Metabones Speed Booster - New Focal Reducer Makes Lenses Faster, Wider, and Sharper

[Bravin Neff]

Can anybody explain to me what the differences are between Canon EF and Nikon F that makes Nikon AF and VR not workable but Canon IS and AF workable?

 

[MAubrey]

Can anybody explain to me what the differences are between Canon EF and Nikon F that makes Nikon AF and VR not workable but Canon IS and AF workable?

The electronic signal between the body and the lens is different between the two. Metabones has decoded Canon's electronic signal, but they haven't decoded Nikons...or Sony's...or Pentax's...etc.

 

[meyerweb]

The electronic signal between the body and the lens is different between the two. Metabones has decoded Canon's electronic signal, but they haven't decoded Nikons...or Sony's...or Pentax's...etc.

Do we know for a fact there will be an adapter that supports AF on Canon EF lenses? They don't seem to have anything that does that currently.

 

[Bravin Neff]

The electronic signal between the body and the lens is different between the two. Metabones has decoded Canon's electronic signal, but they haven't decoded Nikons...or Sony's...or Pentax's...etc.

I realize they're different, but I have gotten the impression -- perhaps wrongly -- that 3rd party folks tend to get the EFS coding while passing on the F mount coding. I have wondered for a while now that it isn't just electrical signals getting reverse engineered, but that actual lenses and cameras have on-board databases of the product line, in order behave properly. I think this explains why some Sigma lenses can lose their effectiveness on later Canon/Nikon bodies, which never seems to happen with OEM lenses.

 

[MAubrey]

I realize they're different, but I have gotten the impression -- perhaps wrongly -- that 3rd party folks tend to get the EFS coding while passing on the F mount coding. I have wondered for a while now that it isn't just electrical signals getting reverse engineered, but that actual lenses and cameras have on-board databases of the product line, in order behave properly. I think this explains why some Sigma lenses can lose their effectiveness on later Canon/Nikon bodies, which never seems to happen with OEM lenses.

Canon's association with video over against Nikon is a major element, too, I would expect.

 

[dhazeghi]

Do we know for a fact there will be an adapter that supports AF on Canon EF lenses? They don't seem to have anything that does that currently.

They've supported AF since November in their 'Smart' adapter. Admittedly, the list of lenses is a bit hit and miss.

 

[meyerweb]

That's Sony. Nothing for m43.

So nothing definite that the m43 adapter will support AF.

 

[jloden]

That's Sony. Nothing for m43.

So nothing definite that the m43 adapter will support AF.

I copied and pasted it earlier in the thread, but it's in the linked white paper as part of the specs for the Canon -> m4/3 adapter that it supports AF, VR, and electronic iris control.

 

[robbie36]

Metaboster will have :43: to OM by :43:Rumors site.
Now I can expand my OM mount lenses collection:smile:.

(UPDATED) Metabones Speed Booster adapter will be made for OM lenses too! | 43 Rumors

Yes I saw that.

I am quite tempted by the OM 50 1.2 as it is incredibly small and weighs only 285g.

 

[speedandstyle]

One reason why the adaptors for Canon include electronic conections and Nikon don't is that a Nikon lens still has a mechanical aperture adjustment. This means all one has to do to make the lens work is add an aperture adjustment ring but that won't work with Canon.

Another reason is that so many people bought into Canon when the DSLR video craze started that they catter to them.

 

[homerusan]

i wonder how samyang 7.5mm perform!!!

 

[Bravin Neff]

The piece of crap (though optically decent) and totally cheap Nikkor 18-70 DX f3.5-4.5 suddenly becomes the (35mm) equivalent of 26-99mm f2.5-f3.2 and gains in sharpness.

Oh yeah.

 

[FrayAdjacent]

I read about this just yesterday... would be pretty cool since I have a couple nice Canon lenses. My EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 would be pretty damn sweet to use on a u4/3 platform... although it is a HUGE lens.

Then I looked at the Metabones price. $600 for an adapter?? OUCH. Sure, I understand the coolness of being able to use the AF (and possibly the IS on bodies that don't have IBIS) and aperture controls, and that takes some decoding... but holy crap. That puts it squarely in the "PRO ONLY" price range for the most part.... and most pros won't be using the u4/3 platform anyway.

I dunno. Very cool idea, and it's in the "DO WANT" category, but not at that price.

 

[gcogger]

I read about this just yesterday... would be pretty cool since I have a couple nice Canon lenses. My EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 would be pretty damn sweet to use on a u4/3 platform... although it is a HUGE lens.

EF-S lenses are not supported. It wouldn't make sense anyway, since the difference between (Canon) APS-C and micro 4/3 is a factor of 1.25, but the adapter reduces things by a factor of 1.4 - in other words you'd most likely see vignetting and, even if not, poor corner performance.

 

[dhazeghi]

i wonder how samyang 7.5mm perform!!!

It won't. There's no way to make that type of converter for m4/3 lenses, at least not if you want to the ability to focus on distant objects.

 

[Cruzan80]

No, but once they make the EF adapter, you can use this Minola Fisheye. Which was designed for FF, and is the same focal length. Won't give quite as dramatic a look as what is pictured (would on APC), but still quite a bit. Makes it a 5.25mm lens f2.8 lens. Which is pretty fast for what it is.

 

[RobWatson]

I could see myself buying one of these to stick a 50 1.2 on despite my inherent dislike of manual focusing. It would give you a 70 1.8 FF equivalent with 0.9 super low light capability. Could be a lot of fun.

Any of the 50 1.2's any good wide open?

That is my thinking as well (except I love manual). My Nikon 50mm F1.2 is a bit soft wide open but with the widget it may shape up to be pretty nifty for portraits.

 

[MAubrey]

I'm looking forward to putting this on m Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, which would make it a 41mm f/1...faster than Panasonic's forthcoming 42.5mm f/1.2. half a stop gained in the sacrifice of AF isn't bad. If someone adapted a Minolta 58mm f/1.2...well, even better.

in 35mm equivalence (FOV and DOF) the three lenses would be:

85mm f/2.4
82mm f/2
82mm f/1.8

 

[LeeOsenton]

I don't exactly understand...

a) how it works
b) why it costs 600$

Rough explanation:

Lenses are manufactured to have a specific distance from the rear lens element to the sensor or focal plane of the camera.

Most teleconverters work by increasing the distance between the sensor and the back of the lens. The teleconverter has an optical element to correct the distortion caused by increasing the distance between the lens and sensor. The end result is the focal length of the lens is increased by some amount (based on the size of the teleconverter - usually 1.4x or 2x focal length). A side effect of teleconverters is maximum aperture is decreased (a f/2.8 lens becomes f/4.0 or f/5.6 depending on the size of the teleconverter).

This is a teleconverter but it reduces the distance between the lens and sensor. This causes the focal length to decrease and gives a proportionate increase in maximum aperture.

I am certain there are some here with a much better explanation of this idea, but that is how I believe this works. Oh, and the high cost is because the optical element to correct distortion was difficult to make.

Lee

 

[Cruzan80]

To add to the above, in rough terms, you are taking a teleconverter and putting it backwards. Same way if you flip a magnifying glass around, everything seems to get much smaller, but you get a wider field of view? That is essentially what they are doing here. The aperture "speeding up" is a result of having the same physical opening in the lens (nothing changed there), but having it related to a "wider" focal length (according to what the camera sees). So because the math of determining the f-stop is focal length over diameter, when you "decrease" the focal length, the f-stop goes down.

The reason it is $600? Part of it is probably due to them being the first to mass market such a concept, part due to the difficulty in making the optics, part due to branding (Metabones is a "premium" brand) and having tight tolerances in sizing, better materials, etc, and part is because of all the electronic pass-thrus that are currently on these. The reason people can get cheap Chinese adapters is because they are only a hunk of metal/plastic. Even the extension tubes, which are basically plastic, simply with electronic pass-thrus are almost $200. I have a feeling the price may come down if more people can get around the patents.