[shoplink 43219 ebay]
[/shoplink]
The first Lens Turbo for Micro Four Thirds has been released. It’s an Ai mount adapter and it’s in Stock for $198 on [shoplink 43219 ebay]eBay (www shipment)[/shoplink]. That’s $230 less than the Metabones. Le’ts hope it is not half as good too 🙂
44 Responses
Did you find that out from the comment I made on this site earlier? 😉
Anyway, the Metabones one is Nikon G though so I suppose for many people the extra cost will be worth it.
And the put the 28-105D on it? It’s an OK lens at 12MP on FX, but totally looses it at higher pixel densities. It is, however, a very useful lens if you don’t plan on blowing up the images.
I know the lens turbo is supposed to increase the MTF of a lens, but I wonder how much it improves something like the 28-105D?
“I know the lens turbo is supposed to increase the MTF of a lens”
Why should it increase ? more glass and not all the image circle that is used, it’s the opposite no ?
it concentrates the light onto a smaller area.A bit like a magnifying glass in the sun: If properly focused, the light can burn though paper!
sorry I thought U meant why it increases speed.
Since its a focal reducer it reduces any optical faults like chromatic aberration rather then it magnifies them. (yes there could be a litte bit introduced by the booster itself but the metabones are high quality lenses so its down to a minumun)
If u think of it as a picture whith pixels that come out op the lens, the pixels are packed at a higher density thus increased resolution.
Hmmm. Metabones’s service center for aperture declicking is in the same city as the Lens Turbo is manufactured. The Nikon G Metabones SB was shown in stock as of 11/27. The lens Turbo Nikon AI (which the Nikon G also fits) is released the following week.
Methinks Mitakon is the OEM for Metabones. Just like Letus cages, viewfinders and rid rigs are made by Trusmt in China. Can you think of ANY manufactured product NOT made in China?
Very curious to see a comparison between the Metakon and the Mitabones Turbo Speed Lens Boosters.
Don’t Sigma and Leica have their own lens factories in Japan and Germany, respectively?
Isn’t one of the primary reason of MFT size/weight? This completely defeats the purpose…
Isn’t it kinda weird to assume everyone has the same needs/desires as you? It’s rather pretentious to assume you know what “purpose” people have in their photography.
…but Ronan does have a good point one of the primary reasons for MFT is size and weight.
And it still holds true. You save weight and space with the body (and native MFT lenses), which you can then “spend” on some specialty gear such as this.
There are quite a few lenses that may never be manufactured with a native M4/3 mount. Lenses we can adapt and use TODAY! Long macros and fast prime telephotos, for instance. No hand-wringing necessary! 😉
So, yes, with a M4/3 body weighing considerably less than a 135 format sensor camera, why not?
No. It is only one of the reasons. The other is to be able to adapt other (brand) lenses where other DSLR’s can’t or may not be able to (because of the flappy mirror). A CSC isn’t just about pointing & shooting with small lenses!
+1000!
Exactly. I bought into M4/3 precisely because it gave me the ability to use lenses from virtually ANY system, with ANY mount!
I use lenses with six different mounts, including native M4/3.
For me and many others, M4/3 is about flexibility as well as smaller, lighter bodies.
Yes, but you won’t always carry the larger lenses + adapters around. It’s good to have the option though.
I do use legacy lenses on my E-PL5 though, but the ones I have are all rather compact anyway.
Not to mention, just by the space and weight saved by the body alone compared to a DSLR, I can fit an extra lens in my bag.
So no, this still doesn’t defeat the purpose. It just increases your options.
Sometimes I want tiny size and weight, so I might for instance bring along my Panasonic GX1 + Panasonic 14mm pancake lens when I go out for a night of clubbing. But other times, such as when I’m shooting a film or covering an event, I would use my Panasonic GH1 with a Nikon F mount Vivitar Series 28-90mm F2.8-3.5 & I’d love to be able to use this Lens Turbo with it or any of my other Nikon F mount lenses such as my Nikon 50mm f/1.8
So you see, even for just one person Micro Four Thirds can serve many different purposes. Then you factor in how many people are using m4/3 and how different all of them are each are…. that is a lot of reasons why!
Yes it does. However, the lens lineup for MFT is totally lacking regarding tele and the lenses available are not that good optically.
5 years ago it all made sense, but now MFT is already dead, the video capability of Panasonic MFT cameras is a valid reason to still use those clunky things.
However, the D5300 body e.g. is lighter and cheaper than a GH3 and it does 60p even when purchasing in Europe (GH3, GX7 only 50p).
Oh, and I forgot to add that the D5300 also can produce still photos, while the MFT cameras s***.
Are you a bit sarcastic on those comments since your blog mention your wide use of MFT cameras or am I totally splashed on the language barrier? Just wondering.
So you feel the images on your own blog are sh*t?
http://northlapse.wordpress.com/category/showcase/
PS: I like the image of the weasel…
It’s not m34 thats dead but APS-C. Clunky garbage with tupperware design and where you have to use ff lenses if you want quality.
Since I bought my e-m1 (I looove the 75mm) I barely use my D800E anymore (only for a few paid gigs) and APS-C has utterly lost all reason for its existence!
The mirror is such a 20th century design…good riddance!
“Isn’t one of the primary reason of MFT size/weight? This completely defeats the purpose…”
Very true. Although I guess some might prefer to use such extra large lenses on a small body, thereby leveraging the additional advantage of inferior image quality as compared to native format bodies for said lenses.
if I ever go mf again on mft, i am sure i will get a focal reducer too. No idea yet if it will be a Mikaton or a Metabones.
When oh when is the OM mount reducer for MFT coming (from anyone)? Ideally without any E-M1 fitting issues.
+1, all my MF lenses are OM mount.
+1 mine too, exept for one Pentax K lens
exept->except
good for the bad performance of m43 always issues with systen is made for wannabes
What bad performance. M43 is performing extremely well!!
Go troll somewhere else.
Yes FF. We know you’re a wannabe!
Lol a 200 euro adapter for APSC and FF lenses. For this money you better buy a new or secondhand APSC small Sony or Nikon body and you get much more speed and much much much more picture quality.
“Lol a 200 euro adapter for APSC and FF lenses. For this money you better buy a new or secondhand APSC”
What is APS-C DSLR that you can get new for 200 euro? A Nikon D3000 perhaps? No thanks. Micro Four Thirds offers much better!
“…and you get much more speed”
You really are clueless? As these Lens Turbo / Speed Booster adapters give you *much more* speed! Some of them are providing over a whole extra f-stop of speed.
Says you.
Well I wouldn’t put a 24-105 lens on the metabones myself, but I can see the use of the adapter in specialty area’s of photography.
The example is probably to make a point, that you can use any (zoom)lens.
In my opinion it is much more useful to adapt a tele to get higher shutterspeed, there where AF is not so important or if one can do without AF to compensate.
But there are more area’s where the speedbooster can be useful.
But you wannabees are too involved with how you look with your gear than how to get a certain shot. The idea, doesn’t fit in those tiny brains noncreative brains.
Sorry, but your ability to convey meaning is lacking. Please explain to us how moving to APSC will give our adapted lenses more “speed”, and three times the image quality (I assume “much much much” =3x).
Sheesh, the literacy of trolls gets worse every week. What’s happening under the bridge in troll school? If it keeps on like this I might ask DPR to bring back Tedolf!
They let Amalric back in. I guess they’re desperate for hits.
APS-C is dead!
Why do these manufacturers keep throwing up adapters for unheard of or very seldom used lenses. They produce only one that is a mainstream lens adapter (Nikon) for M43. OK FD from metabones was on sale but withdrawn and never seen again. I would have thought it would have been modified and back long before now. OK! Do I know anything about manufacture and production? Yes, I do. That’s why I wonder where it is. If they have a cash flow problem and need to recall the entire original production rather than build new and modify later then they should have worked harder on producing M43 adapters.
There are many many more waiting for the FD, EF, m42 and OM So how about it? That’s my order of preference but others here may think differently.
is not full frame did you guy know about shallow DOf conpression etc ?
Yes, I’m sure all of us “guy” (sexist pr*ck) know about shallow DOF and other factors involved when choosing a system that suits our needs and wants. It’s obvious though that you don’t understand all the variables involved, or else you would be able to spell words like “compression” and “system”. We even know how to write acronyms like DOF properly. Perhaps you should shut up and f*&k off until you understand what you are talking about?
This is a website dedicated to rumours about the systems involving the four thirds sensor. Most of us come here for that information. Many of us will also visit some other websites dedicated to other systems that we are interested in.
Why don’t go and inhabit the Sony rumours site and chat about “conpression” “DOf” and “systens” there? I’m sure they will love that.
Lets take a look at that compression thing once more:
http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/
The most noteworthy bit of that article I’ll quote for you:
‘The “compression” is a byproduct of your working distance from the subject.’
And this has nothing whatsoever to do with the format.
M42 model wanted!
Personally couldn’t care less about MFT format but FD, EF and M42 are definitely of value; sorry Nikon fans, although I do have one very good Nikon zoom lens.
My take on “speed boosters” is simply the fact that at 0.71x reduction they concentrate light. They reduce the exposure time for a photosite to capture the same number of photons; very important to nightscape shooters and astrophotographers. The fact that they may reduce resolution (cover less of the sensor) is not a major consideration PLUS they work equally as well as a “concentrator” on full frame cameras.
Would this work with a “N-Ai” 50mm 1.4?