LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster

Started Apr 16, 2013 | Discussions
Rccarruth
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
Apr 16, 2013

I'm taking a trip to Turkey over Memorial Day Weekend this year and I'd like to improve the quality of my lens set-up a little bit before I go.  Currently, if I don't purchase anything else, I'll take the 18-55(mine seems to do pretty well), 55-210, and Rokinon 2.8 8mm.  But I'd like to get something that performs a little bit better than the kit lens in low light.
I recently bought a LA-EA2 and SAL1680Z but the lens wasn't performing as it should and I sent it back.  I'm now thinking an EF to Nex Speedbooster might be a better solution.  If I get the Speedbooster, I'll lose autofocus but I'll gain a stop on zoom lenses and have better lower light performance.  So what I'm looking at doing is getting the Speedbooster and a Canon 28-135MM IS.  Here's the comparison I come up with:
Native set-up              vs  Speedbooster set-up
27-315(FF equivalent)  vs  28-135(FF approximate)
3.5, 4.5                     vs  2.8

autofocus                   vs  manual focus
stabilized                    vs  stabilized

2 lenses                     vs  1 lens plus adapter

Then, I'll have a 2.8 on the low-end 28-135MM stabilized lens with close to a full-frame picture, all for under $1000.  That sounds pretty good to me.  I'll add the SEL35F18 for night shooting and take the Rokinon.  I think this will give me a better set-up than anything I can accomplish with the LA-EA2 and e-mount lenses alone while taking up about the same amount of space.
Am I missing anything?  Is anyone using a similar set-up that can comment on the idea?

-- hide signature --

-Clark

verybiglebowski
Senior MemberPosts: 2,740Gear list
Like?
Re: LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
In reply to Rccarruth, Apr 16, 2013

Rccarruth wrote:

I'm taking a trip to Turkey over Memorial Day Weekend this year and I'd like to improve the quality of my lens set-up a little bit before I go.  Currently, if I don't purchase anything else, I'll take the 18-55(mine seems to do pretty well), 55-210, and Rokinon 2.8 8mm.  But I'd like to get something that performs a little bit better than the kit lens in low light.
I recently bought a LA-EA2 and SAL1680Z but the lens wasn't performing as it should and I sent it back.  I'm now thinking an EF to Nex Speedbooster might be a better solution.  If I get the Speedbooster, I'll lose autofocus but I'll gain a stop on zoom lenses and have better lower light performance.  So what I'm looking at doing is getting the Speedbooster and a Canon 28-135MM IS.  Here's the comparison I come up with:
Native set-up              vs  Speedbooster set-up
27-315(FF equivalent)  vs  28-135(FF approximate)
3.5, 4.5                     vs  2.8

autofocus                   vs  manual focus
stabilized                    vs  stabilized

2 lenses                     vs  1 lens plus adapter

Then, I'll have a 2.8 on the low-end 28-135MM stabilized lens with close to a full-frame picture, all for under $1000.  That sounds pretty good to me.  I'll add the SEL35F18 for night shooting and take the Rokinon.  I think this will give me a better set-up than anything I can accomplish with the LA-EA2 and e-mount lenses alone while taking up about the same amount of space.
Am I missing anything?  Is anyone using a similar set-up that can comment on the idea?

-- hide signature --

-Clark

I don't have Canon EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, but I would be afraid of hard vignetting in the extreme corners with FL above 50mm. If MF is not a problem for you, it might be ok solution. Canon EF 28-135 IS is not sharpest lens out there to start with though.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jpr2
Forum ProPosts: 13,435
Like?
re: a single suggestion
In reply to Rccarruth, Apr 16, 2013
  • Esp. assuming that you're do not have the EF 28-135 yet,
  • and putting stress on low light capabilities of EF + SB
  • I'd suggest for you to look rather at the EF 24-105/4L or even more so at the EF 24-70/2.8L.
  • What you'll get is a bit shorter FL, but at night longer zoom photos are usually sort of wild goose chasing anyway,
  • and at daylight the addition of SB really boosts resolution (esp. from already excellent glass) to a razor sharp level (= I mean eye-cutting sharp), so one can crop, and crop, and crop instead of [in effect] cropping with our zooms !!

jpr2

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rccarruth
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: re: a single suggestion
In reply to jpr2, Apr 16, 2013

jpr2 wrote:

  • Esp. assuming that you're do not have the EF 28-135 yet,
  • and putting stress on low light capabilities of EF + SB
  • I'd suggest for you to look rather at the EF 24-105/4L or even more so at the EF 24-70/2.8L.
  • What you'll get is a bit shorter FL, but at night longer zoom photos are usually sort of wild goose chasing anyway,
  • and at daylight the addition of SB really boosts resolution (esp. from already excellent glass) to a razor sharp level (= I mean eye-cutting sharp), so one can crop, and crop, and crop instead of [in effect] cropping with our zooms !!

jpr2

I'd like to do the 24-70 2.8 but that will triple the price and weight of the set-up.  I know I didn't emphasize those characteristics much in my original post but they are important.  I've read reviews and the 28-135 seems to be a generally well-liked lens in a smaller package available cheaply.  With the 24-105, I'd be losing a little bit of aperture.  Can you tell me what would be the advantages of the 24-105?

I'm definitely not too worried about the long end of any of these set-ups.  Of course, it's nice if it's there but it's not a major decision point.  I'd mainly take the 55-210 because I can since it's relatively lightweight and fits in my smaller camera bag.

Also, your last bullet point seems to indicate that generally you endorse the idea of the Speedbooster set-up? Is that correct?

-- hide signature --

-Clark

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rccarruth
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
In reply to verybiglebowski, Apr 16, 2013

verybiglebowski wrote:

Rccarruth wrote:

I'm taking a trip to Turkey over Memorial Day Weekend this year and I'd like to improve the quality of my lens set-up a little bit before I go.  Currently, if I don't purchase anything else, I'll take the 18-55(mine seems to do pretty well), 55-210, and Rokinon 2.8 8mm.  But I'd like to get something that performs a little bit better than the kit lens in low light.
I recently bought a LA-EA2 and SAL1680Z but the lens wasn't performing as it should and I sent it back.  I'm now thinking an EF to Nex Speedbooster might be a better solution.  If I get the Speedbooster, I'll lose autofocus but I'll gain a stop on zoom lenses and have better lower light performance.  So what I'm looking at doing is getting the Speedbooster and a Canon 28-135MM IS.  Here's the comparison I come up with:
Native set-up              vs  Speedbooster set-up
27-315(FF equivalent)  vs  28-135(FF approximate)
3.5, 4.5                     vs  2.8

autofocus                   vs  manual focus
stabilized                    vs  stabilized

2 lenses                     vs  1 lens plus adapter

Then, I'll have a 2.8 on the low-end 28-135MM stabilized lens with close to a full-frame picture, all for under $1000.  That sounds pretty good to me.  I'll add the SEL35F18 for night shooting and take the Rokinon.  I think this will give me a better set-up than anything I can accomplish with the LA-EA2 and e-mount lenses alone while taking up about the same amount of space.
Am I missing anything?  Is anyone using a similar set-up that can comment on the idea?

-- hide signature --

-Clark

I don't have Canon EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS, but I would be afraid of hard vignetting in the extreme corners with FL above 50mm. If MF is not a problem for you, it might be ok solution. Canon EF 28-135 IS is not sharpest lens out there to start with though.

Thanks for the info.  I'm not too worried about vignetting.  The long end isn't a major issue for me but I like to have some zoom ability available.  I feel like between cropping and Lightroom adjustments I can handle some vignetting.

-- hide signature --

-Clark

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jpr2
Forum ProPosts: 13,435
Like?
Clark: the oomph is real :)
In reply to Rccarruth, Apr 16, 2013

Rccarruth wrote:

jpr2 wrote:

  • Esp. assuming that you're do not have the EF 28-135 yet,
  • and putting stress on low light capabilities of EF + SB
  • I'd suggest for you to look rather at the EF 24-105/4L or even more so at the EF 24-70/2.8L.
  • What you'll get is a bit shorter FL, but at night longer zoom photos are usually sort of wild goose chasing anyway,
  • and at daylight the addition of SB really boosts resolution (esp. from already excellent glass) to a razor sharp level (= I mean eye-cutting sharp), so one can crop, and crop, and crop instead of [in effect] cropping with our zooms !!

I'd like to do the 24-70 2.8 but that will triple the price and weight of the set-up.  I know I didn't emphasize those characteristics much in my original post but they are important.  I've read reviews and the 28-135 seems to be a generally well-liked lens in a smaller package available cheaply.  With the 24-105, I'd be losing a little bit of aperture.  Can you tell me what would be the advantages of the 24-105?

I'm definitely not too worried about the long end of any of these set-ups.  Of course, it's nice if it's there but it's not a major decision point.  I'd mainly take the 55-210 because I can since it's relatively lightweight and fits in my smaller camera bag.

Also, your last bullet point seems to indicate that generally you endorse the idea of the Speedbooster set-up? Is that correct?

indeed, I do. Since its purchase at the beginning of Feb. the EF SB is hardly ever off my N7. In fact the only time it was off for longer, was due to an experimentation period when I did some fiddling with the EA2 + Minolta AF Reflex 500/8.

The combination of SB + N7 with the EF 135/2L or EF STM 40/2.8 is nothing short of astonishing. I'm using both mostly in MF (although 40/2.8 is capable of slow[ish] AF), and it is a pure joy wide open to watch the peaking zone to travel across a frame. With 135/2, which has then DOF of 94/1.4, and is really thin yet it causes no problems in acquiring razor sharp images. The same goes for 40/2.8 although the DOF is of course much larger, but the effective 28/2 is also pretty desirable combination, esp. at night. And with the EF 100/2.8L IS the performance is just a hair's width below that eye-popping level, but also very, very good.

Vignetting is not a big deal at all  - btw. it does depend on whether one is microadjusting SB to reach infinity with certain [stubborn] lenses. One of such is my TSE 24/3.5L = no infinity with SB at factory settings, so I've turned the optical part of SB for about 120 degrees anticlockwise, and... voila infinity is now not a problem. However, the cost is a slightly increased vignetting with both 135/2L and 100/2.8L IS (and other longer lenses too).

EDIT: and finally the performance of N&+SB with the EF-S 10-22, but it was already described elsewhere .

jpr2

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Serhan2
Contributing MemberPosts: 989
Like?
Re: LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
In reply to Rccarruth, Apr 16, 2013

Couple questions, where are you going to in Turkey and what you want/like to shoot?

I wouldn't buy SB and a Canon zoom if you don't own one... One reason being too big combo and the corners will be worse if you use it for architectural shots. If you are not used to shooting manual focus, it might be slow for streets. The streets are usually not wide so I prefer to add a wider lens option if I were you.  However when I was there, I shot with from a P&S to Sigma dp2 to olympus ep's with kit lens/omd:

http://www.pbase.com/sc_20170/turkey

Last year I was carrying 7-14  (equiv to 14-28mm), 12-35  (equiv to 24-70mm) and 14-150mm with OMD. 14-150 was only used at Bosphorus tour. Otherwise 7-14 or 12-35 was on the camera and sometimes only Sony RX100 (28-100mm). I didn't upload much from those photos but I was comfortable using a Sony RX100 even in low light since I was mostly shooting on the wide side in the streets:

http://www.pbase.com/sc_20170/ist2012

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Crono_DL
Contributing MemberPosts: 517
Like?
Re: LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
In reply to Rccarruth, Apr 16, 2013

I have the NEX-6 and Speed Booster. I use it with OM and Nikon MF lenses, and it's just plain awesome. Small, sharp lenses, on a small body. Nothing like a fast small prime, with full frame DOF and an extra stop of light.

I wouldn't want to use a Canon zoom on it, though. It'll be very much out of balance, and the weight of the lens pretty much negates the biggest draw of a mirrorless camera, which is the small size.

If you really want to use a quality Canon zoom, I would just use the $600 you'd spend on the Speed Booster and rent or even buy a Canon 60D or similar DSLR. You'd have an easier time using the big lenses.

-- hide signature --

Danny

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rccarruth
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
In reply to Serhan2, Apr 17, 2013

Serhan2 wrote:

Couple questions, where are you going to in Turkey and what you want/like to shoot?

I wouldn't buy SB and a Canon zoom if you don't own one... One reason being too big combo and the corners will be worse if you use it for architectural shots. If you are not used to shooting manual focus, it might be slow for streets. The streets are usually not wide so I prefer to add a wider lens option if I were you.  However when I was there, I shot with from a P&S to Sigma dp2 to olympus ep's with kit lens/omd:

http://www.pbase.com/sc_20170/turkey

Last year I was carrying 7-14  (equiv to 14-28mm), 12-35  (equiv to 24-70mm) and 14-150mm with OMD. 14-150 was only used at Bosphorus tour. Otherwise 7-14 or 12-35 was on the camera and sometimes only Sony RX100 (28-100mm). I didn't upload much from those photos but I was comfortable using a Sony RX100 even in low light since I was mostly shooting on the wide side in the streets:

http://www.pbase.com/sc_20170/ist2012

I'll be going to Istanbul, Cappadocia, and Selcuk. I want to shoot everything.   Seriously, I will definitely be taking pics of architecture and landscapes.  Also some shots of my traveling companions.  I probably won't do too much street photography of people/individuals.  Maybe some general crowd scenes but I'm not usually comfortable taking pictures of strangers.
On the particular zoom I was looking at, it's actually about the same length with the Speedbooster as the 55-210.  It is heavier and wider but still relatively lightweight as far as camera gear goes.  I know the extreme corners would suffer but I don't currently have a superior option anyway. 
I find my usual range seems to be from about 18-30 on APS-C.  Of course I don't have anything wider currently(other than the fisheye) so I don't know from experience how I'll use a wider lens.  I do like to have a bit of a tele option though.  Sometimes it's nice to be able to pick out a detail like a gargoyle or frieze on a building or a face in a crowd.

-- hide signature --

-Clark

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rccarruth
Forum MemberPosts: 54
Like?
Re: LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
In reply to Crono_DL, Apr 17, 2013

Crono_DL wrote:

I have the NEX-6 and Speed Booster. I use it with OM and Nikon MF lenses, and it's just plain awesome. Small, sharp lenses, on a small body. Nothing like a fast small prime, with full frame DOF and an extra stop of light.

I wouldn't want to use a Canon zoom on it, though. It'll be very much out of balance, and the weight of the lens pretty much negates the biggest draw of a mirrorless camera, which is the small size.

If you really want to use a quality Canon zoom, I would just use the $600 you'd spend on the Speed Booster and rent or even buy a Canon 60D or similar DSLR. You'd have an easier time using the big lenses.

-- hide signature --

Danny

Thanks for the input, Danny.  For me, generally I'm comfortable with a larger lense on my Nex as long as it's not ridiculously large.  The particular zoom I'm looking at is actually shorter than the Nex 55-210.  It weighs more but is still light as far as camera gear goes.  I have multiple legacy zooms I like using. 
I realize I could get a Canon body instead of the SB but then I won't gain a stop of light and FF equivalence on every Canon lense I use.  Maybe what I should be considering is a Canon prime though? But I liked that the zoom is also image stabilized.  If I do go that route, it should beat the pants off my Nex zooms in lower light.

-- hide signature --

-Clark

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Senior MemberPosts: 8,864Gear list
Like?
Re: LA-EA2 vs. EF Speedbooster
In reply to Rccarruth, Apr 17, 2013

Investing in LA-EA2 makes sense only if you’re looking for PDAF. If that is not a need, LA-EA1 would be better (smaller, lighter, no mirror and cheaper).

With 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye, 18-55 OSS and adding 35/1.8 OSS, why not just consider LA-EA1 w/SAL85 or Tamron 90/2.8 and/or Minolta 135mm f/2.8?

What is your budget?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads