Jump to content

Metabones Speed Booster


k-hawinkler

Recommended Posts

So, if I understand the implications of the Leica R Lens to Sony NEX Speed Booster

 

Sony NEX System : Leica R Lens to Sony NEX Speed Booster

 

it effectively would turn my Leica APO-Telyt-R 280/4 into a ~300/3 sytem when used with NEX-7 and Speed Booster, instead of a 420/4 using a regular adapter.

 

Intriguing - if image quality holds up.

Edited by k-hawinkler
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if I understand the implications of the Leica R Lens to Sony NEX Speed Booster

 

Sony NEX System : Leica R Lens to Sony NEX Speed Booster

 

it effectively would turn my Leica APO-Telyt-R 280/4 into a ~300/3 sytem when used with NEX-7 and Speed Booster, instead of a 420/4 using a regular adapter.

 

Intriguing - if image quality holds up.

 

 

There is a typo. It should read 300/2.8 not 300/3 of course.

Sorry about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds a great idea, but I've recently seen a post that quotes a price of $599, which seems a lot of money for an adapter irrespective of how good it is :(

 

 

Welcome to Metabones

 

According to the above reference, depending which lens, cost is:

 

$599 for Canon lenses, but has more electronics built in.

$449 for Alpa

$399 for Leica R

 

Expensive? Yes, I think so.

Worth it? Only if it lives up to the hype. It's an individual choice.

 

I am interested as it would let me use for the first time a FF Leica R lens pretty close to the way it was intended but on an APS-C size sensor.

Of course, one can get the FF experience with the Leica M240 + adapter when they become available.

I don't think that option is less expensive though than a Sony NEX-7 + Speed Booster adapter. :D

Edited by k-hawinkler
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a bit counterproductive to me. You use an R lens for its quality, and then add an unmatched optical element to the rear -which is worse than doing so to the front- and appear to be prepared to accept the inevitable optical degradation of the system. I am sure that better results can be obtained by using a modest modern 150. I am sure an 135/3.4 ApoTelyt-M with just a cheap Nex-M adapter would be spectacularly better than a 280/4.0 APO-R with this contraption added. (or, for that matter, so would an 180 3.4 Apo Telyt R on a plain adapter)

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a bit counterproductive to me. You use an R lens for its quality' date=' and then add an unmatched optical element to the rear -which is worse than doing so to the front- and appear to be prepared to accept the inevitable optical degradation of the system. I am sure that better results can be obtained by using a modest modern 150. I am sure an 135/3.4 ApoTelyt-M with just a cheap Nex-M adapter would be spectacularly better than a 280/4.0 APO-R with this contraption added. (or, for that matter, so would an 180 3.4 Apo Telyt R on a plain adapter)[/quote']

 

You should read the white paper sited above before making assumptions...

Coastal Optics is a very highly regarded company with true APO lenses like their 60mm...

Brian Caldwell is the optical designer behind this adapter, he comes highly recommended!

 

I agree that the 135 3.4 and 4.0 are very good, but the adapters are designed I would say for other reasons, but again please read the whit paper :)

Be prepared to be challenged with regard to your perception of what is possible with an adapter!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no doubt the makers are quite capable, however extender-compressor technology calls for very high grade optical systems like Leica's Apo extenders ( Leica's standard extender was nothing special) Don't forget the ApoTelyt must be used with a filter at the back - take a simple filter out and you lose quality.

There is no way one can offer one that does not degrade the image for 399 $. And why should you, if you can get a better result with a lighter lens and a simple system?

As for wideangles, these systems are known to reduce corner quality considerably, even with the very best designs.

But I am willing to be convinced, if somebody here is inclined to put money towards it.

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a bit counterproductive to me. You use an R lens for its quality, and then add an unmatched optical element to the rear -which is worse than doing so to the front- and appear to be prepared to accept the inevitable optical degradation of the system. I am sure that better results can be obtained by using a modest modern 150. I am sure an 135/3.4 ApoTelyt-M with just a cheap Nex-M adapter would be spectacularly better than a 280/4.0 APO-R with this contraption added. (or, for that matter, so would an 180 3.4 Apo Telyt R on a plain adapter)

 

The optical designer also designed the Coastal Optics 60mm APO macro. Let's not jump to conclusions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jaap,

 

I always appreciate your input.

You always seem to be so sure about everything - until you sometimes later change your mind.

These designers are highly regarded, especially for their forensic lenses.

 

Aside from that, I am not only interested in photography but also in technology in general.

So, I would like to find out for myself what really is the situation and form my own opinion.

I will follow my own train of thought and have never been afraid to do so.

Some feedback I get I assign 100% acceptance, other sometimes 0%.

 

Once I have the adapter I will try to explore it and share the results so that others can form their own conclusions or reject my feedback.

Either way is fine with me. I typically learn more from my mistakes anyway.

 

Again thanks for your input.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just a representation of aperture. Shorten the focal length. Increase aperture (or numerically decrease). Do the math.

 

Large format photographers who use convertible lenses know this very well. Shoot with just one element numerically increases aperture. Add the second element and focal length is decreased and effective aperture decreases (numerically). Typical examples are f/12 to f/5.6.

 

Brian Caldwell is the optical designer behind this adapter, he comes highly recommended!

 

Brian also did some of the first multiple image merges to create giant images.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did say

willing to be convinced
Hi Jaap,

 

I always appreciate your input.

You always seem to be so sure about everything - until you sometimes later change your mind.

These designers are highly regarded, especially for their forensic lenses.

 

Aside from that, I am not only interested in photography but also in technology in general.

So, I would like to find out for myself what really is the situation and form my own opinion.

I will follow my own train of thought and have never been afraid to do so.

Some feedback I get I assign 100% acceptance, other sometimes 0%.

 

Once I have the adapter I will try to explore it and share the results so that others can form their own conclusions or reject my feedback.

Either way is fine with me. I typically learn more from my mistakes anyway.

 

Again thanks for your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...