Kipon Baveyes adapter ("speedbooster") M to Sony E mount

[mark_amos]

<p>I know there are many gadgets that don't really do much to enhance our photographic results. I think we can agree that indulging our comforts can reinforce limits but can also give us familiar pleasure that yield good photography. Am I the only one so totally hopeful that this particular speed booster can work? I have been thinking about it for years. It would be the one and only way that I know of for APS-C Sony users to get an equivalent 35mm field of view in a fast lens that is also high quality and very compact by using a Leica 35 cron. <br>

For anybody that doesn't understand what speedboosters do, this condenses the full frame image of a full frame lens to the size of an aps-c sensor so that the full field of view of the lens is maintained and in the process a nearly full stop of exposure is gained. There is always a potential for loss of image quality with a specific lens, but sometimes the results are very fine. That is what I'm wondering about, but I don't see any tests out yet. </p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<p>I'd be interested too. I was aware of the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II, but I read a so-so review (can't find it right now). The Zhongyi was much less expensive (about 4x) than the Kipon, so probably the latter is of good quality. Unfortunately is too expensive for my purposes.<br>

The reason for which I'm interested is not much the exposure stop gained, but the field of view: I'm playing with a Helios 44-2, which I seem to like so far. Its famous swirly bokeh is already noticeable in the APS-C crop, but just a bit. It is mostly visible in the external area, this a speedbooster would do. But for sure I wouldn't spend for an adapter 12x more money than for the lens.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>If you Google "Kipon Baveyes adapter" you should find Norman Rockwell's test made with several other optics than the 35 cron. He indicates that it does work in regard to field of view and speed, but the (significant?) downside is that optical quality is poor. He did say that each lens must be tested to know how it works, but he was not positive about the optical quality. Based upon his comments I think it may not make sense to use a high quality lens with it if you are looking for results of equivalent quality. But the advanntage of getting a wider view or high speed may be most important to you. </p>

<h1> </h1>

[mark_amos]

<p>I read the Rockwell review of the similar Canon adapter, and I'm hoping the Leica M version will maintain high image quality with at least the lenses I wish if not all lenses, but I acknowledge this might be unrealistic. Specifically it would be wonderful if it could be the solution to provide smaller faster wide angle lenses for the aps-c e mount. For example I enjoy using my original tiny Voigtlander 15 f4.5 on my NEX-6 even as an equiv 22mm, and it would be really wonderful as a 15 3.5. But as mentioned in the Rockwell article, some lenses (including the 15) protrude so far back beyond the lens mount that they not work with the Baveyes in any case, meaning it might not be possible to even mount the lens on the adapter, but I suppose we shall see. I look forward to a review of it. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

I will repost linik to something I just wrote on the macro forum because it relates to the subject of speed boosting by adding optical extension to mirrorless cameras and in my case a Canon FD macro lens of small size and good quality for its price.

 

http://www.photo.net/macro-photography-forum/00eFyw

 

Optical quality of the Metabones adapter that I bought is great. It actually, by my judgment,IMPROVES the native lens, a 50 mm FD macro oldie but goodie. Of course one must have a lens that deserves this treatment as in my case, I need the features. Metabones makes them for most lenses with exception of a couple that have restrictions.. Also consider this: Look at old lenses on KEH. A one stop increase can raise the tab on a similar focal lens by hundreds of dollars. Getting that extra stop does count. And you do not lose resolution, you gain it. How? Read up on the Metabones web site how they do it. I am not versed in MFT curves, but the company is...Metabones rules! ( BTW, I think it is Ken Rockwell. Norman was a New England painter illustrator) Pricey of course, and beyond what most consider affordable even, but a stop is a stop and old beloved lenses can ride again...B and H had a fifty dollar off sale so I plunged. No complaints but only anecdotal , but I am fussy wuzzy about resolution. I like sharp. Field of view was my object in this case too as explained in my posting. Focal reducers, like black matter, seem amazing to this member..

[mark_amos]

<p>That's encouraging Gerry. I'm not sure what we can expect from the M to E adapter because it is so small and protrudes back so far also, but the price suggests that they gave it their best shot in any case. I feel the adapter is worth $600 if it can maintain quality and effectively creates a couple new lens options from old ones.<br>

(BTW, I checked out your slide thread and made a comment.) Also, I knew about Ken's name, but I thought maybe Arthur was making a funny or avoiding giving a straight plug to Ken.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Mark and Gerry, Touché regarding Norman Rockwell. A senior moment (increasingly common as my wife notes...). Happily, many fast Leica primes like the Summicron don't extend too far back. What is interesting in Ken Rockwell's appraisal of Canon optics on the Canon adapter are the photos that permit some judgement of quality (I don't know if they blow up for detail evaluation or not).</p>

[jeff_b2]

<p>My purely subjective opinion is:<br>

Best: Metabones<br>

Good: Zhongyi<br>

Bad: Kipon<br>

I have used all three of the "booster" adapters for Nikon lenses on Fuji X cameras. <br>

Metabones: Feels like a better build quality than the others. Heavier in hand so likely better quality glass. I especially like the tripod mount on the Metabones. I use it mostly with large T/S lenses that are much heavier than the Fuji bodies so mounting on the adapter creates much better balance.<br>

Zhongyi: Optically, I cannot see a difference between the Zhongyi and Metabones. I have not done any sophisticated testing but have no concerns about using them interchangeably. Due to the lack of the tripod mount on the Zhongyi I'll likely use that just for smaller lenses.<br>

Kipon: I returned the brand new Kipon without even attaching it to a lens as the glass was completely fogged. Didn't bother with another attempt. Maybe a got a bad copy but that doesnot bode well for QC on a new item.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Yeah, the quality question and price are a big consideration. I'm using Kippon M to Fuji X but not the booster. The IQ is fabulous. I'm not sure its a comfort enforcing limitations, I think more of it as technology breaking through limitations and allowing use of excellent glass on different digital cameras.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Metabones claims to use a special exotic glass in their product. ( See their web site) And brass and heavy chrome. The screwed on small foot has an Arca Swiss compatible dovetail and is a welcome idea. Except , a problem for me is'that I typically have a RRS or Kirk or Acratech plate on my cameras and the Metabones gets too close to the clamp for easy use. E.g. In the case of my GH2 I could not mount the booster because the tripod plate got in the way of the camera front ...yep.. Metabones recognizes possibility and provides a small hex wrench tiny enough to remove same, ( two minute job)and ships with a a smart looking plastic case ( more than one expects for something not a swiss watch) for the five element glass version of their product. Classy outfit.. One should certainly have a lens or lenses worth the price of the $400+ add on...but one adapter will do for a lens moiunt brand and improve its native quality. And them 'aint peanuts. I have not actually use the products that enable autofocus..sounds good for use of EF lenses that many have come from.

[mark_amos]

<p>Gerry, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I am presently looking for the Metabones' press releases or other articles to explain how the speed booster could actually improve lens quality as opposed to even slightly degrading it. My comment here is probably overly simplified, but what I gather is that perhaps when it gives the extra stop of light/speed, the image quality is better than a lens would be if it were stopped to that on it's own. So for example, an SLR 35mm lens at f2.8 would have the "speed" of an f2 lens, but it would be at it's own f2.8 level of aberration and distortion and all that would be better than it would be if it were actually being shot at aperture f2. Is this the case? Is that what is meant?</p>

[jeff_b2]

<p>Mark,<br>

To greatly paraphrase and summarize what I have learned about the optical effect of these adapters: It's complicated.<br>

I think to some degree you are correct that the performance of some lenses may be improved relative to given exposure. If you have an f/2.8 lens and stop it down to f/4 it will likely have less aberration and more resolution. Attaching the speedbooster then concentrates that same "f/4" image onto a smaller sensor area. So you could expose for f/2.8 rather than f/4 thereby increase your shutter speed and reducing potential camera shake in the image.<br>

However, your lens is now effectively 0.7 of these focal length it was without the adapter so the CoC (circle of confusion) is different. This means you should really be doing math for a 35mm lens rather than a 50mm lens for example.<br>

The <a href="http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf">speedbooster white paper</a> has significant technical detail.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Hi Mark. I looked at this page before I bought my ultra unit. Purports to display some positive company test results in terms of standard MTF criteria. Seems plausible enough, though we await an outside evaluation as will inevitably arise. Mine, purely subjective and am satisfied. Certainly no degradation. But then I am not super picky. But still frugal. I am satisfied for the use I have in mind. I think the company claims have not been disputed, but not yet validated by a testing outfit. We shall see. I know not what tantalum high index glass is all about, does anyone here?

 

http://www.metabones.com/article/of/Metabones_Speed_Booster_ULTRA_0.71x

[aplumpton]

<p>Gerry, they may mention the metal, but it is likely to be its common pentoxide form (Ta2O5) that is the compound of high refractive index added to the multi oxide (and other compound) glass melt to improve that aspect. From a personal viewpoint, if I were to buy a "speedboster" and not worry about cost, it would probably be the Metabones.</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I read most of the white paper from Jeff just now and also looked at the metabones link Gerry included. I have to admit that I had not taken these boosters very seriously previously, but this is now going to be on my radar for more study since I have Nikon lenses already. A subtle point that maybe is what really sold me is that the adapter is slightly shorter than the regular open tube like the Metabones Nikon F to e I already have.<br>

Do you all know of a web site that confirms performance with the speedbooster ultra with various Nikon lenses?<br>

Also, I assume that pre-AI Nikor lenses can be mounted?</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>I know I'm getting ahead of myself here a bit because the performance of the Kipon Baveyes/Speedbooster for M is totally in question for now, but it is exciting to think that this device might even be feasible because it totally enhances the usefulness of Leica M mount glass to the point of fully validating (and vindicating) it as an ideal solution for APS-C mirrorless compact cameras. All this time, I have still found my M mount lenses pleasurable to use because of the quality, control and the fact that even though they are full frame, they are more compact than the typical e mount AF aps-c or full frame AF lenses and even smaller than the MF lenses like the Loxia that are optimized for the digital sensor. One reason they are smaller might also be that they don't have any sort of in-lens OSS. So wouldn't it be amazing if finally Sony made a very compact aps-c Leica C sort of camera that also had in-camera stabilization: think a6500. And then what if we had an adapter that took advantage of the full frame coverage of the legacy M lenses by converting these tiny lenses' full field of view to the aps-c sensor of these compact rangefinder styled cameras and gave us another stop in the process and maybe even enhanced center performance. Furthermore, I wonder if the baveyes might be able to improve the edge performance of the symmetrical wide M lenses in the process of adapting them from full frame image size to aps-c size. It is quite exciting to imagine my original version Voigtlander 15 VC f4.5 being usable on the a6500 (or my nex-6) as a 15mm f3.3 lens and so compact. Furthermore, from the whitepaper about the SLR speed booster, it might be that an M speedbooster would even be a little thinner than the glass-less M to E adapters. What if my 35 cron asph could be a tiny 35 1.4? Oh well, maybe I'm just dreaming. I also acknowledge that if Sony could put a full frame sensor in a body the size of the a6500 that could work well with the symmetrical wides then it would be a similar accomplishment, but I actually wonder if the optics of an adapter could remedy some of the issue.</p>

[jeff_b2]

<p>Sadly, <a href="http://www.metabones.com/article/of/faq">Metabones FAQ</a> says a Leica M speedbooster is impossible because "<em>there is not enough room for the optics</em>".</p>

[mark_amos]

<p>Thanks Jeff :|</p>