Olympus 12mm f2 vs Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 + Speedbooster
Panasonic Lumix DMC-SZ10 Review (ePhotozine).
My Fuji vs. Olympus catch-22 (Eyesuncloudedphoto).
Adam (video on top): “I recently decided to start creating videos for my youtube channel again and just uploaded a video comparing the Olympus 12mm f2 and the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 with Metabones Speedbooster zoomed to 16mm for a comparable field of view. If you think your readers would be interested in seeing it please feel free to share it. If it gets positive feedback I’ll definitely continue making more videos in the same vein.”
Siim: “GH4 and various lenses http://vimeo.com/142904909”
Daniel Zurek: “https://youtu.be/-f_qRYDR158. Sharing some experiences documenting biological field work using micro four thirds. We talk about the Panasonic/Olympus gear we used to shoot macro video of jumping spiders (and general documentary scenes) in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.“
37 Responses
That Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, for bigger sensors, is half the price of Oly 12/2 just shows how overpriced the latter is. Unfortunately, overpricing (and strange pricing in general, like regularly UNDERpricing their 14-42 II and 40-150/4-5.6) is kind of a norm for Oly.
So a smaller lens must cost less than a bigger lens? Why is that exactly? Glas plastic and metal cost nothing.
Get your thoughts strait.
It has nothing to do with cost, it has everything to do with competitiveness of the product on the general market.
And BTW, all main lens unit costs (optical glass, forming, polishing etc ARE roughly proportional to the total size of the glass).
M43 lenses, especially primes are much smaller, and that is the added value.
I pay for a compact but capable system, and I’m willing to pay extra for that.
That being said, the speedbooster gives us some interesting options.
I agree the speedbooster does make things really interesting – especially for people who already have a range of bigger lenses like myself. I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC which becomes roughly the micro 4/3 equiv of 17-50 VC with f2 constant or 34-100mm in terms of 35mm FOV. I’ve used it quite a bit but not done many actual side by side tests with native lenses so that was the idea behind this video, I’ll make some more soon 🙂
You should get your thoughts straight. Are you talking about cost, value or what? And since when “glass plastic and metal cost nothing”?
The cost of the materials is insignificant compared to the R&D and production costs(also depending on nr of units sold). Especially with lenses it works 2 ways, small lenses are not easier to make.
And yes, for me the value of a big lens is less than that of a small lens with the same capabilities(although it’s possible that something is too small and that it’s hindering usability also ). I want compact.
The Ollie ‘Premium’ 20/F2 is some £550 and the Toki 11-16 is £275 but you have to factor in the Speedbooster at $650, about 300 quid so the Toki+Speedbooster costs more.
Ollie pricing is based on their lens series, their slow 14-42 and 40-150 are from their lowest priced range, their 20/F2 is from their Premium range.
Olympus do not have a 20mm lens in their catalogue, the only 20mm f2.0 lens has ever produced in my memory is the 20mm Macro Zuiko from the original OM system.
I think that was a typo for: 12mm f2.0.
Didn’t know the 12 is that expensive (i’m sure that’s not what i paid) and the tokina (used to own it) that cheap btw.
You don’t have to use a speedbooster on cameras the lens is made for. Not to mention that other focal reducers (not metabones) are below $90 already.
“Ollie pricing is based on their lens series, their slow 14-42 and 40-150 are from their lowest priced range, their 20/F2 is from their Premium range.”
Who cares about Oly marketing BS except Oly marketing? The wider market is much MUCH wider than Oly itself, and Oly does not compete with itself, it competes with everybody else. On $99 40-150 they lose money needlessly because competitors (like Canon EF-S 55-250 IS II) are regularly $200+ even on sales, so the Oly should be $150-180. Similar case with 14-42 II at $50 in kits. On many other lenses and bodies they lose money because they invested in R&D and tooling and almost nobody actually buys them at the ridiculous prices. I mean, come on, plastic 50/3.6 equivalent lens for $399, while FF Canon 50/1.8 STM is $119? Who are they kidding?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1026123-REG/olympus_v311060bu000_25mm_f_1_8_m_lens.html
Well, to be fair, you could say the same about the Canon’s 50mm – maybe they are losing money on it? It is difficult to make cross-brandandformat comparisons precisely of loss leader products, but also market and mind share. Try comparing to other mirrorless systems and suddenly it won’t look so bad. What is certain though is that there is a desire to price lenses into oblivion in general.
I think Oly and Pana just cannot afford competent representatives in the US, instead employing hacks. Or maybe old-times from film (or even just pre-smartphone) years, who just do not understand the simple truth that the market is totally different now. Cameras are even in different macro-category now, instead of being a family necessity and long-term investments they are a cross between electronic toys (say, tablets, iPods etc) for majority of the market and for much smaller part of the market hobby items (like model planes).
And with a smartphone camera in every pocket, there is only real market for real camera besides hobbyists – parents shooting their children’s sports (simply no smartphones with tele lenses able to shoot action indoors). If Oly has a tingling of understanding of this, they would not for more than 2 years (after E-M1) release camera after camera without OSPDAF and wonder why everybody buys a6000 instead, and they would not price 40-150/2.8 as a low-volume luxury item when 70-300/4-5.6 (with IS/VR) for FF DLSRs are in the $500 range (let alone unstabilized lenses from 3rd parties in $150 range).
How can you compare a 11-16mm zoom with a 12mm prime and what does the zoom become when the Metabones is added and 16mm is hardly a comparable FOV as 12mm.
The Speedbooster is a x0.71 ‘reverse’ teleconverter making the 11-16 an 8-11mm lens, this adds -1EV stop dropping its f/2.8 to f/2. Very comparable.
Fair comment I was reading it as 16mm not as adjusted focal length.
The whole test is flawed! The distance scale is slightly changed when a lens is adapted. What normally is infinity on the distance scale may or may not remain true (in most cases it’s not).
For a proper test the Tokina + SB should have been focused with magnification preview on the desired subject (+ peeking is exits).
I’m not arguing that, the Olympus is better optically (I have no doubt about that) but to take an out of focus shot and compared it with a good in focus prime is absolutely pointless!
Hi Eno, I did use the magification preview for focusing and at infinity I could still not achieve sharp focus on the far buildings, as I pointed out in the video the focus seemed closer on the bottom of the frame which was a lot closer. I actually put together a conclusion video which has more tests and shows a level of inconsistency in regard to the distance focusing of the Tokina with speedbooster – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ZBJtG6rdQ
There is a small screw inside the lens mount in the SB which allows you to change the infinity distance:
http://www.metabones.com/article/of/infinity-adjustment-speed-booster-only
Tray it and remake the test. 🙂
Hi Eno, that’s really helpful thanks although my Speedbooster ‘S’ doesn’t look quite the same and I can’t find an article on adjusting infinity focus on the model I have. If you know of any instructions for the Speedbooster S please send me a link 🙂
Hi Adam Troup, I don’t know what to say. I have the first Nikon G to m4/3 version of SB and the procedure to change the infinity focus works as described. From what I see the Canon to m4/3 S version looks similar: https://www.google.ro/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Speedbooster+S+infinity+adjustment
No problem, someone else has given me advice about making the adjustment too in the youtube video comments. I’ll try it in the next day or two. I’ll upload a video to show the results I get. I really appreciate your help 🙂
One thing that article mentions was very interesting, I talked about in the conclusion video that I noticed different results from zooming which may have something to do with this – ‘Notice that some autofocus zoom lenses are not true zooms but varifocals. The distance scale may not align exactly with the infinity mark at every zoom position. If that is the case, adjust the lens when zoomed to the middle of its zoom range first and then verify infinity focus at the wide and tele zoom positions.’
You are very right with this observation.
Adam did point that out, infinity focus on the Toki was only half way across the pond. It could not go any longer. This may well occur with any Speedbooter adapted lenses.
And yes, the GH has focus peaking.
But a m4/3 Speedbooster can provide autofocus (on Panasonic) for Canon EF lenses, and aperture control from the camera, and image stabilisation (IS) support.
There is also the T Smart adaptor that does the same thing without the teleconvertor reduction lens.
Main intended purpose is movie shooting, many vidoegraphers love their old Canon lenses.
Was there a point to this? 🙂
I appreciate your bluntness Sid! If you are referring to the lack of any conclusive thoughts I put together a conclusion video with some more tests that are quite interesting in regard to the issue I had with the Tokina + speedbooster focusing on distant subjects.
Thanks for the comparison. The Speedbooster makes sense if you have a box full of Canon EF fit lenses to use and bokeh is important to you. Ultra-wide lenses always have deep DoF, which is good for landscape or you get very close to the germanium pots. My drift being that the extremely good Panny 7-14 can be used wide open at f/4 whereas most others have to be stopped down (to f/2.8-f/3.5), and available from around the same price as the Ollie 20/F2.
Your drift doesn’t make any sense.
Where do you get the Oly 20mm F2.0 from?
Thank you Adam, a very interesting comparison. My only suggestion would be to present some stills side by side so we can make a simultaneous comparison. Switching between images made it hard to compare. I hope you continue as many of us enjoy these types of comparisons, very beneficial to see all options and how we can cross systems. Despite those that think every comparison should be scientifically absolute, most of us will understand variances and appreciate what you are presenting, well done and Thank You!
Thanks for your positive feedback Rick, I really appreciate these kind of comparisons myself when making gear decisions which is why I would like to contribute more myself and give back more to the online community. I was absolutely testing the waters with this comparison and moving forward I will definitely take everyone’s feedback and suggestions on board to make content that is the most useful and entertaining. I will look into producing stills to be downloaded for people who really want to pixel peep and do more thorough comparing for this and future comparisons. Thanks again 🙂
Just in case anyone is interested I have contacted Metabones for advice on the infinity focus adjustment to hopefully solve the problem and if the Speedbooster ‘S’ model is capable of the adjustment I will make a video of me making the adjustment as I can’t find any video of it being done online. Just keep an eye on my youtube channel if you are interested – https://www.youtube.com/c/AdamTroup
Very interesting test, I was looking for something like that for a while! Honestly, I don’t think that the 11-16mm + metabone is really a contender over the 12mm f/2.0. But for me it could be a very very interesting ultra-wide angle zoom lens for someone like me who would like to have a field of view similar to the 7-14mmm but brighter at a fraction of the price. Even stop down of one EV, it is still faster than Pany or Oly 9-18mm, and cheaper.
Question for you Adam, as Metabones newly add the autofocus function, did you try the autofocus on the 11-16mm? It would be very interesting to see if it can be decent!
While researching the infinity adjustment of the metabones I did find the firmware update, installed it and yes it works – really quite well! I will be putting together a video just on the tokina and metabones speedbooster where I show my attempt to make the infinity adjustment – I couldn’t find a single video online that shows it being done. I will also demo the auto focus. I was so impressed with the auto focus I would like to make a series of videos just checking the auto focus of all my canon fit lenses with the speedbooster. Keep an eye on my YouTube channel for those videos 🙂
I am really looking forward for that test!