Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

Started Feb 3, 2014 | Discussions
boardsy Senior Member • Posts: 2,215
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

5nex7 wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Glad I read this little thread. I was thinking of getting one, but this put me off a bit. Maybe I should just get the SEL3518 instead.

The E35 is a nice little lens. But I am also expecting delivery of my Metabones SB (A-mount) tomorrow. The idea is primarily for portraiture. I will post feedback of my experiences here.

Interestingly enough, a lens I am really keen to see perform with SB is a cheap old Minolta 35-70/4. That lens is small and excellent wide open. On APSc, its weakness has been a limited range (50-105mm equiv), but with speed booster, it has the potential for a small and light 25-50/2.8 lens.

37 - 75mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

I also have Minolta 70-210/4, which will become 50-150/2.8 with SB.

75 - 223mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

Looking forward to the results.

And my 135/2.8 STF is really the lens I expect to use the most as it will become more useable as a portrait lens on APSc (95mm/2 equiv) when used on NEX-6 while a mid tele on a55 (200mm equiv).

143mm / F2 ff equivalent on APS-C

Yep, close to the FOV they were all intedended for while gaining on shutter speed.

IQ remains to be seen but on paper it looks very interesting. Based on the results, I might also convert my Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 to A-mount and that will give me an effective 35/1.2 APSc lens on SB.

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

FDn 50/1.4 at f2.8 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo:

FDn 50/1.4 @ f2.8 + LT

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

Very nice demo for shallow, full-frame-like depth of field.

I am curios if you can have also frame wide sharpness at F11.

... or frame wide sharpness at F5.6 on a flat subject.

I have to ask - if you need frame-wide sharpness on a flat subject at f5.6-f11, why not use the APS-C crop dumb adapter for best corners? There's no benefit to using a focal reducer in that scenario.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

WT21 wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

I know that there are cheap "universal" tele-adapters which will destroy your image, and expensive, dedicated tele-adapters, matched with high quality 70-200/F2.8 lenses, which will only degrade the image...

Agree, but I would think it's theoretically possible to get a sharper/brighter center, at the expense of the edges. For certain uses, that might be an acceptable trade-off, but, IMO, only for an adapter that cost

Probably exactly as you describe it, center vs edges.
I don't say people should not buy it, try it, play with it, use it.
People buy c-mount lenses... and judge how sharp they are on APS..
I even can agree that a 1.2 lens transformed in F0.9 can be interesting for night shooting.

boardsy Senior Member • Posts: 2,215
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)
1

WT21 wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

I know that there are cheap "universal" tele-adapters which will destroy your image, and expensive, dedicated tele-adapters, matched with high quality 70-200/F2.8 lenses, which will only degrade the image...

Agree, but I would think it's theoretically possible to get a sharper/brighter center, at the expense of the edges. For certain uses, that might be an acceptable trade-off, but, IMO, only for an adapter that cost <$150. I wouldn't pay metabones pricing for it.

I thought the whole point of a SB/LT was sharper center, more OOF shallow DoF visible (not more/less DoF per se of course) and more light for faster shutter speeds. The fact that the edges are sharp enough on my FDn's is a welcome if unexpected bonus!

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Glad I read this little thread. I was thinking of getting one, but this put me off a bit. Maybe I should just get the SEL3518 instead.

The E35 is a nice little lens. But I am also expecting delivery of my Metabones SB (A-mount) tomorrow. The idea is primarily for portraiture. I will post feedback of my experiences here.

Interestingly enough, a lens I am really keen to see perform with SB is a cheap old Minolta 35-70/4. That lens is small and excellent wide open. On APSc, its weakness has been a limited range (50-105mm equiv), but with speed booster, it has the potential for a small and light 25-50/2.8 lens.

37 - 75mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

I also have Minolta 70-210/4, which will become 50-150/2.8 with SB.

75 - 223mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

Looking forward to the results.

And my 135/2.8 STF is really the lens I expect to use the most as it will become more useable as a portrait lens on APSc (95mm/2 equiv) when used on NEX-6 while a mid tele on a55 (200mm equiv).

143mm / F2 ff equivalent on APS-C

Yep, close to the FOV they were all intedended for while gaining on shutter speed.

IQ remains to be seen but on paper it looks very interesting. Based on the results, I might also convert my Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 to A-mount and that will give me an effective 35/1.2 APSc lens on SB.

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

FDn 50/1.4 at f2.8 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo:

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

Very nice demo for shallow, full-frame-like depth of field.

I am curios if you can have also frame wide sharpness at F11.

... or frame wide sharpness at F5.6 on a flat subject.

I have to ask - if you need frame-wide sharpness on a flat subject at f5.6-f11, why not use the APS-C crop dumb adapter for best corners? There's no benefit to using a focal reducer in that scenario.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

I try to say that people talk about the benefits of this kind of "not dumb" adapters don't say about the trade-offs.

They tell you that you will turn your APS + lens into full frame like.

It is true about shallow depth of field, it may be true about increased resolution in the center and one stop aperture gain, but you will not use the lens like you will use it on a full frame - if you want sharpness across the frame you can not have it, so the use is limited.

boardsy Senior Member • Posts: 2,215
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)
1

5nex7 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Glad I read this little thread. I was thinking of getting one, but this put me off a bit. Maybe I should just get the SEL3518 instead.

The E35 is a nice little lens. But I am also expecting delivery of my Metabones SB (A-mount) tomorrow. The idea is primarily for portraiture. I will post feedback of my experiences here.

Interestingly enough, a lens I am really keen to see perform with SB is a cheap old Minolta 35-70/4. That lens is small and excellent wide open. On APSc, its weakness has been a limited range (50-105mm equiv), but with speed booster, it has the potential for a small and light 25-50/2.8 lens.

37 - 75mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

I also have Minolta 70-210/4, which will become 50-150/2.8 with SB.

75 - 223mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

Looking forward to the results.

And my 135/2.8 STF is really the lens I expect to use the most as it will become more useable as a portrait lens on APSc (95mm/2 equiv) when used on NEX-6 while a mid tele on a55 (200mm equiv).

143mm / F2 ff equivalent on APS-C

Yep, close to the FOV they were all intedended for while gaining on shutter speed.

IQ remains to be seen but on paper it looks very interesting. Based on the results, I might also convert my Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 to A-mount and that will give me an effective 35/1.2 APSc lens on SB.

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

FDn 50/1.4 at f2.8 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo:

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

Very nice demo for shallow, full-frame-like depth of field.

I am curios if you can have also frame wide sharpness at F11.

... or frame wide sharpness at F5.6 on a flat subject.

I have to ask - if you need frame-wide sharpness on a flat subject at f5.6-f11, why not use the APS-C crop dumb adapter for best corners? There's no benefit to using a focal reducer in that scenario.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

I try to say that people talk about the benefits of this kind of "not dumb" adapters don't say about the trade-offs.

They tell you that you will turn your APS + lens into full frame like.

It is true about shallow depth of field, it may be true about increased resolution in the center and one stop aperture gain, but you will not use the lens like you will use it on a full frame - if you want sharpness across the frame you can not have it, so the use is limited.

It all depends on the lens - not all lenses were sharp across the frame on FF! I get great edge sharpness already at f2.8 on the FDn 50/1.4 + LT:

I wouldn't really care if I didn't get that edge sharpness to be honest, but I'm amazed at this performance from an old Canon FD and the cheap LT!

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Glad I read this little thread. I was thinking of getting one, but this put me off a bit. Maybe I should just get the SEL3518 instead.

The E35 is a nice little lens. But I am also expecting delivery of my Metabones SB (A-mount) tomorrow. The idea is primarily for portraiture. I will post feedback of my experiences here.

Interestingly enough, a lens I am really keen to see perform with SB is a cheap old Minolta 35-70/4. That lens is small and excellent wide open. On APSc, its weakness has been a limited range (50-105mm equiv), but with speed booster, it has the potential for a small and light 25-50/2.8 lens.

37 - 75mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

I also have Minolta 70-210/4, which will become 50-150/2.8 with SB.

75 - 223mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

Looking forward to the results.

And my 135/2.8 STF is really the lens I expect to use the most as it will become more useable as a portrait lens on APSc (95mm/2 equiv) when used on NEX-6 while a mid tele on a55 (200mm equiv).

143mm / F2 ff equivalent on APS-C

Yep, close to the FOV they were all intedended for while gaining on shutter speed.

IQ remains to be seen but on paper it looks very interesting. Based on the results, I might also convert my Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 to A-mount and that will give me an effective 35/1.2 APSc lens on SB.

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

FDn 50/1.4 at f2.8 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo:

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

Very nice demo for shallow, full-frame-like depth of field.

I am curios if you can have also frame wide sharpness at F11.

... or frame wide sharpness at F5.6 on a flat subject.

I have to ask - if you need frame-wide sharpness on a flat subject at f5.6-f11, why not use the APS-C crop dumb adapter for best corners? There's no benefit to using a focal reducer in that scenario.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

I try to say that people talk about the benefits of this kind of "not dumb" adapters don't say about the trade-offs.

They tell you that you will turn your APS + lens into full frame like.

It is true about shallow depth of field, it may be true about increased resolution in the center and one stop aperture gain, but you will not use the lens like you will use it on a full frame - if you want sharpness across the frame you can not have it, so the use is limited.

It all depends on the lens - not all lenses were sharp across the frame on FF! I get great edge sharpness already at f2.8 on the FDn 50/1.4 + LT:

I wouldn't really care if I didn't get that edge sharpness to be honest, but I'm amazed at this performance from an old Canon FD and the cheap LT!

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

OK, I will buy one I will let you know what I think.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Glad I read this little thread. I was thinking of getting one, but this put me off a bit. Maybe I should just get the SEL3518 instead.

The E35 is a nice little lens. But I am also expecting delivery of my Metabones SB (A-mount) tomorrow. The idea is primarily for portraiture. I will post feedback of my experiences here.

Interestingly enough, a lens I am really keen to see perform with SB is a cheap old Minolta 35-70/4. That lens is small and excellent wide open. On APSc, its weakness has been a limited range (50-105mm equiv), but with speed booster, it has the potential for a small and light 25-50/2.8 lens.

37 - 75mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

I also have Minolta 70-210/4, which will become 50-150/2.8 with SB.

75 - 223mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

Looking forward to the results.

And my 135/2.8 STF is really the lens I expect to use the most as it will become more useable as a portrait lens on APSc (95mm/2 equiv) when used on NEX-6 while a mid tele on a55 (200mm equiv).

143mm / F2 ff equivalent on APS-C

Yep, close to the FOV they were all intedended for while gaining on shutter speed.

IQ remains to be seen but on paper it looks very interesting. Based on the results, I might also convert my Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 to A-mount and that will give me an effective 35/1.2 APSc lens on SB.

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

FDn 50/1.4 at f2.8 + Zhongyi Lens Turbo:

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

Very nice demo for shallow, full-frame-like depth of field.

I am curios if you can have also frame wide sharpness at F11.

... or frame wide sharpness at F5.6 on a flat subject.

I have to ask - if you need frame-wide sharpness on a flat subject at f5.6-f11, why not use the APS-C crop dumb adapter for best corners? There's no benefit to using a focal reducer in that scenario.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

I try to say that people talk about the benefits of this kind of "not dumb" adapters don't say about the trade-offs.

They tell you that you will turn your APS + lens into full frame like.

It is true about shallow depth of field, it may be true about increased resolution in the center and one stop aperture gain, but you will not use the lens like you will use it on a full frame - if you want sharpness across the frame you can not have it, so the use is limited.

Let us reuse my example. Sony 135/2.8 T4.5 is one of my favorite lenses but it has a rather narrow FOV on APSc (200mn equiv). It limits the use as a portrait lens while it makes for an excellent portrait lens with FF FOV.

With SB, the FOV would drop to about 95mm, which is pretty good for a tighter portrait. It would be like a 95/2 lens on APSc. I am not sure if corner sharpness will be as great as with SB but I don't foresee using that lens stopped down (I have never used the lens past f/5.6 which is a very shallow DOF on APSc). Its a lens for background blur.

If I needed longer reach with speed, the other lens I could use would be Minolta 200/2.8. With SB, we would be looking at the effect of 140/2 lens on APSc, again, very shallow DOF. But this also means I can shoot low light action better (The Sony Zeiss 135/1.8 has been out of budget for a while).

Then there is Contax Zeiss 50/1.7. I may be able to use it as a 35/1.2 lens on some occasions. The idea, again, won't be to use it for anything but for speed/shallower DOf. This lens is very good wide open so any loss in contrast should also be lower than other lenses of its kind and may match native 1.2 lenses.

Of course, I could always use these lenses without SB too.

 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
Michael Everett Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: Sharpness across frame

With say an FDn 50/1.4 sharpness across frame is probably not critical in 90 per cent of the shots one takes.  With say an FD 24/2.8, often used for landscape photographyj sharpness across the frame is more important.  That is where a Metabones SB shines in comparison to the LT.  I have all of the able and I can say that the centers are quite similar with either lens , but the edges are considerably better on the SB.

Disclaimer: I do not work for nor have any connection with Metabones.

Michael

Michael Everett Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: Sharpness across frame

Sorry for the typos in the above post.

I have all of the above . . . .

Michael

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

5nex7 wrote:

... or frame wide sharpness at F5.6 on a flat subject.

I received my SB today, and tried a few lenses. The prelim test was all indoors, in limited light but I think it does a good job beyond the center as well, at least through the thirds. Mine is A-mount, and lenses I tried: Minolta 35-70/4 (this lens looks very good on SB, as a 25-50/2.8), Minolta 70-210/4, Minolta 50/1.7 (and it looks very good too, as a 35/1.2 lens) although I didn't see much difference in t-stop compared to E 35 (may be a different story in good light). And, of course, the STF.

I will try to post a few samples over the weekend.

 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
forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
Forum is always interested in ...

... the latest and greatest. There was a time when FRs were such, now it's time of A7/r. Who knows what will be tomorrow. Maybe the rumored NEX successor turns out to be so good that everybody starts only talking about it and A7 will be all but forgotten.

On the practical side, I think many people who got a good FR continue using it. I took plenty of shots with LT  and in most cases I like the boost in central sharpness and contrast and the character it brings to the lens. I actually prefer a small light NEX-5N with FR to much larger, heavier A7, so much so that I got rid of the later and returned to the former.

-- hide signature --

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter -- Winston Churchill

OP Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,644
Re: Out taking photos with them? :-)

boardsy wrote:

Out taking photos with them?

FDn 100/2.8 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

Nothing wrong with that one (focal reducer) Alan. Coping with the blue spot horror?

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,644
Re: Out taking photos with them? :-)
2

Habs Fan27 wrote:

boardsy wrote:

Habs Fan27 wrote:

Are any of these photos cropped? I was thinking of getting an FD Lens Turbo but many people have said that you only get good sharpness in the 1/3rd around the center.

I have a recently acquired 24mm f2 FD . From what I have read, the corners will be no better than the SEL 16 pancake and probably worse with the LT

I haven't done a lot of shooting at 24mm + LT, but with good FDn's - 35/2, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 - I get good sharpness to the edges, much better than i expected to be honest and i would have happily lived with soft edges. I guess the FDn's are just that good! The robin is almost 100% crop, but the others aren't, except the portrait architectural shot, which had a very minor crop around +7 barrel distortion correction to straighten the lines - you can see it's sharp right into the corner at f5.6 on the FDn 50/1.4!

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

OK, thanks for the reply. It sounds like like the LT is very lens specific. Many seem to have good success with it using the 50mm f1.4. I used to have the SSC version of this lens. Never really like 50mm on APS-C I find it both too long and too short but would be great with LT.

I might see if I can get a used LT to try out then. I'd like to try it with my 85mm as well. I don't think it will work well with the 24mm f2.

Ask willym he may have one to sell.

Seriously, the issues seem to be that if you have a great lens then the focal reducer will enhance its performance.  If your lens has problems then it will enhance them as well.  The focal reducer don't fix duff lenses, they make them worse.  Furthermore a FF capable lens is often using the best part of the image circle to make an aps-c image.  The softest part of the lens might not be seen until the focal reducer jacks the lens up to FF image capture on aps-c.  If the lens just happens to be soft around the edges then the focal reducer will show that where it might never have been seen before.

Alan shows that Focal Reducer adapters are not necessarily poor performers per se.

Furthermore these adapters are made without reference  to any specific lens and can be used with 1,001 varieties of lenses by users quite randomly outside the Focal reducer manufacturers control.

I think it is fair comment that the blue spot is now recognised as a ghost reflection of the sensor off a flat surface inside the lens that is mounted.  Usually possible because when the lenses were made they were made for film use and film is not nearly as reflective as a sensor.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,644
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

5nex7 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Glad I read this little thread. I was thinking of getting one, but this put me off a bit. Maybe I should just get the SEL3518 instead.

The E35 is a nice little lens. But I am also expecting delivery of my Metabones SB (A-mount) tomorrow. The idea is primarily for portraiture. I will post feedback of my experiences here.

Interestingly enough, a lens I am really keen to see perform with SB is a cheap old Minolta 35-70/4. That lens is small and excellent wide open. On APSc, its weakness has been a limited range (50-105mm equiv), but with speed booster, it has the potential for a small and light 25-50/2.8 lens.

37 - 75mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

I also have Minolta 70-210/4, which will become 50-150/2.8 with SB.

75 - 223mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

Looking forward to the results.

And my 135/2.8 STF is really the lens I expect to use the most as it will become more useable as a portrait lens on APSc (95mm/2 equiv) when used on NEX-6 while a mid tele on a55 (200mm equiv).

143mm / F2 ff equivalent on APS-C

Yep, close to the FOV they were all intedended for while gaining on shutter speed.

IQ remains to be seen but on paper it looks very interesting. Based on the results, I might also convert my Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 to A-mount and that will give me an effective 35/1.2 APSc lens on SB.

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

I know that there are cheap "universal" tele-adapters which will destroy your image, and expensive, dedicated tele-adapters, matched with high quality 70-200/F2.8 lenses, which will only degrade the image...

You must read the white paper on the Metabones site which explains technically and very clearly why the focal reducer adapter behind the lens improves quality of the image and why a telephoto adapter degrades it.  Also note that focal reducer adapters have been and continue to be used for astronomical observations and are reliably known to improve the image as has been claimed for focal reducer adapters for camera lenses.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

nzmacro
nzmacro Forum Pro • Posts: 14,614
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

Tom Caldwell wrote:

.. long time passing I guess.

I suppose that all those with MF legacy glass longing for some extra grunt for their aps-c have now bought an "A7"

Also that those who were quite happy with the crop factor of the aps-c sensor remain happy.

... and, of course those that simply use AF lenses don't need them - unless the lenses are made by Canon and of EF variety and they might not need focal reducers if their shutter squeeze is an A7.

Nor do they seem to be making much of a ripple in their new M4/3 incarnation.

Damme - I really miss the blue spot controversies.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

LOL Trust you Tom

Nothing wrong with blue spots and yep I remain with the crop factor. Never did get into the reducers, never liked anything added to the optical path.

All the best Tom, never appealed really.

Danny.

-- hide signature --
 nzmacro's gear list:nzmacro's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 +7 more
OP Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,644
Re: Forum is always interested in ...

forpetessake wrote:

... the latest and greatest. There was a time when FRs were such, now it's time of A7/r. Who knows what will be tomorrow. Maybe the rumored NEX successor turns out to be so good that everybody starts only talking about it and A7 will be all but forgotten.

On the practical side, I think many people who got a good FR continue using it. I took plenty of shots with LT and in most cases I like the boost in central sharpness and contrast and the character it brings to the lens. I actually prefer a small light NEX-5N with FR to much larger, heavier A7, so much so that I got rid of the later and returned to the former.

-- hide signature --

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter -- Winston Churchill

Yes that is interesting

Remember that ProfHankD put up an article on dpreview comparing the NEX7 24mp aps-c sensor using a focal reducer to give effective FF performance against the A7 with 24mp true FF sensor.

Pixels are the same and image circles are both FF.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

OP Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 31,644
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)
1

nzmacro wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

.. long time passing I guess.

I suppose that all those with MF legacy glass longing for some extra grunt for their aps-c have now bought an "A7"

Also that those who were quite happy with the crop factor of the aps-c sensor remain happy.

... and, of course those that simply use AF lenses don't need them - unless the lenses are made by Canon and of EF variety and they might not need focal reducers if their shutter squeeze is an A7.

Nor do they seem to be making much of a ripple in their new M4/3 incarnation.

Damme - I really miss the blue spot controversies.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

LOL Trust you Tom

Nothing wrong with blue spots and yep I remain with the crop factor. Never did get into the reducers, never liked anything added to the optical path.

All the best Tom, never appealed really.

Danny.

-- hide signature --

Yes Danny and focal reducers would reduce the effective focal length of your lenses and might not be welcome ... oh so "far away".

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

boardsy Senior Member • Posts: 2,215
Re: Out taking photos with them? :-)

Tom Caldwell wrote:

boardsy wrote:

Out taking photos with them?

FDn 100/2.8 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

FDn 50/1.4 + Lens Turbo

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

Nothing wrong with that one (focal reducer) Alan. Coping with the blue spot horror?

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

I can live with the occasional blue spot or two, or three, or four, or...

FDn 35/2 + Lens Turbo + blue spots

-- hide signature --

--

Regards,
Alan
my Flickr

(unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 496
Re: Where have all the Focal-reducers gone? (with apologies)

Tom Caldwell wrote:

5nex7 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Glad I read this little thread. I was thinking of getting one, but this put me off a bit. Maybe I should just get the SEL3518 instead.

The E35 is a nice little lens. But I am also expecting delivery of my Metabones SB (A-mount) tomorrow. The idea is primarily for portraiture. I will post feedback of my experiences here.

Interestingly enough, a lens I am really keen to see perform with SB is a cheap old Minolta 35-70/4. That lens is small and excellent wide open. On APSc, its weakness has been a limited range (50-105mm equiv), but with speed booster, it has the potential for a small and light 25-50/2.8 lens.

37 - 75mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

I also have Minolta 70-210/4, which will become 50-150/2.8 with SB.

75 - 223mm / F2.8 ff equivalent on APS-C

Looking forward to the results.

And my 135/2.8 STF is really the lens I expect to use the most as it will become more useable as a portrait lens on APSc (95mm/2 equiv) when used on NEX-6 while a mid tele on a55 (200mm equiv).

143mm / F2 ff equivalent on APS-C

Yep, close to the FOV they were all intedended for while gaining on shutter speed.

IQ remains to be seen but on paper it looks very interesting. Based on the results, I might also convert my Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 to A-mount and that will give me an effective 35/1.2 APSc lens on SB.

Yes, IQ remains to be seen.

I have my doubts.. if I believe that a filter in front of a lens will degrade the IQ - and I do believe this, how could I believe that a complex optical system behind the lens would not degrade it, more, it would improve the image ?

I know that there are cheap "universal" tele-adapters which will destroy your image, and expensive, dedicated tele-adapters, matched with high quality 70-200/F2.8 lenses, which will only degrade the image...

You must read the white paper on the Metabones site which explains technically and very clearly why the focal reducer adapter behind the lens improves quality of the image and why a telephoto adapter degrades it. Also note that focal reducer adapters have been and continue to be used for astronomical observations and are reliably known to improve the image as has been claimed for focal reducer adapters for camera lenses.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Tom,
I don't have anything against these adapters, or other adapters.

I agree that it changes the focal length, I agree that it changes the lens's character, I agree that it will increase max aperture by one stop, I agree that it will convert ~ full size lens image to APS sensor.

I don't believe that the lens+adapter will have a flat sharp all over the frame aperture, I will have to check it with my eyes, and I don't understand what "improved quality" means ?

For me it is only a technical discussion.

kjhants Regular Member • Posts: 110
Re: Out taking photos with them? :-)

glad you mentioned zhongyi, I bought one for use with exactly that lens fd 50mm 1.4, adapter fitted both body(nex 7 & 5n) & lens, but I was unable to turn focus ring to infinity because as you probably know the rear inner lens extends rearwards, & was touching the glass in the adapter this happened with 20mm,28mm, 35mm lenses it worked just fine with 100mm macro & 80-200mm zoom.did you have this problem ?.

regards keith.

 kjhants's gear list:kjhants's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha NEX-7 Fujifilm X-Pro1 Sony Alpha a7 II Sony DT 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads