NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: simato73 on April 04, 2016, 19:17:01
-
Hi All,
I would like some opinions on the above.
I have the opportunity to buy either the Kipon Baveyes speedbooster or the Metabones Ultra.
(Technically also the Zhongyi II is available but it has a 0.72 factor so it does not restore a FOV as similar to the original as the other two.)
I am going to use it for MF Nikkors on a Fuji X-T1.
If money were no object I'd go for the Metabones. The Ultra apparently gives much improved corners over the original one.
I have insufficient information on the Baveyes, especially in terms of direct comparison, however the cost is less than 1/2 the metabones, so the difference between the two has to be really big to justify the price, in my view.
I want to take a decision within a few days.
Does anybody have relevant information to share?
Opinions and comments also welcome.
Thanks.
-
I have only opinion, no hard experience.
I was tempted by the original Speed Booster early on, since I also have a Fuji X cam, plus a fair assortment of Nikon and Zeiss ZF lenses lying about.
As I experimented with using Nikon lenses on the Fuji with a 'straight' adapter, I re-learned what I already knew: That having to focus and compose with lenses at shooting aperture is a hassle, and works against me getting good results. The Speedbooster does not change this state of affairs. Others will not see an issue with stopped down focusing, maybe it works fine for them. For shooting wide open, it's not an issue.
As for the difference between the two, the only sure way to know is to test them side-by-side with the lenses you intend to use, or test sequentially with good control. A seller with a good return policy would facilitate this.
Personally, I'd be inclined to choose the one with the maximum optical performance in any case, unless I was looking for a 'deliberately degenerated' effect.
-
I used the Metabones Speedbooster on my Panasonic GH-2, mainly in combination with a Nikkor 50 mm f/1.2.
This makes a 35 mm f/0.9 lens and quality was surprisingly good. However, I tired of having to use shooting aperture all the time, as the EVF quickly degenerated into annoying static noise when light levels dropped by stopping down the lens.
The conclusion for myself was that mirrorless systems should be used with native lens supporting full automated operation.
-
I used the Metabones Speedbooster on my Panasonic GH-2, mainly in combination with a Nikkor 50 mm f/1.2.
This makes a 35 mm f/0.9 lens and quality was surprisingly good. However, I tired of having to use shooting aperture all the time, as the EVF quickly degenerated into annoying static noise when light levels dropped by stopping down the lens.
The conclusion for myself was that mirrorless systems should be used with native lens supporting full automated operation.
Was that the original version of the Metabones speedbooster or was it the newer, improved "Ultra"?
The other thing I have not yet understood is that thing about shooting aperture. Can one not leave the speedbooster in a state where it leaves the aperture fully open, and then control aperture from the lens?
One could then compose and focus at full aperture, then stop down at the moment of shooting. Granted, this can only works when one is working without hurry.
I have a couple of PC lenses and these would work better if they gave a FOV similar to the 35mm format.
I also have a 28/2, 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 that are much less exciting to me with a plain adapter.
-
Was that the original version of the Metabones speedbooster or was it the newer, improved "Ultra"?
The original Metabones Speedbooster.
The other thing I have not yet understood is that thing about shooting aperture. Can one not leave the speedbooster in a state where it leaves the aperture fully open, and then control aperture from the lens?
One could then compose and focus at full aperture, then stop down at the moment of shooting. Granted, this can only works when one is working without hurry.
If you have all the time in the world, the scene is static, and the camera preferentially is on a tripod, YES. Otherwise, MAYBE, but it introduces a stress factor I can well be without.
In fact, this way of working is at its least annoying when using preset lenses from 50-60 years back in time. Food for thought. Mirrorless is indeed a mixed blessing.
-
I don't have the references you are considering, only the Lens Turbo 2 which I use almost exclusively for portraits, fairly open (AF-D 50mm f/1.4 usually at f/2, or AIS 105 f/2.5 usually between f/2.5 or 4) and therefore do not suffer from the issues raised by Bjørn. For what I do, it is very good and I don't care for possible vignetting or lack of corner sharpness, it just doesn't matter. I just keep using the lenses that I enjoyed on my D700, only easier to MF now. I am sure I would prefer the56mm Fuji lens and will probably get it one day... For other purposes, I use the very competent 18-55 Fuji kit zoom.
So basically I am satisfied with what I have, because slow processes are OK for me and corner perfection is irrelevent.
-
Thank you all for your thoughts.
I decided t go for the cautious approach and buy the less expensive item, that is the Baveyes (1/3 the price of the Metabones Ultra).
It will take a while before I finally get it, I think.
The first time I will give it a good work out is probably going to be in Scotland.
-
Thank you all for your thoughts.
I decided t go for the cautious approach and buy the less expensive item, that is the Baveyes (1/3 the price of the Metabones Ultra).
It will take a while before I finally get it, I think.
The first time I will give it a good work out is probably going to be in Scotland.
Interesting, for me being 'more cautious' would mean taking the expensive one :D
I hope that the quality does not disappoint and I'm looking forward to your evaluation.
-
I just received the Kipon Baveyes.
Played with it only about 10 minutes but first impressions are excellent.
Seems very well made, simple build. Solid, no wiggle. Only works with AI lenses, no G (or I guess E) lenses, no hassle.
I have tried the 50/1.2, 35/1.4, 28/2, 105/2.5 and 16/2.8 (AF version), all a pleasure to use (focus on the 35 is stiff, needs re-greasing, and the 16 has oily aperture blades that stick wide open)
Had no time to test optically, especially corners, but overall seems pretty good.
I am pleased to have those Nikkors again performing more or less as intended. :)
-
...focus on the 35 is stiff, needs re-greasing...
You might try NYOIL in tiny millet (tiny whole grain) sized beads applied with an 1 or 2 cc insulin syringe. You apply the NYOIL one drop at a time and work it in very well before adding another. Your hands should get quite tired working it in. You don't want to add too much!
It's available in the US from...
http://www.micro-tools.com/product.htm?pid=145158&cat=15253
...It must be available world wide.
Best,
Dave
-
Thanks, I am planning to take it to Scotland where I hope I can get some practical help.
I'd rather not open the lens on my own.
-
I used the Baveyes a bit today so I thought I'd post a few images.
Overall I am still happy. I consider it a specialty item, I should have done so from the outset.
Bjørn is right that native lenses are better because of the they support fully automated operation. Also the Fuji lenses are all quite good optically so there is not much reason to use something else unless there is a specific reason. In the case of the 35/1.4, 50/1.2 and to some extent the 28/2 is the temperament of the lens when it is very wide.
Apart from that, I don't find shooting at aperture a problem, at least so far it has not been a problem and I don't see wanting to shoot in the dark with small apertures, but remembering having to set the focal length manually is a faff and I tend to forget when I change lens.
All the lenses I have tried behave as expected; the only minor disappointment is that the 50mm vignettes from f/5.6 and hard vignetting can be seen at f/8 and beyond. No such issue with wider lenses tried so fat; I have yet to check the 105/2.5 and 70-150/3.5.
The first two images below show how the DOF changes from f/2 to f/5.6.
The last one shows the vignetting, it was shot at f/11.
It is also possible to see that barrel distortion is increased; I believe the 50/1.2 should not have this much barrel, even at the closest distance, when it is used without the Baveyes.
-
What kind of lens hood do you use? Could be that the vignetting comes from the hood.
-
What kind of lens hood do you use? Could be that the vignetting comes from the hood.
I don't have a lens hood for the 50/1.2 but anyway that should make no difference.
I think the problem is a combination of speed and focal length of the lens.
-
If you remove the barrel distortion your image corners will be almost flawless,,, quite impressive actually.
-
If you remove the barrel distortion your image corners will be almost flawless,,, quite impressive actually.
Thank you. Looking forward to testing it much more in Scotland.
I agree in principle, although not always easy to remove barrel if there isn't a clear geometric reference in the picture.
Otherwise I wouldn't know how to develop lens correction files to use in my raw processor (Iridient) and whether that would be useful under all conditions (near and infinity focus).