Just received the new Lens Turbo II...

baxters · Jan 31, 2016

Thanks, nigbat for posting your comparison. My shots confirm what you see.

This is with a 50mm f1.8 lens, wide open, compared to an un-named focal reduce, probably an RJ or Roxsen model. Since I am using M43, I get a 2X crop. Effective focal length of 70 mm and light gathering of F1.4?

The newer Zhongyi is much better. Subject was a bookshelf from 5 feet. As

Lastly Lens Turbo compared against Panasonic 25mm f1.7 in the Center, with Panasonic lens repositioned. Both lenses wide open.

For me, the Lens Turbo is going to be my choice from now on. It's also better made than my other one.

By the way, I don't have any good 28mm legacy lenses, and the mediocre ones I own just get worse on a focal reducer, so a nifty 50 adapter to a fast 70mm equivalent on M43 is as low as I go. I expect the adapter will work well with my longer lenses/

And yes, I do have some photos I like that were taken with the RJ focal reducer, where the edges didn't matter, so it wasn't a purchase I regret.

Robert Schroeder · Jan 31, 2016

Thanks for showing. Yes, stopped down to f/11, I seem to remember "acceptable" results were possible – if the lens didn't show the "blue spot" issue when stopped down, which most of my lenses unfortunately did. I still kept the LT v1 until I sold my NEX, because it was indeed good for portrait-type stuff, or for low-light snapshots which didn't require too much image quality anyway...

Cheers,
Robert

nigbat · Jan 31, 2016

I'm liking the alcohol in the left hand corner theme that seems to be developing....

Tom Caldwell · Jan 31, 2016

marc petzold said:
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.

Click to expand...

Tom Caldwell · Jan 31, 2016

The RJ looks unacceptable, but this contrasts with my experience with their adapters which has kept me buying them.

As far as I know all these older focal reduction adapters used to come with some form of adjustment for focus. I have never had to do this but it does look like your RJ is not quite perfect focus for whatever reason (I don't think "operator error").

Having said that I have had no real problem with my Zhongyi MkI adapters to Sony E other than in mounting FL lenses. This was the style of mechanical construction and not optics based.

The Metabones site used to have detailed instructions on how to fine tune their adapters if the focus was a problem and RJ cutely referred to these instructions as the approved method for adjusting theirs. From memory - slacken off lock - quarter turn qone way - not working? Try the opposite direction then work back until it is perfect.

However I have never felt that I had any need to do this myself and therefore am not much help in this regard.

Just trying out my current RJ M42 to M4/3 adapter on a CZJ 135/3.5 the image appears very sharp. But I would have to look at it in more detail on computer to be sure. Looking at the adapter itself there seems no obvious sign of an adjustment mechnism let alone a way into the adapter elements. I did notice a large thumb print on the rear element ....

So I can only speculate that the older adapters may have had problems with factory set tolerances and were therefore were allowed to be adjusted in the field. Perhaps more recently produced adapters are made to fine tolerances and need no adjustment that can be operator accessed?

Certanly allowing your end user to mess around with adjusting focus would be a sure recipe for potential disasters. Worst case - trying to make very acceptable into perfect will only make it worse.

I should also not that focal reducers for the M4/3 mount came late to the party and all manufacturers would have had plenty of experience in sorting out their Sony E/FE products before this product came to market. Therefore I doubt if any M4/3 adapter was of mkI standard.

Caledonia84 · Jan 31, 2016

I too recently got a Lens turbo II And I'm very impressed with it in fact It's rarely off the camera body, I went with E mount to EOS not because I hve any EOS lenses but because eos is quite an adaptable mount in its own right, I bought EOS to M42 qnd EOS to contax/yashica adapters. Just for those considering one and are looking at examples on different lenses Ill post a few here

Helios 44m 58mm f2

Helios 44m-4

Carl Zeiss Flek 35mm f2.4

Yashica ML 50mm f1.4

--

Scott H

Explore Scott H’s 3,742 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Tom Caldwell · Jan 31, 2016

Well done, if the proof is in the shooting consider it proved.

Caledonia84 · Jan 31, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
Well done, if the proof is in the shooting consider it proved.

SimonOL · Jan 31, 2016

Caledonia84 said:
Thanks Tom, I really am very pleased with it, if anything negative I can see about it would be slightly harder to manually focus, the DOF feels smaller, not sure if this is the case but it definitely feels like it.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/caledonia84/

DOF appears to be shallower because the reducer has almost eliminated the crop factor of your sensor, your lens now gives a wider field of view so you need to be closer to a subject to achieve a particular composition compared to using a plain adapter.

Or to put it another way (!), if you could take those great shots you've posted again without using the Lens Turbo, you would need to be further away from the subject to get the same composition.

Tom Caldwell · Jan 31, 2016

Zhongyi Lens Turbo MkI FD to Sony E

This is the lens mount side of the Zhongyi. The fixed aperture activating pin is longitudinal to the lens axis and therefore probably not a best design. If you look carefully you can see where the FL lens aperture rod has been hitting against the sleeve surrounding the lens mount. An unmodified FL lens could not be mounted on this adapter - period.

Some FD lenses (bent aperture levers?) also had problems there, but all my FD lenses worked fine.

The lens insert adjustment lock is on the camera body side and the fine adjustment is on the other side - round holes. There is a mark on one of the tool flanges but if was not my doing as I have never needed to adjust the focus on any of my focal reduction adapters.

The lens insert elements are inserted from the camera body side.

RJ Focal Reduction adapter FD to Sony E mount

This adapter has a lot cleaner internal design. Standard "Chinese" lateral pin aperture stop pin. Plenty of room inside and no problems with fouling aperture levers.

It has attached hard metal mount flanges instead of direct machined from aluminium (Zhongyi). Coating has a different coloured "glow".

Mechanically the glass elements are inserted from the lens end and both the lock ring and the focus adjustment (round holes) are on the lens end of the adapter.

We talk incessantly on image quality and product is lauded or condemned based on the image it is said to produce.

Personally I do also appreciate mechanical design and construction. In the above images it must be pretty clear that the RJ "as an adapter" is a much superior design than the Lens Turbo at MkI level at least.

Both these adapters had provision for adjusting their focus. This is something that I could not readily find in the more recent designed and made RJ M42 to M4/3 focal reduction adapters.

That RJ made the metalwork for the MkI Lens Turbos may have just been a person with some inside knowledge "blowing their horn" as it would seem that there was no copying going on in the later made RJ version. Note also that RJ is in the business of making adapters in general - they are a metal working manufacturer and not just a reseller.

The only thing that makes sense of the story I was told was that Mitakon may have given a contract to RJ to make the adapter shells to their proffered drawings and RJ later made their own version to their own original design. In any case the RJ looks a better technical build even if there is some disagreement by the jury over actual performance. If indeed RJ used Mitakon lenses they used lenses with different coatings. Further if Mitakon cured the blue spot issue then I suppose the new lenses/arrangement became available to RJ as well.

Furthermore Mitakon has made a name for its adapters through promoting the Zhongyi brand whilst RJ hides their light under the proverbial bushell by often no-name branding and selling through resellers. As RJ is much more mysterious and doesn't promote well there is every chance that their later product is also "MkII" but simply not labelled as such.

I don't know the real facts - I only know what I can touch and see,

--
Tom Caldwell

Tom Caldwell · Jan 31, 2016

Robert Schroeder said:
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

Yes the Lens Turbo I worked fine for me and after modifying the aperture rods FL lenses mounted as well. It is quite a sturdy adapter. It is just that the RJ version was a better design from an engineering point of view - see my other response with comparisons on this thread.

I have tended to buy RJ ever since and I cannot say that I have ever been disappointed.

But I have a penchant for good industrial design, but that is "just me" ....

I have not seen the LT II so I am unable to comment there.

markintosh13 · Feb 1, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
Yes the Lens Turbo I worked fine for me and after modifying the aperture rods FL lenses mounted as well. It is quite a sturdy adapter. It is just that the RJ version was a better design from an engineering point of view - see my other response with comparisons on this thread.

I have tended to buy RJ ever since and I cannot say that I have ever been disappointed.

But I have a penchant for good industrial design, but that is "just me" ....

I have not seen the LT II so I am unable to comment there.

Here's a good comparison of some Metabone SBs and the LTII: http://www.verybiglobo.com/metabones-speed-booster-ultra-review-part-ii-canon-ef-501-2-l/

nigbat · Feb 1, 2016

The much cheaper Turbo II comes out quite well compared to the new Metabones.

Of course the other point in its favour is that Metabones do not, as yet, provide an M42 version.

baxters · Feb 1, 2016

RJ just took the existing FD breech mount design and screwed in a lens element. In my sample, which is for M43, they screwed it in too far, and it hit the inside of my EM5 and EPL5, so the adapter could not be mounted.

Since you shoot GM1, GM5, and GX7, Tom, you might not have seen this problem. After I complained to my ebay vendor, he started to add disclaimers that it wouldn't fit the EM5.

Actually, if one is willing to adjust the position of the lens assembly, it will fit. That's what I did. I loosened a set screw, turned the barrel so it just contacted the cameras, and then added some margin. It did not seem to affect infinity focus or the overall image quality.

My assessment is that this adapter is poorly designed, at least for M43. For Sony and Samsung, this problem may not exist.

Personally, as an engineer I would make sure the final QC ensures the barrel will never hit the inside of any current M43 camera. Some user might brute force a poorly fitting adapter onto his camera, and break something.

Robert Schroeder · Feb 1, 2016

nigbat said:
The much cheaper Turbo II comes out quite well compared to the new Metabones.

It does indeed.

I think that decides it for me: if I should ever need another dumb focal reducer and there is one that fits, it'll be a Lens Turbo II, at least for those mounts which cannot be adapted to Canon EF... the most obvious for me probably being Canon FD.

@markintosh13: Thanks for the pointer!

Cheers,
Robert

Tom Caldwell · Feb 1, 2016

baxters said:
RJ just took the existing FD breech mount design and screwed in a lens element. In my sample, which is for M43, they screwed it in too far, and it hit the inside of my EM5 and EPL5, so the adapter could not be mounted.

Since you shoot GM1, GM5, and GX7, Tom, you might not have seen this problem. After I complained to my ebay vendor, he started to add disclaimers that it wouldn't fit the EM5.

Actually, if one is willing to adjust the position of the lens assembly, it will fit. That's what I did. I loosened a set screw, turned the barrel so it just contacted the cameras, and then added some margin. It did not seem to affect infinity focus or the overall image quality.

My assessment is that this adapter is poorly designed, at least for M43. For Sony and Samsung, this problem may not exist.

Personally, as an engineer I would make sure the final QC ensures the barrel will never hit the inside of any current M43 camera. Some user might brute force a poorly fitting adapter onto his camera, and break something.

This is interesting, thanks for your comments. My E-M1 is off having its dicky top rear wheel "seen to" by Olympus warranty. I expect it back soon enough. I will (carefully) try my FD-M4/3 adapter on it. The truth being that I was so excited with getting my EF lenses back to use all in one parcel after the Metabones EF-M4/3 adapters suddenly made them prime time again that the FD lenses have not recently had the use that they deserve.

I have just checked as far as I am able and just selected a FDn 200/4.0 for the purpose. The adapter fits straight on to the GX7, and so does the lens. No problems in operation.

I bought my example direct from RJ so I know its origins precisely but as often usual it is not branded. They do themselves no favours by not branding their product.

I think that they do resell through Roxon but I could not be sure and the dratted lack of branding does not help either.

Talking about set screws and adjustment makes me wonder as there is no obvious set screw or adjustment facility in my M4/3 version. My older Sony E versions have lock ring and adjustment ring which are both accessable from the camera body end which is the insertion direction. On the M4/3 version there must be some sort of friction mount that may be released by a rubber with torsion pressure. Maybe just a dress plate covering something more conventional underneath? I have not tried to do this as I have not needed to touch it. There is some rear protrusion but it does not seem to interfere with anything. I have pulled quite a few lenses apart and rebuilt them and there is no sign of the conventional methods of dismantling/adjusting the adapter that is in my hands.

As soon as I get my E-M1 back I will try there as well, that camera is a fairly recent acquisition but I had tought I was using FD lenses on it as well. But maybe I get mixed up and it was the GX7 I am thinking of.

In any case the internal dimensions of the M4/3 mount cannot be standardised. Metabones were caught out by their 0.64x focal reducer adapter which will only fit on a selection of M4/3 bodies, mostly Panasonic ones.

baxters · Feb 1, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
Talking about set screws and adjustment makes me wonder as there is no obvious set screw or adjustment facility in my M4/3 version.

All M43 mounts have that little screw , off from one of the flanges, about 140 degrees away from the red dot? I think that on my FD-M43 adapter, it does double duty as both the alignment stop for the mount, and it also locks down the lens assembly so it won't move.

When I look at mine now, and I can no longer tighten that screw enough to keep the lens assembly from turning by hand. It won't turn by itself though. I think it is greased.

Robert Schroeder · Feb 1, 2016

Tom Caldwell said:
In any case the internal dimensions of the M4/3 mount cannot be standardised. Metabones were caught out by their 0.64x focal reducer adapter which will only fit on a selection of M4/3 bodies, mostly Panasonic ones.

From what I've heard, it may very well be that the 0.64x Speed Booster does fit on a number of Olympus bodies (beside the E-PL7 which is the only one listed as compatible), but they won't support the combination because they cannot completely rule out that something inside the camera gets damaged.

Now someone would only have to try out which cameras work and which don't...

Cheers,
Robert

Tom Caldwell · Feb 1, 2016

baxters said:
Tom Caldwell said:

Talking about set screws and adjustment makes me wonder as there is no obvious set screw or adjustment facility in my M4/3 version.

Click to expand...

All M43 mounts have that little screw , off from one of the flanges, about 140 degrees away from the red dot? I think that on my FD-M43 adapter, it does double duty as both the alignment stop for the mount, and it also locks down the lens assembly so it won't move.

When I look at mine now, and I can no longer tighten that screw enough to keep the lens assembly from turning by hand. It won't turn by itself though. I think it is greased.

Thanks, I saw that screw, but my eyesight did not notice that it went through as lock screw. Under a light and magnification is is obvious. There had to be a way. It seems neat but potentially fragile.

I contrast this with the more conventional lens construction style of the earlier to Sony E adapters I have.

Mine is working fine so far but I will be interested to check my E-M1 against it when it arrives back - I don't have an E-M5 to compare with you.

Tom Caldwell · Feb 1, 2016

Robert Schroeder said:
Tom Caldwell said:

In any case the internal dimensions of the M4/3 mount cannot be standardised. Metabones were caught out by their 0.64x focal reducer adapter which will only fit on a selection of M4/3 bodies, mostly Panasonic ones.

Click to expand...

From what I've heard, it may very well be that the 0.64x Speed Booster does fit on a number of Olympus bodies (beside the E-PL7 which is the only one listed as compatible), but they won't support the combination because they cannot completely rule out that something inside the camera gets damaged.

Now someone would only have to try out which cameras work and which don't...

Cheers,
Robert

Yes I saw that as well Robert but I have no summoned enough courage to tackle the buy price of that adapter and find that it damages my camera body after I have been warned.

As far as I know it may be cosmetic and not that serious, however I am looking for a volunteer to pave the way ....

Easier to (say) mount the "not sure if it works" Canon 85mm f1.2 MkI on the GX7 via the standard Speedbooster and find that it seems to work better than on my Canon 5D body ...

It does indeed by some sort of combination of pre-focusing whenever it gets a chance and then does a fly-past CDAF an a single return to the best CDAF picked up on the fly-past - no jiggle. Brilliant. They have a good algarithm working with minimal messing around.

The 5D does its usual quite quick PDAF but no pre-focus - this slows up considerably at distance as I don't think that the Canon final focus CDAF works nearly as well as the Panasonic CDAF on far objects. This results area as quite quick PDAF to the general distance then a soft CDAF pulsing almost similar to the old electronic adapter jiggle followed by a final focus that does not seem as tack-sharp as what the Panasonic camera body can do.

There, I finally have it - close focus the Canon 5D PDAF is very quick and CDAF is hardly needed. It might just pip the Panasonic/Metabones pre-focus and quick double clunk. But at a distance the Panasonic CDAF prefocus and double clunk precision seems both quicker and more accurate than the Canon PDAF + CDAF where there CDAF part I think falls down on the job.

I guess I have been waiting for years to see this happen.

On the oher hand a present generation Canon dslr body would no doubt perform better. But I have bought a lot of lenses with the money I saved by not keeping up with the dslr camera body Joneses.

--
Tom Caldwell

Just received the new Lens Turbo II...

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Community Leader

Forum Enthusiast

Community Leader

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Community Leader

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Community Leader

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts