The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Metabones "Speed Booster"

brianc1959

New member
Hi Brian,

Actually, I am interested in all focal lengths. Case in point the 75-150 series e, or the 200mm f4, 105mm f2.5... And then on the shorter end, mostly because of the characteristics of the lenses themselves (28mm f2, 20mm f3.5). The only midrange lens I have interest in is the 50mm f1.4 which gives me a crazy f1.0 (or 1.2 if I use the 50mm f1.8).

A non m4/3 question regarding the speedbooster on Fuji or Sony cameras. Your comments above seems to imply that they will potentially suffer from corner softness more than on m4/3 (assuming because of the different crop factor and the fact that on those systems, the entire image circle of a FF lens is used when a speed booster is attached)? Would this also be true of using a DX lens on m4/3 then (the corner softness)?

Thanks,

Doug
Hi Doug:
I've really enjoyed seeing your images with various Nikkors on the SB.

The SpeedBooster will actually reveal slightly more field of view in a DX lens mounted to m4/3 than when the same lens mounted to a DX camera. In some cases this can cause vignetting, especially in ultrawide lenses that have permanently fixed lens hoods like the Sigma 8-16mm. In other cases the whole image will look great and you just get a little extra FOV as a bonus.

I'm personally very interested in seeing how the new 18-35/1.8 DX lens behaves with a SpeedBooster since the combination will be an amazing 12.5-25mm f/1.2 for m4/3. Another interesting lens I haven't checked out yet is the Sigma 30/1.4 DX, which would become a nice 21mm f1/0.
 

greypilgrim

New member
Hi Doug:
I've really enjoyed seeing your images with various Nikkors on the SB.

The SpeedBooster will actually reveal slightly more field of view in a DX lens mounted to m4/3 than when the same lens mounted to a DX camera. In some cases this can cause vignetting, especially in ultrawide lenses that have permanently fixed lens hoods like the Sigma 8-16mm. In other cases the whole image will look great and you just get a little extra FOV as a bonus.

I'm personally very interested in seeing how the new 18-35/1.8 DX lens behaves with a SpeedBooster since the combination will be an amazing 12.5-25mm f/1.2 for m4/3. Another interesting lens I haven't checked out yet is the Sigma 30/1.4 DX, which would become a nice 21mm f1/0.
Hi Brian,
It's been quite fun shooting with my Nikkors like this, and I have more to come.

The 18-35 with the speedbooster would be crazy. I also have a friend who has the Sigma 24mm f1.8... That could be interesting.

Do you have an idea as to an answer to my question above about Fuji/Nex and sharpness? The reason I am asking is that I am actually considering a fuji just for the purpose of shooting with my nikkors at close to their original FOV using the speed booster, but if they suffer in the corners and edges, it might not be as interesting for me.

I dread saying this, but I am actually considering doing some "lens tests", something I never do... :-o. Just to see how the lenses compare sharpness wise with and without.

Doug
 

brianc1959

New member
Hi, Brian !

I have a nice collection of (partly vintage) Nikkor glass from film time (full frame, thous). I'm using them on an SB, apparently without problem.
Could you tell us which lenses in the Nikkor portfolio show such really long exit pupil distances that they might suffer from softer corner performance on the SB ?

TIA,
Rafael
Hi Rafael:
The problem with long exit pupil distances occurs mainly at small apertures. Because of the way the aberrations balance, the problems can actually be reduced at larger apertures.

I've seen a sample with the 135/2 DC Nikkor over at DPReview that showed a little bit of falloff in the extreme corner. I haven't measured the exit pupil for that lens, but if the patent design I have is accurate then its about 150mm, which is very long. Any of the super teles will also have a long exit pupil distance, but these are rarely used stopped-down to shoot photos that are sharp everywhere.

The more compact lenses generally will work great with the SB because their exit pupil distance falls predictably in the 50-85mm range. Here the SB introduces very little aberration on its own, so the performance you get depends on the quality of the attached lens. For example, the 60mm f/4 UVIR gives really sharp corner-to-corner images wide open with the SB.
 

brianc1959

New member
Hi Brian,
It's been quite fun shooting with my Nikkors like this, and I have more to come.

The 18-35 with the speedbooster would be crazy. I also have a friend who has the Sigma 24mm f1.8... That could be interesting.

Do you have an idea as to an answer to my question above about Fuji/Nex and sharpness? The reason I am asking is that I am actually considering a fuji just for the purpose of shooting with my nikkors at close to their original FOV using the speed booster, but if they suffer in the corners and edges, it might not be as interesting for me.

I dread saying this, but I am actually considering doing some "lens tests", something I never do... :-o. Just to see how the lenses compare sharpness wise with and without.

Doug
Hi Doug:
Vivek Iyer's SpeedBooster thread over in the Sony forum has hundreds of sample images taken with the SB used on various Sony NEX cameras:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/43130-speed-booster-nex.html

The SpeedBooster optics in the Fuji version are identical to those in the NEX version, so these images will be very representative of what you can expect. Many of the samples were taken with classic Nikkors via a Nikon-to-Canon adapter.

In general, the larger format SpeedBooster is a little more sensitive to exit pupil distance than the m4/3 version, but it works great with the classic compact fullframe lenses.
 

greypilgrim

New member
Well, I went ahead and did some tests. Tripod, brick wall, etc (ick).

I tested the following: 300mmf5.6 tamron sp, 200mm f4 ais, 75-150 f3.5 series e, 105 f2.5 ais, 90mm f2.5 macro tamron sp, 50mm f1.4 ai, 35mm f2 ais, 28mm f2 ai, 24mm f2.8 ai.

I also threw in my 45mm f1.8 oly for some comparison.

General notes:

There seems to be a color shift. I will try doing a camera profile as well as a simple color card comparison to see if it is a linear shift or if there are certain colors that get shifted.

I noted in more than one lens a tendency to decrease or remove color fringing (not CA, fringing).

In most lenses, as I stopped the lens down, if there was an improvement, it became more pronounced. This became more noticeable on some lenses out to the corners where stopping down sometimes gave a bigger boost to sharpness for the SB. In some cases where wide open, the SB was softer, stopping down allowed the SB iteration to catch up and/or surpass the lens on its own.

Surprisingly, none of my wider lenses fared as well as I would have expected.

Take all this with a grain of salt :). Sometimes the dog was so thin that it could easily have affected the results.

Also, none of these were a test of lens "character" which ultimately would be most interesting to me...

On to the lenses:

300mm tamron: not a real win here. The corners smeared some and there never was that much improvement.

200mm f4: one of the bigger winners. Sharper across the frame immediately.

75-150mm series e: another of the big winners. Sharper across the frame. Green fringing removed. This was at 150mm. I should have also tested others focal lengths.

105mm f2.5: surprisingly not as good results. There was some fringing removal. The corners smeared noticeably outwards, and although stopping down helpd this, it never went away completely. Stopping down did provide greater center sharpness.

90mm f2.5 tamron macro: another big winner. Sharper across the frame from the start. Some fringing removed. Stopping down helped even more.

50mm f1.4: not really much gain here at all. Stopping down did not seem to get any further.

35mm f2: the worst of the lot. If anything, with the SB, it was softer. Stopping down helped some but never fully. This is one where I question if I failed in the testing some.

28mm f2: wide open, this also seemed there was no improvement or even some loss, but stopping down switched this around a fair bit.

28 mm f2.8: sharper in the center, but softer at the edges. Stopping down definitely helped here.

Doug
 

brianc1959

New member
Well, I went ahead and did some tests. Tripod, brick wall, etc (ick).

I tested the following: 300mmf5.6 tamron sp, 200mm f4 ais, 75-150 f3.5 series e, 105 f2.5 ais, 90mm f2.5 macro tamron sp, 50mm f1.4 ai, 35mm f2 ais, 28mm f2 ai, 24mm f2.8 ai.

I also threw in my 45mm f1.8 oly for some comparison.

General notes:

There seems to be a color shift. I will try doing a camera profile as well as a simple color card comparison to see if it is a linear shift or if there are certain colors that get shifted.

I noted in more than one lens a tendency to decrease or remove color fringing (not CA, fringing).

In most lenses, as I stopped the lens down, if there was an improvement, it became more pronounced. This became more noticeable on some lenses out to the corners where stopping down sometimes gave a bigger boost to sharpness for the SB. In some cases where wide open, the SB was softer, stopping down allowed the SB iteration to catch up and/or surpass the lens on its own.

Surprisingly, none of my wider lenses fared as well as I would have expected.

Take all this with a grain of salt :). Sometimes the dog was so thin that it could easily have affected the results.

Also, none of these were a test of lens "character" which ultimately would be most interesting to me...

On to the lenses:

300mm tamron: not a real win here. The corners smeared some and there never was that much improvement.

200mm f4: one of the bigger winners. Sharper across the frame immediately.

75-150mm series e: another of the big winners. Sharper across the frame. Green fringing removed. This was at 150mm. I should have also tested others focal lengths.

105mm f2.5: surprisingly not as good results. There was some fringing removal. The corners smeared noticeably outwards, and although stopping down helpd this, it never went away completely. Stopping down did provide greater center sharpness.

90mm f2.5 tamron macro: another big winner. Sharper across the frame from the start. Some fringing removed. Stopping down helped even more.

50mm f1.4: not really much gain here at all. Stopping down did not seem to get any further.

35mm f2: the worst of the lot. If anything, with the SB, it was softer. Stopping down helped some but never fully. This is one where I question if I failed in the testing some.

28mm f2: wide open, this also seemed there was no improvement or even some loss, but stopping down switched this around a fair bit.

28 mm f2.8: sharper in the center, but softer at the edges. Stopping down definitely helped here.

Doug
Assuming you didn't move the iris diaphragm before and after attaching the SB, then its worth remembering that you are comparing images with a full stop of f/# difference (e.g. f/1.4 vs. f/1.0).

Also, with something like the 50/1.4 the real gain aside from an MTF boost near the center of the image is that you now have a very compact 35mm f/1.0 lens for your m4/3 camera, which otherwise doesn't exist. The 28/2 becomes a similarly unobtainable 20mm f/1.4, and so on.

So, for instance, it might be interesting to compare your 35/2 (sans SB) with your new 35mm f/1.0 lens at identical f/#'s when used on a m4/3 camera.
 

f6cvalkyrie

Well-known member
Totally agree with you, Brian !

For me, the interest of the SB is to bring in reach (financially, I have to admit, or at all) combinations that would have otherwise been unreachable.

I'm talking about the 200/f2.0, the 35/f1.0, the 60/f1.0 and so on ...

Absolute image quality, a bit less contrast, some loss of sharpness in the corners, ... do not bother me all that much. Very often not a thing that cannot be corrected in PP, I found so far ...

Even cheap lenses like the 75-150 Series E become suddenly lenses otherwise not available to micro4/3 : 50-105/2.5 is a lovely fast zoom that many µ4/3 shooters are longing for !

And my 80-200/2.8 turned into 55-140/f2.0 Where do you find that ???

Congrats, your SB makes my Nikkor collection twice as valuable on my E-M5
!

CU,
Rafael
 

greypilgrim

New member
Interesting, thanks. In short, do you find it worth purchasing?

BTW, you should feed the dog.
Oh, yes, absolutely, I think it is a worthwhile purchase. A fine piece of workmanship that opens up some interesting possibilities.

Doug
 

greypilgrim

New member
Assuming you didn't move the iris diaphragm before and after attaching the SB, then its worth remembering that you are comparing images with a full stop of f/# difference (e.g. f/1.4 vs. f/1.0).

Also, with something like the 50/1.4 the real gain aside from an MTF boost near the center of the image is that you now have a very compact 35mm f/1.0 lens for your m4/3 camera, which otherwise doesn't exist. The 28/2 becomes a similarly unobtainable 20mm f/1.4, and so on.

So, for instance, it might be interesting to compare your 35/2 (sans SB) with your new 35mm f/1.0 lens at identical f/#'s when used on a m4/3 camera.
Brian,
Absolutely some good ideas. And I totally agree about one of the values here which is getting unobtainable combinations. The ability to take a raft of lenses and convert them all to something new and in most cases more interesting is a main draw of the SB.

Also of interest is what the character of the shots will be... Especially wide open. No amount of silly tests will show that, only real world attempts.

My purpose of doing this was to attempt together an idea as to how sharpness was affected as that is another draw of the SB. Now for instance, I know that not only do I have an unobtainable 50-105f2.5 and 140 f2.8, but they perform better in terms of sharpness.

Other lenses like the 28f2 that becomes a 20f1.4, I have to see how the real world treats it, and how does it compare to my 20f1.7. The 50mm f1.4 becoming an f1.0 lens is crazy fun although the 2x crop makes its effective fov a little less interesting for me.

Frankly, I find these sorts of tests only so useful, but they did point out some interesting things to me (the reduce in fringing, the color shift, a perceived increase of contrast, the smearing of the edges on some lenses).

Doug
 

greypilgrim

New member
Totally agree with you, Brian !

For me, the interest of the SB is to bring in reach (financially, I have to admit, or at all) combinations that would have otherwise been unreachable.

I'm talking about the 200/f2.0, the 35/f1.0, the 60/f1.0 and so on ...

Absolute image quality, a bit less contrast, some loss of sharpness in the corners, ... do not bother me all that much. Very often not a thing that cannot be corrected in PP, I found so far ...

Even cheap lenses like the 75-150 Series E become suddenly lenses otherwise not available to micro4/3 : 50-105/2.5 is a lovely fast zoom that many µ4/3 shooters are longing for !

And my 80-200/2.8 turned into 55-140/f2.0 Where do you find that ???

Congrats, your SB makes my Nikkor collection twice as valuable on my E-M5
!

CU,
Rafael

Hi Rafael,
Just to make sure, we are in violent agreement :D.

The SB is a fine piece of work that give me some very interesting possibilities. My post was not an attack on the SB, the test was (as I tried to express) something I only find somewhat useful and have actually never had much interest in doing before...

Perhaps most intriguing to me is not only is that 75-150 now something I cannot get elsewhere with interesting character, but it is ALSO as sharp or sharper than anything I have in that range.

But, lens character matters more to me... How does it render the image? What can I do with it. Not some ultimately meaningless brick wall shots.

That said, if I am shooting a lens that I now knows smears in the corners, it wouldn't make sense to put something I want to highlight in the corner. ;)

Doug
 

brianc1959

New member
Hi Rafael,
Just to make sure, we are in violent agreement :D.

The SB is a fine piece of work that give me some very interesting possibilities. My post was not an attack on the SB, the test was (as I tried to express) something I only find somewhat useful and have actually never had much interest in doing before...

Perhaps most intriguing to me is not only is that 75-150 now something I cannot get elsewhere with interesting character, but it is ALSO as sharp or sharper than anything I have in that range.

But, lens character matters more to me... How does it render the image? What can I do with it. Not some ultimately meaningless brick wall shots.

That said, if I am shooting a lens that I now knows smears in the corners, it wouldn't make sense to put something I want to highlight in the corner. ;)

Doug
I'm an amateur mason trying to restore several old brick buildings, so I personally really like pictures of brick walls!:)

FWIW, here are some test shots on an Olympus OMD with a 50/1.2 Nikkor + SB. The firsts three are wide open (35mm f/0.90), and the second three are stopped down to 35mm f/2.0 (50mm f/2.8 on the lens)
 

greypilgrim

New member
Some shots from this weekend

First up, more with the 75-150 series E. This is clearly going to be a keeper combination. The first is a bit large as it is a 100% crop for people to peek.

Doug



The rest are at either 75 or 150, treated as two separate primes:



















This one had really weird lighting happen for a few short moments:



 
Last edited:

greypilgrim

New member
Last set from this weekend

These are from a strange combination indeed. The 200mm f4 with a macro tele extender on it.

Doug











 

greypilgrim

New member
Tamron 90f2.5 shots

Some from the Academy of Sciences today. These were all shot with a MF Tamron 90mm f2.5 SP (Adaptall).

Doug







 

greypilgrim

New member
50mm f1/4 Nikkor shots

Some from the Monterey Bay Aquarium today. Three of these were shot wide open, ISO 1600. I couldn't have caught them before. The extra light made the difference.

Oddly with this setup, I am shooting at a 35mm equivalent focal length of 70 mm which is a focal length I typically find awkward and almost never use.

Doug









 
Top