Voigt. 25/0.95 vs 25/1.0 and 21/1.0 via Speed Booster

brianc1959

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
39
Location
Virginia
Real Name
Brian Caldwell
I recently did a test chart comparison of two adapted Sigma lenses (via Speed Booster) and the Voigtlander 25/0.95. The two adapted lenses were the Sigma-art 35/1.4 and the Sigma-art 30/1.4, giving 25mm f/1.0 and 21mm f/1.0, respectively with a Metabones Speed Booster. For this test I was mainly interested in image sharpness, exposure in the middle of the frame, and corner falloff. Accordingly, I shot all three in identical light and with exactly the same shutter speed and ISO on a GH4. The test chart measures 24" high, so the magnifcation works out to around 1:47 in all three cases. IMO, either of the Speed Booster combinations give better image quality and illumination uniformity without any speed sacrifice. Note that the image attachments got reduced in size when I added them here, so the bottom image is roughly a comparison of 50% crops rather than 100% crops. For the sake of full disclosure, I designed the Speed Booster.
 

Attachments

eteless

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
1,881
Just FWIW, it's roughly in line with what I'm seeing (I have the speedbooster S on an E-M1).

PS: Can you hassle metabones to fix the IS on the E-M1 already?! :p
 

RnR

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,237
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Hasse
Another happy Speedbooster owner :thumbup:

If you are happy with 20mm f1.4 effective, I can highly recommend the Nikon 28mm f2...

Wide open on an old and crusty pm1....


and @100%
 

tjdean01

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
862
Am I correct in saying that the two Sigmas are besting the Voigtlander? That's good to know, actually: if you want a fast aperture to blur backgrounds on m4/3s, the Voigtlander 25 is not ideal in many ways: size, weight, probably need of ND filter, etc. This again solidifies my decision to buy a secondary camera which will happen to be full frame. Thanks for this!
 

eteless

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
1,881
Am I correct in saying that the two Sigmas are besting the Voigtlander? That's good to know, actually: if you want a fast aperture to blur backgrounds on m4/3s, the Voigtlander 25 is not ideal in many ways: size, weight, probably need of ND filter, etc. This again solidifies my decision to buy a secondary camera which will happen to be full frame. Thanks for this!
I wouldn't say the Voigtlander is not ideal due to size, weight, etc... because basically any full frame lens including the sigma's have all those traits too and most bodies even more so.

Remember that full frame currently comes with a price that you can't remove, it's generally heavy as hell and huge. If you're comfortable carrying it around and using it in public then more power to you. The 30mm f1.4 is currently one of my favorites due to how I view it's focal length and it's a tad bigger than the 12-40mm f2.8, However if I want a small camera I can take it and the grip off and put a 20mm, 25mm, 45mm... whatever on the camera and I have something small and easy to carry around that doesn't make people shy away at all in public.

It's not exactly hard to get things out of focus with m4/3 anyway... getting enough in focus while keeping your shutter speed high enough is normally the hard part. Keep chasing the dragon just remember to stop once you find something that works, likewise chase things if you think they will work for you however don't keep chasing them if it doesn't turn out to be at all practical *for you*. Full frame digital was once touted as the professionals choice... however time* has moved on and many of the same people are now shouting about "medium format" digital (not even baby 645 sized mind you, I'm sure it will be called half frame medium format once "full frame" medium format sensors come along... relentlessly onwards does the inevitable march of progress* forge on).


* marketing, I feel like most marketing thinks people have a mule to carry around all their gear for them.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
4,998
Location
Los Angeles, USA
Is it practical to hang a Sigma 35 Art off an M43 body though? That thing is massive, I know I owned one for my Nikon kit and ended up going back to the old school 35 f/2 D due to size! For stills I'd probably stick with the Voigtlander, stop it down a tad and enjoy the other aspects of that lens such as build quality and that nice MF feel to it. Though for video, I could see how the SB would be killer if the camera is going to be on a rig anyways. :wink: Any chance mu-43 members can get a forum discount from Metabones? :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RnR

RDM

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,408
Location
Orange County, New York
. . . . :wink: Any chance mu-43 members can get a forum discount from Metabones? :biggrin:
IIRC, from what I read of posts Brian made on other forum sites (where people have prettymuch asked the same thing, , lol) He does not work at Meta-bones he just designed the Optics of the Focal reducer for the SpeedBooster.
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
The Speedbooster allows the m43 to close the gap between some current full frame cameras, except the Canon 6D, Sony A7s and Nikon Df, in regards to noise in higher ISO needed for wide field astrophotography. I use the competitor of Speedbooster myself for this kind of situations without needing a full frame. And besides I shoot full frame for a living, so I know the difference isn't all the much. The only downside to Speedbooster, and I think will help Metabones a lot if the company would give at least some form of discount towards the purchase of one. I bought the Chinese version and while it is good, the Speedbooster is better and I wouldn't mind buying another one myself! :biggrin:
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
Am I correct in saying that the two Sigmas are besting the Voigtlander? That's good to know, actually: if you want a fast aperture to blur backgrounds on m4/3s, the Voigtlander 25 is not ideal in many ways: size, weight, probably need of ND filter, etc. This again solidifies my decision to buy a secondary camera which will happen to be full frame. Thanks for this!
if extreme shallow depth of field and low/hi ISO is your thing plus wider FOV, then there is no doubt full frame complements m43. With the introduction of the Sony A7 Mk 2, A7 Mk 1 is priced lower and used ones are even much lower. The Metabones thingy isn't cheap; it's almost around $500, close to half the price of a used Sony A7 which has a 24Mp Sony sensor so yes, your decision like other people I talked to is quite sensible.
 

RnR

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,237
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Hasse
Every solution have their cons. While the Sony A7 bodies are slowly dropping in price to be competitive with the Speedbooster, their menu's, lossy raws and form factor are (in my opinion ofcause) fairly big negatives. The costs of the Df, A7S are in Zeiss lens territory... and I know what I would rather play with if I had that kind of money to spend :biggrin:

So what are the cons for the Speedbooster?
  • Expensive
  • No AF
  • Stuck with one mount, although that depends on which version of the Speedbooster you own
And the pro's?
  • One time purchase with no moving parts to break.
  • Fits a crap load of m43 models now and the future. In the m43 ecosystem there is a body for every hand and eye. Just a gentle warning on older versions of the Canon EF Speedbooster.
  • Wider field of view than the Fuji's or Sony NEX. The only recent camera that I know of which has a smaller crop factor is the Leica M8 with x1.33.
  • A doubling of light, better mtf, smaller aberrations. (should really be called Sensor Booster rather than Speed Booster :biggrin:)
  • Makes old glass perform like they are on a film body again aka negating the 4mm sensor stack all m43 camera's have.
  • Smaller adapter... something like 6mm shorter for us m43 enthusiasts.
  • Sturdy tripod mount built-in.
Pro's >> con's in my book.

And Jonathan f/2 is right in mentioning the impracticalities of using such lenses as the Sigma's. I only have old school lenses and they are tiny compared to modern day behemoths. My Canon friend once asked me if those lenses were full frame lenses :biggrin: And they were designed for manual focus. Not sure how the Sigma's flow in the hand. The Voigtlander should be wonderful.

I actually think that Brian's focus on comparing large modern glass to native m43 is slightly counter productive. Old legends perform superbly on modern day sensors, so why not test those? More like this Brian https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=52603&p=524558#post524558 (the diminutive Nikon 105mm f2.5 rivals the Olympus 75mm f1.8) :thumbup: The old glass are usually much cheaper to boot which highlights the economy advantage of having one super adapter for your lenses. Take a look at this old post from mflenses.com - http://forum.mflenses.com/zeiss-nikon-voigtlaender-which-pass-the-d800-36mpix-test-t53510.html . Briefly, the gent works in the lens rental industry and his lens ranking is his subjective opinion on how manual focus glass works on the Nikon 36mp sensor. The old legends works sublimely. And for more modern coatings and designs, the full frame Voigtlanders are up there as well - their 58mm f1.4 on a Speedbooster should be very competitive with the Panasonic 42mm f1.2 and cheaper too. The pancake 40mm f2 should be an interesting choice for lowlight small package demands.

I'm sure the OM, Canon FD, etc mounts would have similar old legends.
 

brianc1959

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
39
Location
Virginia
Real Name
Brian Caldwell
That's awesome ..

Is it possible to see photos of what each lens+adapter setup and the Voigt looks like on the camera?. SO we can see a side by side physical comparison.
Photos as requested, along with measured weights of each lens (including the Speed Booster if used):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

brianc1959

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
39
Location
Virginia
Real Name
Brian Caldwell
Is it practical to hang a Sigma 35 Art off an M43 body though? That thing is massive, I know I owned one for my Nikon kit and ended up going back to the old school 35 f/2 D due to size! For stills I'd probably stick with the Voigtlander, stop it down a tad and enjoy the other aspects of that lens such as build quality and that nice MF feel to it. Though for video, I could see how the SB would be killer if the camera is going to be on a rig anyways. :wink: Any chance mu-43 members can get a forum discount from Metabones? :biggrin:
Haven't you heard? Cameras are now just itty bitty things that you clip onto your lens!
 

eteless

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
1,881
if extreme shallow depth of field and low/hi ISO is your thing plus wider FOV, then there is no doubt full frame complements m43. With the introduction of the Sony A7 Mk 2, A7 Mk 1 is priced lower and used ones are even much lower. The Metabones thingy isn't cheap; it's almost around $500, close to half the price of a used Sony A7 which has a 24Mp Sony sensor so yes, your decision like other people I talked to is quite sensible.
Slightly unrelated(different use of equipment) however I wouldn't suggest that the Sony hasn't got all that much of an advantage over a good m4/3 body and speedbooster for astrophotography if any at all. This is primarily due to their poor execution of RAW file compression which can easily ruin most of the dynamic range advantage the FF sensor may have.

A high end Nikon using a Sony sensor is a different story however given this is an extreme case scenario it's not really a huge problem.
 

eteless

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
1,881
Photos as requested, along with measured weights of each lens (including the Speed Booster if used):
Looking at that picture made me recall something from a while back, curiosity being what it is I'm dying to ask... were the sigma lenses pictured glued/fixed at infinity on an optical bench, or did they just happen to be set at infinity for the picture?
 

brianc1959

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
39
Location
Virginia
Real Name
Brian Caldwell
Looking at that picture made me recall something from a while back, curiosity being what it is I'm dying to ask... were the sigma lenses pictured glued/fixed at infinity on an optical bench, or did they just happen to be set at infinity for the picture?
The latter.
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
Slightly unrelated(different use of equipment) however I wouldn't suggest that the Sony hasn't got all that much of an advantage over a good m4/3 body and speedbooster for astrophotography if any at all. This is primarily due to their poor execution of RAW file compression which can easily ruin most of the dynamic range advantage the FF sensor may have.

A high end Nikon using a Sony sensor is a different story however given this is an extreme case scenario it's not really a huge problem.
The current advantage for the Sony FF is that it restores a wide angle lens back to wide and that a 24mm is a 24mm lens. It has implications in that you want a really fast lens to do astrophotography really well. The Samyang 24mm f/1.4 or the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 comes to mind. While the Speedbooster gives me the ability to use these lenses, it doesn't maintain the same FOV as I would get with a Sony A7 FF. The Sony A7s is impressive and so does my Nikon Df which I'm using to complement my m43 system if I need that 14mm FOV from my Bower. I think the compressed RAW deal with the Sony FF may be slightly overblown. I know people who shoot with them and I don't see them as being hindered by the DR and artifacts due to the 11 bit compressed. At the end of the day, it's a good picture that counts and if no one ever complains about it, then it is a good system. Otherwise, the Speedbooster is amazing and helpful for us m43 who want to use FF lenses. :biggrin:
 

eteless

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
1,881
The current advantage for the Sony FF is that it restores a wide angle lens back to wide and that a 24mm is a 24mm lens. It has implications in that you want a really fast lens to do astrophotography really well. The Samyang 24mm f/1.4 or the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 comes to mind. While the Speedbooster gives me the ability to use these lenses, it doesn't maintain the same FOV as I would get with a Sony A7 FF. The Sony A7s is impressive and so does my Nikon Df which I'm using to complement my m43 system if I need that 14mm FOV from my Bower. I think the compressed RAW deal with the Sony FF may be slightly overblown. I know people who shoot with them and I don't see them as being hindered by the DR and artifacts due to the 11 bit compressed. At the end of the day, it's a good picture that counts and if no one ever complains about it, then it is a good system. Otherwise, the Speedbooster is amazing and helpful for us m43 who want to use FF lenses. :biggrin:
It's all amazing equipment when used well, it's just I'm very aware with the sony and pictures of the night sky if you need to push the exposure in post at all artifacts start to show very rapidly, it doesn't handle the big dark expanses of the sky very well.

It's true that wide AND fast is something we tend to struggle with, I would love some more Sigma Art glass for APS-C :) A nice fast prime or two wider than the 18-35 would be just fine with me.
 

RDM

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,408
Location
Orange County, New York
The current advantage for the Sony FF is that it restores a wide angle lens back to wide and that a 24mm is a 24mm lens. It has implications in that you want a really fast lens to do astrophotography really well. The Samyang 24mm f/1.4 or the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 comes to mind. While the Speedbooster gives me the ability to use these lenses, it doesn't maintain the same FOV as I would get with a Sony A7 FF. The Sony A7s is impressive and so does my Nikon Df which I'm using to complement my m43 system if I need that 14mm FOV from my Bower. I think the compressed RAW deal with the Sony FF may be slightly overblown. I know people who shoot with them and I don't see them as being hindered by the DR and artifacts due to the 11 bit compressed. At the end of the day, it's a good picture that counts and if no one ever complains about it, then it is a good system. Otherwise, the Speedbooster is amazing and helpful for us m43 who want to use FF lenses. :biggrin:
I can understand that. I wish we had a 7mm µ4/3 lens choice that was as cheep as the 14mm FF Bower.
Hmm... Has anyone tried the Sigma 10-20mm zoom with Speedbooster? I wonder if it covers the sensor, That would make a 7-14mm zoom that is faster than the Native choice, but probably not cheaper...I think.

. . . . . . .
I actually think that Brian's focus on comparing large modern glass to native m43 is slightly counter productive.
. . . .
I couldn't disagree more, but thankfully I do not have to since facts would suffice instead of our opinions.

A Comparison of the fast aperture AF sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens with speed booster (21mm f/1.0), to the Fully Manual slightly smaller and lighter Voigt. 25mm f/0.95, is very productive.
Especially to many, many people that like fast lenses with Auto features.


Thank you again for the Photo comparison Brian.
Also can you design me a speed booster adapter for my Pen FT camera so I can use my T-mount or Adaptall II lenses on it..lol
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
I have used the Nikon 10-24 DX with my Mitakon Speed Booster. Here's the link to my samples with my former E-PL1 camera.

https://www.mu-43.com/showthread.php?t=68191

I have also used the Nikkor 12-24 lens as well and find that the 12-24 is a sharper lens. The Bower is slighter sharper than the 12-24.
 
Top Bottom