FS7 with Metabones

D

Dreadlington

Member
I've decided to buy an FS7 with a Canon 24-70 but I really can't decide whether I should go for the normal Metabones or the speedbooster to get a wider image. I have a 70-200 f/4 already and the extra wide focal length that a speedbooster would give the 24-70 would be quite handy. Is it better to go for the speedbooster or the normal one? Should I consider the 24-105 f/4 with the speedbooster instead?

Any suggestions or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I shoot mainly corporate videos, interviews etc.

Thanks.
 
I would say you need both.

I mainly use the Speed Booster with the 24-105 f4 which then becomes a 17-75 f2.8 which is a very useful range. I use this for run and gun, doc, reality type stuff.

But for anything on set and and with a crew, I usually just use the regular Metabones because most crew understand Super 35mm better than Full Frame and mainly because I like a compressed, longer focal length look. But you might like things wider. Personal preference.
 
I will put a speedbooster on the front and just treat it as a full frame 35mm-vista-vision camera. The image aesthetic of full frame (ability to get shallower dof) with the increased stop in lowlight performance and 1.5x wider fov on my widest lens are way more important to me than adding 1.5x to my longest lens. But of course different people have different needs.

Remember that a 24-70mm f/2.8 on full frame is a very special look. With a SB, this lens becomes a 17-50mm f/1.8 s35 lens, which nobody else makes. A cheap 50mm 1.4 fullframe lens becomes a 35mm 0.95 s35 lens, again a very special look (even more with the 50mm f1.2)
 
MY suggestion:

When you have the FS7 (this will take some time, unless you have already preordered) and the lens,
go to your local dealer and try it out.

There can't be any general recommendation. It depends on your personal style and needs.

For me, personally, the speedbooster was just an amazing piece of kit. I worked weeks with it without
ever removing it and the Canon 28-70/2,8II (amazingly sharp) and the 70-200/2,8.
But most of the time I put the EF 24-105 on it. The range is very useful for R+G, but the lens has some
distortion at the wide end, looses 2/3 of a stop towards the tele end + flares easily.
As I don't own any of this lenses yet (always borrowed) I tend to buy the Sigma 24-105/4,0 as it has a
constant t-stop and is better build...

One very much underrated lens is the Canon 17-55/2,8. It's sharper and better than the 24-105 and just a tad
inferiour to the new 24-70 II. But it's very lightweight and also cheap.

In the long run, you'll want both adapters..
 
Last edited:
I had a play with a 24-70 on a c300 today and I *think* I'm going to go for the normal metabones. The extra focal length is too valuable for running and gunning and I think the 50mm long end equivalent on the SB isn't quite long enough for me. I'll buy a Tokina 11-16 in the future and that'll solve my needs for a wide angle. I'm still open to any more thoughts though...
 
On a C300 my two most used lenses are 70-200 f/2.8 IS and Tokina 11-16mm. That said, I plan on getting both adapters as well as some E mount primes.
 
The 2 lens solution might be the best (11-16 + 24-70).

But for me lens change means time passes without being able to record...

For me I'd either take the 17-55/2,8 on a smart adapter or the 24-105/4 on a speedbooster.
Both are fine for me, the 17-55 being the lighter and better optics solution, the 24-105 + SB
being the solution for better focal length (on each end!).
I very much like the controls of the 17-55, too. The focus ring is closer to the camera, than the zoom
ring and thats nice on my FS100. With the FS7 it doesn't matter anymore - iris control is on my right
indexfinger in the handgrip...
 
I don't think that we need this.
It's meant for really HiRes things such as 36MPix stills photography.

The "old" speedbooster is good enough, if the lens in front is good.
 
I already own a Tamron 17-50, how much difference would there be in terms of image quality compared to the 24-70 on a non speedbooster metabones? It's only resolving a 2mp image in 1080p, it's only using the centre of the lens because of the S35 sensor, so really is there much difference? I think there's such a snobbery with a lot of camera operators over certain lenses and I think a lot of it is unjustified. Am I wrong?
 
Well not snobbery it's just all about your personal acceptable standards for quality. The difference between lenses is not as signifacnt in 1080p video as it is in 36mp stills, but there is a difference. Different lenses affect the sharpness of your video even at 2 megapixels. Every stills lens ever made resolves much more than 2 megapixels, even the softest most horrible ones, but that does not mean a tack-sharp lens (Canon 24-70/70-200 2.8/otus/sigma 50 etc) would produce the same image because only 2 megapixels are needed. Sharper lenses translate directly into sharper video.
 
Erik Wittbusch said:
I tend to buy the Sigma 24-105/4,0 as it has a
constant t-stop and is better build...
Click to expand...

Eeik,
I'm wondering about the Sigma instead of the Canon 24-105.. Any more detail about why you prefer the Sigma?
I just worked with Canon today and hated the way the lens darkens at telephoto end.
 
The Sigma doesn't loose it's constant t-stop when zoomed in, its not going soft at
the long end and the IS is at least as good or better. It also doen't flare that easily.
Where it's a little bit inferiour is at chromatic aberations and it's heavier too.
The focus and zoom ring have different positions - the focus ring comes just after
the mount. The front diameter is bigger (82 vs. 77mm).

You should really see both to decide.
 
Thanks for the reply Ebrahim. I agree some lenses are noticeably sharper than others even when shooting video, but specifically the Tamron 17-50 vs the Canon 24-70, is there really much difference?
 
Thanks Eric,
Not changing aperture is a big deal. I just worked with the Canon on a 5D Mk II . It could only change the aperture in 1/3 stops, so i just couldn't zoom in without ruining the shot.
Hard for any kind of doc shooting.
If the chromatic aberration isn't bad its a decent trade off for sharpness and and better flare handling. I have the Sigma 50-150 which is a wonderful lens.
Same reversed zoom and focus rings though and that does screw me up on constantly. I need to put a gear ring on the focus for a tactile clue.

Here's a question :
Can you change the iris in 1/6 stop increments or are you limited to 1/3.
Is that a function of the camera or the lens?

i've been using Nikon for years on my F3 and even on canon DSLR's where I can get continuopus iris changes - but plan to go to Canon for speed booster now.
 
Last edited:
Continious iris changes on Nikon lenses?
How do you do that, declicked?

Most of my Canon lenses show 1/3 stop changes with the speedbooster in the display
but have at least two steps more, which is approx. 1/6 stop steps.
Nevertheless I never use continous auto-iris, but one push auto iris on the handgrip.
The steps are still visible.
The Sony lenses are better here. Steps are still visible if you really search for them,
but they are at least so small, that you normaly won't recognize. But the Sony lenses
have the problem of non-repeatable focus which is a much weaker point, than the iris.

I put a variable ND in front if I need to adjust exposure constantly. For example when
I do longer interviews without artificial light. If the sun comes out, I adjust the VND
during recording, but it's not as it should be. Your fingers will be seen, if you're not
careful and the use of sunshades isn't possible anymore...

This is what my setup looked like before I added the DP4 (lovely DIY adjustable sunshade):

2014-06-24_14-43-51_115.jpg

We did a two week documentary shooting and I used 100% speedbooster and 99% the 24-105...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top