FS7: FS7 Lenses
- Thread starter Woolfmusher
- Start date
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I think back in the day FD lenses did 'talk' to cameras like the Canon T90, but probably by the camera moving the physical lever in the back of the lens. I would, however, be very very suprised if FD is controllable in camera.. I think this is a generic description.
FD lenses have a different bayonet to EF lenses and a different flange focal length, they wont work with EF adapters at all. If you want to shoot with FD buy a $30 adapter or two from srb-griturn
S
FD lenses have a different bayonet to EF lenses and a different flange focal length, they wont work with EF adapters at all. If you want to shoot with FD buy a $30 adapter or two from srb-griturn
S
moldcad
Veteran
Sam, I already have even cheaper FD-E adapters on each of my lenses, and use them from time to time; if I asked about the Speed Booster FD-E version is because - if it gives me focal length reduction and +1 stop - I'll keep those lenses as a "nice to have". Otherwise, I'll sell them - as far as focal lengths, I'll be covered by Canon 16-35mm and the kit lens. That's why an authoritative answer on whether they fill fit the Speed Booster FD-E is so important to me; if not I could get some more cash from selling this vintage glass towards the Canon EF 16-35 F4.0/Speed Booster combo...
Piotr
Piotr
Last edited:
jasonbrooks
Well-known member
Have you tried getting an 'authoritative' answer from Metabones? Just a thought...
jason
David Kudell
Active member
Bummer. Well, I'm about to receive my 2nd copy today so we'll see. My issue wasn't just being par focal. It was a flat out back focus issue, where the lens marking says it's focused at 4 feet but it's actually 8 feet.
EDIT: Got the second copy, and it's the same way. It's going back - guess I'm going with a Canon 24-105.
Last edited:
Was the Sigma back focus issue occuring with the lens on a Speedbooster? As you may know, there is a procedure for back focus adjustment with the speedbooster.
Not good news on the parfocal either. I got my rental of the Sigma 24-105 in today so I will see what it does.
Y'all take care,
Robert
David Kudell
Active member
I don't have the speedbooster, just the regular Metabones IV.
Please do let me know if yours behaves the same way as mine. I still haven't decided to keep it or not.
moldcad
Veteran
OK, so I was saving hard enough - already bought the Speedbooster and now am about to pull the trigger on a Canon lens. But I must admit the 16-35 F2.8 version is tempting - to have a wide zoom like this and as fast as F1.4 would be a dream! It doesn't have IS (the F4.0 version does), and reviews say that it's not as sharp in the corners as the 16-35 F4.0L - but my question to those who used/tried/tested both is:
- is the IS at such wide angles important at all in video work, and even if it is - doesn't the double speed of the F2.8 outweigh the corners' lower sharpness compared to that of the F4.0 version?
- I saw in the reviews how slightly softer the 16-35 F2.8 can be in the corners compared to the 16-35 F4.0; but again: these all were super high-res photographic pictures; would such a slight sharpness difference be visible in 4K video application?
Please anyone with some experience with both versions of the 16-35mm Canon lenses chime in and advise; and I'd appreciate a quick advise as I must admit I'm extremely impatient to start using my Speedbooster with one of these lenses. Frankly, I'm going to buy one of them as soon as on this coming Monday; waiting longer could mean my cash could go elsewhere... Plus once more - renting both to test them myself is unfortunately impossible here
so I'd appreciate your advise very, very much indeed 
Piotr
Chadfish
Veteran
I'm stuck between the same 2 lenses. The f2.8 becomes an f/2, which is nice, but it has no IS. Yes IS makes a difference hand held even on wide lenses. The F/4 lens is newer and sharper, but I don't think in use you would notice the edges being a tad less sharp. I'm waiting for the NEW 16-35mm f/2.8 due this year from Canon. Really, the 24-105 is a much more useful range for your main "workhorse" lens. I would get that first, then the 16-35mm later. I bought a Samyang 14mm Cine lens for when I need wide shots, and the 24-105 stays on my camera most of the time. I will get a 16-35mm eventually, but I don't feel I'm missing out not having it at the moment.
This article says the new 16-35 f/2.8 Mk III will be announced this month and hit the stores next month. So if you wait, the Mk II will go down in price soon. http://petapixel.com/2016/05/12/canon-16-35mm-f2-8l-mark-iii-lens-coming-june-report/
This article says the new 16-35 f/2.8 Mk III will be announced this month and hit the stores next month. So if you wait, the Mk II will go down in price soon. http://petapixel.com/2016/05/12/canon-16-35mm-f2-8l-mark-iii-lens-coming-june-report/
moldcad
Veteran
Wow... Now you've nailed me, Chad. It was you who advised on the Speed Booster / 16-35mm F4 combo, wasn't it? As to the 24-105mm, I don't think it's more practical in my situation as I have the longer focal lengths covered with the kit 28-135 lens (which is a quite good piece of glass for the money BTW, so I'm not planning to get rid of it). So let's stick with a super-wide lens to complement it; thanks for the heads-up on the F2.8 Mk III coming out soon - but I don't think I'll be patient enough to wait for it. Firstly because it also can have some shortcomings (no early reviews yet); secondly because it will most probably be pretty expensive at it debute. The only implication of this news being that after it hits the shelves, the Mk II (current) 16-25 F2.8 will become cheaper - but then, as I pointed out and you're confirming - it IS softer than the F4 model, and lacks IS (I still doubt it IS will be so useful at such wide angles as it can be in stills photography, where you can gain 2 stops thanks to the IS - but you claim otherwise)...
So guys - unless more of you advises me to wait for the 16-35mm F2.8 MK III within several hours today, I think I'm gonna pull the trigger on the its F4.0 version today, anyway. One more question though (out of curiosity after what Chadfish said): if Speed Booster indeed is gonna make the F4.0 model as fast as F2.8, why only F2.0 from the F2.8 version? Shouldn't it be at least F1.8?
Piotr
So guys - unless more of you advises me to wait for the 16-35mm F2.8 MK III within several hours today, I think I'm gonna pull the trigger on the its F4.0 version today, anyway. One more question though (out of curiosity after what Chadfish said): if Speed Booster indeed is gonna make the F4.0 model as fast as F2.8, why only F2.0 from the F2.8 version? Shouldn't it be at least F1.8?
Piotr
Clermond
Veteran
the factor of one stop is 1,41 (greek Pi). Photographic basics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Standard_full-stop_f-number_scale
moldcad
Veteran
Oh I see - thanks (I lack photographics background). So it's safe to say that we're facing a case of diminishing return with Speed Booster; the higher native lens speed, the lower advantage of using Speed Booster - am I right?
PS. Was (wrongly) assuming that Speed Booster doubles the len's speed... Again thanks for clarification.
PS. Was (wrongly) assuming that Speed Booster doubles the len's speed... Again thanks for clarification.
Last edited:
Clermond
Veteran
The SB does double the speed. Did you read the info about number scale of f-stop?
1,4 - 2 - 2,8 - 4 - 5,6 .. etc = one stop steps. Filmmaking basics too not limited to (stills) photography.
So both the rental and the one I bought are parfocal. Nicely sharp and fairly distortion free. There is a little barrell distortion at some focal lengths but not too bad. CA appears to be in check. Build quality on both samples I have tried is very good.
I did a live stream with the 24-105 last friday and am pleased with the zoom and focus action. I used a Speedbooster Ultra on the FS7 with a Nikon mount Sigma 24-105 .
As someone mentioned, one must zoom to infinety, focus, and then pull back to test for parfocal correctly.
BTW, pretty much all non Chinese still lenses are pretty sharp these days. I am more interested in lack of vignetting and distortion.
Y'all take care,
Robert