Just received the new Lens Turbo II...

nigbat · Jan 29, 2016

Delivered today (the M42 - M4/3 version).

First impression is that with a suitable lens (in this case the preset Takumar 135/3.5), it's decently sharp across the frame, unlike version I.

Anyone else tried the new adapter ?

SimonOL · Jan 29, 2016

nigbat said:
Delivered today (the M42 - M4/3 version).

First impression is that with a suitable lens (in this case the preset Takumar 135/3.5), it's decently sharp across the frame, unlike version I.

Anyone else tried the new adapter ?

Funny - I've got version I and always found it to work very well with longer focal lengths, particularly CZJ 135/3.5. Tried it with a 300 once and it vignetted really badly. It really struggles with anything remotely wide angle, at least with the lenses I tried.

I'd like to hear your impressions of the LTII with a 28mm or 35mm

Tom Caldwell · Jan 29, 2016

The trouble with trade names such as "Lens Turbo" and "Speed Booster" is that they can become household words for a thing that is a type and not brand specific to the original product.

I presume that this is the Zhongyi Lens Turbo and not another focal reducer?

For example RJ (among others) make similar products but don't have type-labels.

I have had a set of Zhongyi Lens Turbo adpaters from early days EF to Sony E. I found that they worked well enough then. But they have redesigned the lens elements presumably to get rid of the "blue spot" issue that dogged them. As the blue spot was not an issue with the lenses I adapted via these adapters perhaps that was why I had no particular problem with these adapters.

SLN001 · Jan 29, 2016

Back when I was working with an NEX-6 I bought the original Zhongyi Lens Turbo, M42 to NEX, and was reasonably happy with it. When the LT-II was released, promising better optics, I took the plunge. The LT-II did have better optics and played well with most of my lenses. However the LT-II with its more complicated lens lock mechanism, was much weaker in either design or quality control. Mine fell apart after a few months and I was unable to repair it while my LT-I is still going strong.

So keep an eye on those little adjusting screws.

Tom Caldwell · Jan 29, 2016

SLN001 said:
Back when I was working with an NEX-6 I bought the original Zhongyi Lens Turbo, M42 to NEX, and was reasonably happy with it. When the LT-II was released, promising better optics, I took the plunge. The LT-II did have better optics and played well with most of my lenses. However the LT-II with its more complicated lens lock mechanism, was much weaker in either design or quality control. Mine fell apart after a few months and I was unable to repair it while my LT-I is still going strong.

So keep an eye on those little adjusting screws.

SimonOL · Jan 30, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
SLN001 said:

Back when I was working with an NEX-6 I bought the original Zhongyi Lens Turbo, M42 to NEX, and was reasonably happy with it. When the LT-II was released, promising better optics, I took the plunge. The LT-II did have better optics and played well with most of my lenses. However the LT-II with its more complicated lens lock mechanism, was much weaker in either design or quality control. Mine fell apart after a few months and I was unable to repair it while my LT-I is still going strong.

So keep an eye on those little adjusting screws.

Click to expand...

Robert Schroeder · Jan 30, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
I have had a set of Zhongyi Lens Turbo adpaters from early days EF to Sony E. I found that they worked well enough then. But they have redesigned the lens elements presumably to get rid of the "blue spot" issue that dogged them. As the blue spot was not an issue with the lenses I adapted via these adapters perhaps that was why I had no particular problem with these adapters.

Just to add my limited experience here, while I am very interested in new findings on the Zhongyi/Mitakon Lens Turbo II:

I used to have a Zhongyi/Mitakon Lens Turbo I in the Minolta-SR/MC/MD-to-E-Mount flavour, back when I still had my NEX, and the results suffered both from the "blue spot" issue (with some lenses, when stopped down) and from severe field curvature introduced by the adapter; I found it virtually impossible to get sharp edges from any of my lenses, except when stopping them down to a point that diffraction blur was already visibly reducing overall sharpness.

By the way, the still rather limited, but most comprehensive focal-reducer comparison I know of to date, is the MFT focal reducer comparison posted in http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53156458 two years ago – I wish someone would do something like that again with current adapters, including the Kipon/BavEyes focal reducer...

Cheers,
Robert

markintosh13 · Jan 30, 2016

SLN001 said:
Back when I was working with an NEX-6 I bought the original Zhongyi Lens Turbo, M42 to NEX, and was reasonably happy with it. When the LT-II was released, promising better optics, I took the plunge. The LT-II did have better optics and played well with most of my lenses. However the LT-II with its more complicated lens lock mechanism, was much weaker in either design or quality control. Mine fell apart after a few months and I was unable to repair it while my LT-I is still going strong.

So keep an eye on those little adjusting screws.

--
Steve
Just an Armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway.

Yup - mine (Lens Turbo II Canon EOS to Sony E adapter) fell apart too within a few weeks. I picked up my A3000, which had a hefty 85mm Rokinon f/1.4 attached, and the lens and half the Lens Turbo II fell to the floor.

Photos to illustrate: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3900577#forum-post-56604495

Cause of failure: three small and short screws. The mount part of the adapter attaches to the primary optical assembly with three small screws. They are very small and thin and are so short they only seem to engage a few of the threads they screw into. All three screws stripped those few threads and the LT II separated.

Repair affected: Field expedient repair. Three longer mismatched screws were procured at a local eye-glass store (the optician kindly let me root through his spare parts bin). These were installed with permanent "loc-tite" adhesive.

Result: It works, but who knows for how long.

Suggestions to Zhongyi Engineering:

- send me a replacement

- use larger and longer screws made with better metal

- use adhesive lock-tite on the screws

There appears to have been several "versions" of the Lens Turbo II, so perhaps they have fixed this issue on the sly. Anyone with a Lens Turbo II may want to unscrew one of the three screws and see how much of the thread seems to be engaging.

I love the results from this adapter... but that really is a stupid bit of engineering.

nigbat · Jan 30, 2016

The new version is indeed the Zhongyi - but now you mention it, my old one is I think the RJ optics version.

Haven't had time to do a serious comparison yet - and will post results if/when I get round to it - but using the same longer lens, it's definitely sharper outside of the centre of the frame.

I'll try to see what it does with something wider, too.

Thanks everyone for the heads up about build quality.

Tom Caldwell · Jan 30, 2016

Robert Schroeder said:
Tom Caldwell said:

I have had a set of Zhongyi Lens Turbo adpaters from early days EF to Sony E. I found that they worked well enough then. But they have redesigned the lens elements presumably to get rid of the "blue spot" issue that dogged them. As the blue spot was not an issue with the lenses I adapted via these adapters perhaps that was why I had no particular problem with these adapters.

Click to expand...

Just to add my limited experience here, while I am very interested in new findings on the Zhongyi/Mitakon Lens Turbo II:

I used to have a Zhongyi/Mitakon Lens Turbo I in the Minolta-SR/MC/MD-to-E-Mount flavour, back when I still had my NEX, and the results suffered both from the "blue spot" issue (with some lenses, when stopped down) and from severe field curvature introduced by the adapter; I found it virtually impossible to get sharp edges from any of my lenses, except when stopping them down to a point that diffraction blur was already visibly reducing overall sharpness.

By the way, the still rather limited, but most comprehensive focal-reducer comparison I know of to date, is the MFT focal reducer comparison posted in http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53156458 two years ago – I wish someone would do something like that again with current adapters, including the Kipon/BavEyes focal reducer...

Thanks for the link Robert - it looks like the optical engineer Brian and his no relation user-only but opinionated surnamesake were in the thick of it.

Eons ago in focal reducer land, but from memory, Brian's tests and results should be respected.

Without re-reading the thread I think my position was that I was getting good enough results with the adapters that I used even if for some reason they were not perfect. The blue spot did not happen to me and was a complete mystery until Brian told me how to force it. When it duly appeared but in very extreme circumstances. Others were afflicted by the blue spot frequently and as I remember Brian's explanation it was lens-based alone even if perhaps it could be tuned out by good adapter design. Like all these sort of "problems" it developed a life of its own to chat about.

The symptoms seem to have been more easily found in Nikon (for goodness sake) and a few other lenses where a reflection off the sensor was bounced back on to the sensor by a flat glass somewhere in the lens. This could range from even the filter glass itself (according to Canon's own literature) or any other internal flat glass element. If the shape of the aperture could be seen than it was from before the aperture but if just a blur then after the aperture.

Apparently this is caused because film was not as reflective as sensors are and many lens designers did not worry about tuning out the very rare ghost reflections created this way.

Therefore the problem was caused by unfinalised lens design that had been considered unecessary when designing lenses tobe used with film stock compounded by the fact that many early focal reducer designs had not seen the need to tune this sometime abberation out. As none of my lenses seemed to have this problem I was blissful in my ignorance of this fact.

I don't ever remember any particular problem image wise with focal reduction adapters but I also have never owned a Minolta mount lens. I do have Zhongi, RJ and Metabones focal reduction adapters to E mount. Perhaps I might not be rigorous enough. I rarely get back to my Sony bodies these days and I have RJ dumb focal reducer adapters to M4/3 and also Metabones electronic adpaters and have no complaints. I have given the Zhongyi a miss since my lens mounting problems (overcome) with their MkI version to E mount.

Robert Schroeder said:
Cheers,
Robert

Winterfrost · Jan 30, 2016

I don't have a mFT System, but the "ordinary" LT II is avialable since Spring/Summer 2014, i know, it's not the all-new LTII for mFT Systems, but it does work fine onto my NEX6 & A3000 Bodies. ;-) It doesn't have that blue spot issue anymore like the 2013 original Zhongyi/Mitakon Lens Turbo (orange engraved brand onto the LT)

good light

marc

Tom Caldwell · Jan 30, 2016

SimonOL said:
Tom Caldwell said:

SLN001 said:

Back when I was working with an NEX-6 I bought the original Zhongyi Lens Turbo, M42 to NEX, and was reasonably happy with it. When the LT-II was released, promising better optics, I took the plunge. The LT-II did have better optics and played well with most of my lenses. However the LT-II with its more complicated lens lock mechanism, was much weaker in either design or quality control. Mine fell apart after a few months and I was unable to repair it while my LT-I is still going strong.

So keep an eye on those little adjusting screws.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Winterfrost · Jan 31, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
Thanks Steve,

I have The MkI Zhongyi and the RJ dumb focal reducers from a few years ago and also Metabones and Fotga electronic adapters. All to E/FE. I am working from memory (a bad thing) and I should get them out of my box of tricks and compare them more fully. I do remember that the RJ was of much superior mechanical design to the MkI Zhongyi at least. You have obviously paid more attention to the MkII version than I have.

I also had anecdotal comment from a reliable source that RJ made the metal work for both adapters (on contract in the case of the Zhongyi) and that Mitakon supplied their optics.

nigbat · Jan 31, 2016

No time for exhaustive testing, but using a Tak 105/2.8 on the two adapters - on a tripod and using a 2 sec shutter delay, there seems to be a big difference.

(Of course, manual focusing, and really should have spent more time to be conclusive, etc. but the difference is large enough for me.)

There also seems to be a significant difference in focal reduction between the two.

RJ first followed by the Zhongyi, right, centre and left of frame crops.

nigbat · Jan 31, 2016

Naturally there might be slight differences in focus between the two images, but the difference in results for the two were pretty consistent over half a dozen shots, refocusing several times.

Converted in Lightroom, and no PP at all other than cropping.

SimonOL · Jan 31, 2016

nigbat said:
Naturally there might be slight differences in focus between the two images, but the difference in results for the two were pretty consistent over half a dozen shots, refocusing several times.

Converted in Lightroom, and no PP at all other than cropping.

Wow - the results from the RJ are really poor! OK in the centre but everything else is mush.

I've never seen anything that bad from my Zhongyi Lens Turbo v.1 but I don't think it is the same thing as the RJ reducers :-| ?

I can see why you're happy with the LTII

nigbat · Jan 31, 2016

I'm not sure that part of the problem isn't field curvature with the RJ adapter.

I could try repeating the comparison with the lens stopped down (here it was wide open) I guess.

The other thing to consider with the M4/3 versions is whether there's all that much point in using them for the wider lenses. On ASPC you get essentially the focal length they were designed for; on M4/3 it's more like using a full frame wide angle on ASPC.

A Takumar 35/2 for example becomes a 25/1.4 - and given the rather nice Panasonic 25/1.4 that's a fraction of the size, it seems slightly silly.

Conversely, a Tak 50/1.4 becomes a 35mm f0.95 on M4/3 - which would cost you around $800 if you bought the Zhongyi Speedmaster equivalent...

Robert Schroeder · Jan 31, 2016

Thanks, very informative... The RJ's results very much look like what I remember from the E-Mount variety of the Zhongyi Lens Turbo I, by the way.

The LT II indeed looks like it could be a real alternative to Metabones' Speed Boosters...

Now we have to hope that they've eliminated the mount problems that have been reported with version II... I cannot remember any such problems with the LT I; I used lenses up to 400mm with it, and while image quality was disappointing, I never had the impression that it was anything but solid and sturdy...

Cheers,
Robert

Robert Schroeder · Jan 31, 2016

The poor edge sharpness of the Lens Turbo (version 1) I used to have indeed was, to a great extent, caused by a strong field curvature coming from the adapter. That didn't make the results any better, though...

I agree that adapting wide-angle lenses to M43 is, in many cases, still somewhat questionable, even with a focal reducer which makes them act more according to their original usage... I find exceptions to that rule, though. One of my favourite adapted lenses is the Minolta MD 35mm f/1.8, which becomes a 25mm f/1.28 – being faster and enabling shallower depth of field even than the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4, which is much more expensive, too (the more so once you've already got the adapter). I don't mind a little more weight and bulk, either, and the whole package with the E-M1 plus that 35mm lens still stays nicely compact.

Another favourite of mine would have been the Minolta 24mm f/2.8 (if my lens wouldn't have become defective – I think I'll be trying to get another one soon, though, even though the more interesting Minolta lenses have become rather expensive these days), becoming a real 17mm f/2 – while I find a really good and at least moderately fast 35mm equivalent something that is dearly missing from the current M43 lineup. The Zuiko 17/1.8 is just not sharp enough that I'd want to pay its price. (If and when I've got my new MD 24/2.8 some day, I actually plan to compare it to the 17/1.8 Zuiko if I can get my hands on one...)

Cheers,
Robert

SimonOL · Jan 31, 2016

Reading some posts here, anyone would think the original Lens Turbo was incapable of good results.

In defense of the older Lens Turbo, I thought I would share this shot taken just after I got the focal reducer in October 2013. It's not a good landscape photo - it was only intended as a test shot - but I think it shows that acceptable results in the corners are at least possible:

Yashica ML 50mm f/2 at f/11 on Zhongyi Lens Turbo v.1. Resized, not cropped.

If you pixel peep you'll see the edges/corners aren't as sharp as the central region but I find them perfectly acceptable.

Without a FF camera, I have no way of knowing how far the Yashica 50/2 would need to be stopped down to get good corners across the frame so it's impossible for me to tell what effect the LT is having on this or any of my shots.

I'm not saying that the LTI is as good as the LTII (it isn't) or that it doesn't introduce field curvature (it does), just that this is not necessarily a problem in the real world. Test shots at close range don't tell the whole story unless that's all you ever want to do with it!

In any case, it's pretty good for portrait-type shots:

Helios 40 wide open on Lens Turbo v.1

Just received the new Lens Turbo II...

Senior Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts