Metabones Speed Booster

XSVpro said:
Dude calm down, wouldn't we talk in Full Frame field of view seeing as we are adapting Full Frame lenses to S35 here and the point of the adapter is increasing the speed and field of view to have the Full Frame lens behave like a full frame lens when attached to an S35 camera?

e.g, my 70-200mm full frame Nikon lens gives me a field of view of 105-300mm on my S35 camera but with the speedbooster i get a nigh on true 70-200mm Full Frame field of view, the speed is increased and god darn does it look pretty much the same as when its attached to my Nikon D800.

That sound about right?
Click to expand...

+1
 
XSVpro said:
Dude calm down, wouldn't we talk in Full Frame field of view seeing as we are adapting Full Frame lenses to S35 here and the point of the adapter is increasing the speed and field of view to have the Full Frame lens behave like a full frame lens when attached to an S35 camera?

e.g, my 70-200mm full frame Nikon lens gives me a field of view of 105-300mm on my S35 camera but with the speedbooster i get a nigh on true 70-200mm Full Frame field of view, the speed is increased and god darn does it look pretty much the same as when its attached to my Nikon D800.

That sound about right?
Click to expand...

No, because that statement makes it sound like you are putting a 105-300 lens on your s35, but if you did that you'd find it is not the same as your 70-200 at all. You have to mention in the same clause that a focal length is an equivalent and not a real focal length. Or if you talk about fov, you have to explicitly say equivalent to fov of what focal length on what format in the same clause.
 
John Foundas said:
Originally Posted by alaskacameradude
You are NOT going to
get a 105-300mm Super 35 FOV out of a 70-200 lens! That is the exact OPPOSITE of what the speed booster does!


Ummm, That is exactly what you get when mounting a 70-200 lens on a S35 sensor with the original EF-E mount.
Click to expand...

Statements like this are false. You will not be getting a 105-300mm Super 35 FOV out
of a 70-200mm lens with the speed booster. You will be getting the opposite, a wider field of view....somewhere around 49-140mm.
 
I hate to be a negative Nellie at this love fest but....
If I put a FF50mm on my fs100 (without his adapter) aren't I using the "sweet spot" on the lens?
If I use the focal reducer, Aren't I just introducing the weird parts of the lens into the picture?
Since it's got glass in it, isn't that potentially just adding the possibility of more IQ problems?
Field of View, Smield of view.....If I want a full frame 50mm field of view on my fs100, can't I just put on my awesome rok 35?

Ok, it gives you up to 1 more stop on the glass. with the exception of the kit lens, most of my glass is 1.2 1.4 2.0 hell, even my zoom is 2.8
Do I really need to shoot at .95 ? I'd like to have BOTH the subjects eyes in focus


OK kill me now....
 
Chris Johnston said:
I hate to be a negative Nellie at this love fest but....
If I put a FF50mm on my fs100 (without his adapter) aren't I using the "sweet spot" on the lens?
If I use the focal reducer, Aren't I just introducing the weird parts of the lens into the picture?
Since it's got glass in it, isn't that potentially just adding the possibility of more IQ problems?
Field of View, Smield of view.....If I want a full frame 50mm field of view on my fs100, can't I just put on my awesome rok 35?

Ok, it gives you up to 1 more stop on the glass. with the exception of the kit lens, most of my glass is 1.2 1.4 2.0 hell, even my zoom is 2.8
Do I really need to shoot at .95 ? I'd like to have BOTH the subjects eyes in focus


OK kill me now....
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from. Yes most lens designs are sharpest in the center of the lens. But this the tradeoff is somewhat dependent upon usage. You will have to test and decide for yourself if the effects are preferable for you.

Looking, for example at the Canon 24-70 f2.8 lens which is a fairly common lens:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1

At its poorest performing setting, 70mm@f2.8, it resolves 2775 LP/PH in the center and 2262 at a border position (http://www.photozone.de/lens-test-faq for info on what those mean). We aren't so concerned with extreme borders because we will not see them on a 16:9 S35 sensor with 1.4x extender. So when you put on the extender, it could potentially increase that resolution by 1.4x to 3885 in the center and 3166 at the border, so it is likely it will still be sharper with the adapter than without.

Now for some lenses where border sharpness is more than 1.4x less than center sharpness (look at the Canon 50mm f1.2), you may find the speed booster could leave you with lower MTF at the borders of your images than without it, but its a bit difficult to compare since those numbers compare only center to border and even without the speedbooster, your image edges are not in the "center" of the image circle anyway, so it could be difficult to compare only from the numbers. In the end, this point is mostly moot for the FS700 at the moment since I suppose our 1080p cameras can hardly see the difference between 1000 LP/PH and 3000LP/PH.

Also, chromatic abberations should be reduced by up to 1.4x. Photozone measures the worst CA's on the lens around 0.9px (on a 5Dmk2 which has similar pixel size to FS700 6.4um vs ~5.8um) but that may be reduced to 0.6px with the speed booster.

That is the good part, the bad part is in the category of vignetting and other edge aberrations, speedbooster will not likely help much. With speed booster we are probably more likely to see greater vignetting, coma, and astigmatism.

Then again we also get wider lenses with an extra stop of light, in some cases resulting in lens specs that are not available in any other other lens at any cost.

However, I can't really relate to your sentiment that you dont need another stop or wider lenses... I can always use another stop now and again, you can always stop down. Also keep in mind you can always stop down a stop and possible get better performance than your lens! You have an f1.2 lens, but you don't have a f0.9 lens that you can stop down to f1.2 and have it perform as well as your f1.2 does at f1.8...
 
Last edited:
Yes, it will bring out any of the lens' corner issues

Maybe, the effects of the reducer will minimize the appearance of optical aberration

No, we won't know any of this for certain until it's purchased and run through the wringer of slow-mo alcoholic cats lit by street light bokeh
 
mcbob said:
No, we won't know any of this for certain until it's purchased and run through the wringer of slow-mo alcoholic cats lit by street light bokeh
Click to expand...

Well I get off from a long week of work soon, so maybe I will finally test mine for myself tomorrow and see what I can share.

I don't have any cats, though, unless anyone wants to contribute theirs...
 
Focal length is defined as a factor of light entry in relation to the focal plane. This adapter is shifting the focal plane therefore it may actually be changing the focal length of the lens technically. This means that you may NOT get the same image from a full frame sensor compared to this adapter on a APS-C . Light may be travelling through different parts of the lens at different angles and therefore the resulting quality may well be different to the same lens on a full frame camera. So this *could* also change DOF characteristics. (I'm countering what i mentioned earlier in the thread after some more thought!)

Because there is a shrinking effect (of the image circle) i don't think resolution at HD would ever be an issue, even in the corners, however vignetting and distortion might be. This is also changing the angles of the light at exit so there might also be additional interactions between the sensor/OLPF that may affect the image - SLR lenses tend to be quite telecentric (light quite parallel at exit because of the mirror). This adapter shortens the lens flange distance and so on some lenses the angle of the rays might shift enough to get some colour casts at the extremes. However to counter that i know the FS sensors are pretty good with angled rays as i've tested 12mm rangefinder lens which is very very angled. The MFT version may show more issues because the reduction i think is higher.

Also i don't think the factor which the lens changes things would necessarily reverse the exact crop factor of a sensor. The FS series is x1.5, to reverse that you'd be looking at 0.66 reduction but the adapter i think is 0.7

At the end of the day proof is in the pudding as they say and i can't wait to get my hands on one to see for myself. There are times that a faster wide lens would be very useful, i have a 35mm f0.92 on my fs/nex which i do find useful wide open. To take a real 35mm f1.4 and turn that into what would have to be a 24mm f1 has a use (for me anyway)

cheers
paul
 
nyvz said:
However, I can't really relate to your sentiment that you dont need another stop or wider lenses... I can always use another stop now and again, you can always stop down. Also keep in mind you can always stop down a stop and possible get better performance than your lens! You have an f1.2 lens, but you don't have a f0.9 lens that you can stop down to f1.2 and have it perform as well as your f1.2 does at f1.8...
Click to expand...

All valid points but I'm just trying to play Devils advocate here. I've seen footy on the web for this and it seems to be talked about all over, but I haven't heard much (if any) of the downside of using another "gadget" in the opticle chain before the sensor. (and the footy I did see showed no decernable gain is sharpness, if that possible over the web...)
Good point about being able to stop down, my rok 35 is an awesome deal for the $ but, as many have said, all the way open on that lens is not always the best. (one stop down, the improvement is quite noticeable for me) The question is...Is it better potentially to shoot my 35 at 1.4 and live with the image as it is , or pop $600 worth of reducer on it (and any flaws that may introduce) and then stop down to 1.4. Which image would be better? If it is better, is it $600 better?

As Paul Curtis said, there may be some times when a 24 f1.0 wide open or a 35 f0.92 wide open is what you need or want. Those are artistic judgements we each make. but the grumpy old fart in me sees an inundation of 3/4 out of focus, noisy 5n shots in a dark alleyway at 3 am totally illuminated by the one working taillight on Suzys Kia. In those cases , a $100 light may have been the better call over a $600 adpter.

I have a full set of nikons and Roks and I only have 1 FF canon lens and my 17-55 2.8 stays parked on one of the FSs, so this wouldn't be a viable option for me.
But I hope it delivers as promised, I'm just hesitant to put anything more into the optical chain.
 
Chris Johnston said:
All valid points but I'm just trying to play Devils advocate here. I've seen footy on the web for this and it seems to be talked about all over, but I haven't heard much (if any) of the downside of using another "gadget" in the opticle chain before the sensor. (and the footy I did see showed no decernable gain is sharpness, if that possible over the web...)
Good point about being able to stop down, my rok 35 is an awesome deal for the $ but, as many have said, all the way open on that lens is not always the best. (one stop down, the improvement is quite noticeable for me) The question is...Is it better potentially to shoot my 35 at 1.4 and live with the image as it is , or pop $600 worth of reducer on it (and any flaws that may introduce) and then stop down to 1.4. Which image would be better? If it is better, is it $600 better?

As Paul Curtis said, there may be some times when a 24 f1.0 wide open or a 35 f0.92 wide open is what you need or want. Those are artistic judgements we each make. but the grumpy old fart in me sees an inundation of 3/4 out of focus, noisy 5n shots in a dark alleyway at 3 am totally illuminated by the one working taillight on Suzys Kia. In those cases , a $100 light may have been the better call over a $600 adpter.

I have a full set of nikons and Roks and I only have 1 FF canon lens and my 17-55 2.8 stays parked on one of the FSs, so this wouldn't be a viable option for me.
But I hope it delivers as promised, I'm just hesitant to put anything more into the optical chain.
Click to expand...

I know there are some who hate the overuse of shallow depth of field, but to me that is more because of the lost art of using it wisely. For example, look at the ext night stuff shot on IMAX for one of my favorite movies, The Dark Knight. A 50mm T2 was said to be Nolan and Pfister's perferred lens for most of the IMAX stuff, and has very shallow DOF but it looks great, but partly because of the framing. The IMAX was shot with a lot of wide angle lenses, which has a particularly epic look that you can normally only get on IMAX, since you would need an incredibly wide incredibly fast lens on a smaller format. For example, on S35, to get the effect of a 50mm T2.0 used on IMAX you would need a 17mm T0.66 (or T0.9 to match a T2.8 IMAX shot). A 24mm f1.4 FF35 lens would get you pretty close to that shallow DOF wide angle IMAX look if you put it on a FF35 camera or on a S35 camera with a speedbooster.

I got to try out my speedbooster a bit today and will take it on a job tomorrow. So far my only complaint is that I definitely see more internal vignetting which causes cropped bokeh toward the edges of the frame. Most lenses do this, but I can see it is a bit more pronounced with the speedbooster. I am particularly sensitive and picky about internal vignetting, but then again not all lenses can be master primes. It is extremely hard to get a lens with a real round aperture and an evenly shaped bokeh from edge to edge, but it is something I have learned to live with and it doesn't show up all that often unless you are just shooting lots of shots of bright out of focus lights...
 
The shallow DOF issue really depends on the distance you're shooting. Im my cases if you're shooting mediums and the background is a few metres behind the cast then that's where a shallower DOF comes in useful. There have been times where i've struggled to get separation on a 28mm f2 (and the nice thing about using DOF to separate rather than light/colour is that it's fast and requires no resetting up). Or i'd avoid using certain wider lengths because there's no separation at all. So a 24mm f1 would be a very handy tool to call on.

There was an entire episode of House done on a 5D if i remember, the main reason was DOF in a confined space. It worked really well and it was in focus.

Personally focus buzzing bugs me no end so i really see where you're coming from. However i'm also aware we can all be a bit anal about it - the package as a whole is what people see. Take Beasts of the Southern Wild - most of the film is actually not in focus, i mean really, really not in focus in parts. But oscar nods because as a package people forgive for the greater 'emotional feeling'.

cheers
Paul
 
Fs700 and Speedbooster + 70-200 lens

Will the FOV be 70-200 or 50-140ish?

If you put a 70-200 on the FS700 via MB EF-E it is roughly 105-300.
 
John Foundas said:
Fs700 and Speedbooster + 70-200 lens

Will the FOV be 70-200 or 50-140ish?

If you put a 70-200 on the FS700 via MB EF-E it is roughly 105-300.
Click to expand...

Not true. First lets assume you are talking the same language. We are talking full frame
field of view here I assume (correct me if I am wrong). If you put a 70-200 on a
FS700 with the speed booster, it will be roughly 70-200 in FF terms. Not sure why you
think the speed booster makes the lens 'more telephoto' but it doesn't. Now if you
were to put that same 70-200mm lens on the FS700 with the regular metabones
adapter (the non speed booster one) then you would have your 105-300 FF FOV.
Does that make sense?
 
For those who think in terms of a full-frame camera, the easiest way to think about would be that the speedbooster gives the FS700 a crop factor of 1.0.

With a normal adapter, it's a crop factor of 1.53.
With the speedbooster, it's a crop factor of 1.00.
 
Hey All

Speed booster arrived today. Tried it on a quick shoot i was doing.. i was using Zeiss 50mm 1.4 glass on it. Adapter to canon mount then to the speed booster. I actually
found the image to be too soft. I think i was doing a good focus but to be honest it was in a gymnasium.. I did notice a bit of a rainbow effect on the lights. ( halo )??
Still willing to work on it but initially it softened the entire image. Any Thoughts??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top