasp in a matchbox!)

70-200/2.8 boosted to F2.0 with fast AF. This is an action lens, even though the M50 is marginal as an action camera. Basketball, soccer? Serious vignetting, but the Adobe RAW slider all the way over fixes it. Effectively an 80-227 F2.0 in full frame vernacular.

Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3 boosted to F3.5-4.5. FF equivalent 170-680. Everything works but this lens on a crop sensor is worth more as a 240-960 FF equivalent zoom without the extra stop of light, I think.

All in all, I think this works about as well as I had hoped. More testing is necessary, but the mid range of focal lengths, from say 24-200 are probably where I'll find the most utility in the extra stop of light. The 50/1.4 is one to look at. A FF equivalent of 57mm F1.0 makes that lens (that almost everyone owns already) a low light wonder. The 70-200/2.8 is similarly transformed, and I'll bet the value would be even more appreciated by someone with a 70-200/F4.

I haven't tried the 100-400, 300/2.8, the 24-70/2.8, 500/f4 but I will. I'm happy with this purchase, as it brings new capability to some old lenses and new ones too.



Jun 14, 2019 at 06:24 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


Your findings mirror my own from the viltrox when I first received it and tested it. My only gripe is that the booster drains the battery if left on the camera, even with camera off.


Jun 14, 2019 at 08:16 PM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


TeamSpeed wrote:
Your findings mirror my own from the viltrox when I first received it and tested it. My only gripe is that the booster drains the battery if left on the camera, even with camera off.


The Metabones has a teeny tiny LED that blinks when the camera is turned on. I'll have to monitor battery life. Thanks.
Bill



Jun 14, 2019 at 08:23 PM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


burychka wrote:
You're right about the .71 factor decreasing effective focal length, but then the small Canon sensor size crop factor increases it by 1.6 times. So we have .71 X 1.6 = 1.136 as the combined crop factor/effective FL change. Side note. The same optics are apparently used in other APS-C adapters, which are typically 1.5 crop factors, so those come closer to "breakeven". .71x1.5=1.065.

Worthy of note. The smaller Canon sensor provides one potential benefit in that its corners are a bit inside the image circle projected by the lens. In theory that should reduce issues of vignetting and also softness
...Show more

Ah, I didn't realize you were calculating with the crop factor included. Thanks for clarifying



Jun 14, 2019 at 09:58 PM
burychka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


D.Hussey wrote:
Ah, I didn't realize you were calculating with the crop factor included. Thanks for clarifying


The sensor size in digital cameras has been causing confusion since the first Canon 10D and Nikon D70. Focal length multiplier, crop factor...it took several years for a standard term for that factor to settle out and even now it causes confusion among the non-technically minded. Personally, I appreciate it when something I say gets challenged. Makes me rethink what I've said--and often corrects my faulty thinking.

I just did a comparison test of the 50/1.4 on the M50 + Speedbooster vs the 50/1.4 on a Canon 5D Mk2. Similar sensor size--24mp vs 21mp. Effective 57mm vs 50mm, so a slightly different field of view. I was shooting a fairly bright scene, so I put a polarizer on the lens so to no exceed the shutter speed capabilities of the M50 at F1.0 or the 5D2 at F1.4.

I shot both as JPEG and opened in Adobe Camera Raw just to check the lens corrections. As I had seen already, the 5D2 picture was instantly detected as Canon 50/1.4 and applied its automatic corrections for distortion, vignetting (none needed), and CA. The M50+Speedbooster version was not auto detected, although, when I selected Canon as lens type, 50/1.4 came up. As with the 5D2 version, slight barrel distortion correction, no vignetting to fix, and both blue and purple fringing went away.

First thing I confirmed: The speedbooster does gain a full F-stop of light. Shooting aperture priority, my shutter speed on the M50 at F1.0 was 1/2000; on the 5D2 at F1.4 was 1/1000. The scene I shot had the bright 2nd story and bricks of the neighbor's house, a flowering Esperanza plant, two small Holly trees, a weathered wood fence, and a small stone wall.

Image quality. I have no complaint. At F1.0 on the M50 and F1.4 on the 5D2, the M50 was slightly contrastier, with the histogram skewed slightly to the right compared to the 5D2 image, but neither histogram bumped either the left or right ends. No lost shadow detail; no blown highlights. The M50 picture just looked snappier, brighter, fresher. However the difference could have been differences in JPEG settings in the two cameras. I pretty much use RAW all the time, so I didn't think to check. Now I see the M50 Picture Style was set to Standard; the 5D2 to Neutral. Overall brightness and contrast, I have to say the Speedbooster has no negative effect.

Vignetting. This lens has none on either the 5D2 or M50+Speedbooster.

Distortion. Slight barrel distortion was evident on both cameras. Fixed by Adobe Camera Raw Lens Corrections.

Chromatic Aberration. Almost none on the 5D2. Small amount of both light blue and purple fringing on the M50 fixed automatically by the ACR profile for that lens.

Sharpness. The M50 was clearly sharper, not just appearing sharper due to improved contrast. I think that lens may be front focusing on the 5D2. I checked my Microadjust settings for that lens on the 5D2, and it is set to zero on both the 5D2 and the 5DSR. My calibration efforts with that lens may be at fault here. Of course, the mirrorless M50 does not require AF microadjust, due to focus happening at the sensor. At 100% view, I can move to a portion of the image near the center that is sharpest on both, and the M50+Speedbooster looks really good...really good. Moving to the edges where the 5D2 is still sharp, the 50/1.4 exhibits a bit of coma--that is sort of glowing edges. In the M50+Speedbooster version, that effect is considerably reduced, but I don't know why. Maybe the ACR Lens Correction sees that as CA and fixes it? The M50+Speedbooster does lost some sharpness in the corners--indeed, the extreme left and right are softer.

As a control, I decided to test a similar focal length with a good known lens--the Canon 24-105 F4L and the Speedbooster on the M50 (at 50mm and boosted F2.8). Better in every respect, but it did still lose some sharpness on the sides and corners, even though it looked better in every way than the low priced Canon 50/1.4. I then did the same with my old 28-135 (at 50 and boosted F2.5.) I also took the same shot with the M50 and Tamron 16-300 at 35mm (wide open F4.5) for about the same field of view. Guess what? The Tamron was sharper than any of the pictures taken with the Speedbooster. The surprise was the 28-135 at F2.5 as a close second, followed by the 24-105 boosted to 2.8 and the 50 at F1.0 close behind that one.

I haven't tried full blown edit of a landscape, cityscape, or architectural photo and printing it. Just pixel peeping a few test pictures. My initial conclusion, though, is that, while the Speedbooster takes a toll in edge and corner sharpness and CA, it really is a viable way to get a really fast lens out of a fast one, while regaining the original intended field of view. The 28-135 was a pleasant surprise. Made me wonder what would happen with a 17-40 F4 or that massive Canon 28-300 F3.5-5.6. There are plenty of times when one stop is the difference between 1/30th and 1/15th of a second shutter. I still need to comparison test the massively front focusing 50/1.2 (it takes -12 micro adjust on both the 5D2 and the 5DSR). When I do that, I'll post here.



Jun 15, 2019 at 02:51 PM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


My Sigma 150-600 gives me a 680mm at f4.5 equivalency, which is nice.


Jun 15, 2019 at 08:17 PM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


burychka wrote:
The sensor size in digital cameras has been causing confusion since the first Canon 10D and Nikon D70. Focal length multiplier, crop factor...it took several years for a standard term for that factor to settle out and even now it causes confusion among the non-technically minded. Personally, I appreciate it when something I say gets challenged. Makes me rethink what I've said--and often corrects my faulty thinking.

I just did a comparison test of the 50/1.4 on the M50 + Speedbooster vs the 50/1.4 on a Canon 5D Mk2. Similar sensor size--24mp vs 21mp. Effective 57mm vs 50mm, so a slightly
...Show more

Awesome report!



Jun 16, 2019 at 01:57 AM
TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Metabones Speedbooster for EF to EFM?


I pulled out the viltrox to play a bit yesterday. The boosters really do create a FF look to images, and quite frankly the M50 with speedbooster eliminates almost all desire to try the RP or R, which is good, because I don't want to spend any more on camera gear for a while.

It works well with the 24-70 2.8.






Jun 16, 2019 at 06:50 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.