Personal View site logo
RJ Lens Turbo m43 adapters
  • 782 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @Adam_Mercier

    First post in topic :-)

  • gamebgameb

    Tak test is coming soon, as my m42 RJ booster arrives...

  • lonely1lonely1

    By tak you mean a takumar lens?

  • gamebgameb

    yep

  • CameraRickCameraRick

    @vicharris I also ordered this adapter (it's the first EF-MFT focal reducer there is), I don't think it will be the perfect thing but it's a temporary solution, and the price is really fine. I'd wonder if I couldn't sell it for 80€ when I'm "done with it" afterwards.

    I'm also really looking forward to it and doing some serious tests! :)

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @Psyco Yep, I know the Tokinas flaws come out when we use some other cameras or adapters but the smearing seems to be different. The Metabones actually invokes some of this smearing IMO as well. Do you have any other tests with different lenses? It seems to be most noticeable for some of us on foliage

  • kurthkurth

    @CameraRick

    looking forward to hearing what you think. I've got a 17-40 I'd like to use with this.

  • Adam_MercierAdam_Mercier

    @zigizigi did you crop on the image from the speed booster or change the distance between the chart and the camera for your resolution test?

  • zigizigizigizigi

    @Adam_Mercier

    There's no crop whatsoever. I moved tripod to compensate the difference.

  • PsycoPsyco

    @vicharris sorry I only have the Tokina 11-16mm with Nikon mount, my other lenses beeing 4/3 Oly 14-35mm and 35-100mm f2.0 - so I have a set from 8mm to 100mm with constant f2.0 aperture ;-)

    Thats why an expensive MB speed booster doesn't make much sense for me - it would only be used with the Tok 11-16.

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @Psyco Got it,. makes sense then.

  • Adam_MercierAdam_Mercier

    @zigizigi Thanks for the info! the lens seems quite unsharp... we'll see real life, I oredred the EF version..

  • gamebgameb

    @Adam_Mercier "...the lens seems quite unsharp". Thats strange. The Nikon lens is definitely not unsharp. And the Nikon RJ booster is also not unsharp as you can appreciate in this post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3489623#forum-post-51476898 when you look at his second test. I would rather say, in @zigizigi 's test, the combination of this precise Nikon lens with the Nikon RJ booster is unsharp. But this should be adjustable, I guess.

  • kingdom1kingdom1

    Has anyone tried one on a BMPCC yet? I'm very interested in getting the EF - MFT one if it does.

  • blackroomblackroom

    i've got the Nikon version on my BMPCC, tight fit but it works. i think for shallow DOF shots it works ok. i also have the Canon mount on order. when Metabones gets stock on the BMPCC Nikon speedbooster, i'll throw this one on Craigslist:)

  • zigizigizigizigi

    I re-calibrated back focus on RJ adapter and redid the tests more comprehensively, at different aperture settings.

    The same Nikon f/1.4 50mm lens.

    RJ adapter. Lens @ f/4 Shutter 1/250

    image

    Lens @ f/2.8 Shutter 1/200

    image

    Lens @ f/2 Shutter 1/400

    image

    Lens @ f/1.4. Shutter 1/640

    image

    ++++

    Regular adapter.

    Lens @ f/4 Shutter 1/60

    image

    Lens @ f/2.8 Shutter 1/125

    image

    Lens @ f/2 Shutter 1/250

    image

    Lens @ f/1.4 Shutter 1/400

    image

    In none of my tests I was able to replicate the situation where lens+adapter outperformed the sharpness of the lens itself, at least in the center which is reported by the testers of Metabones adpater here or Mitakon's here.

  • gamebgameb

    I don't get it. Why does the RJ booster works perfectly with some lenses and with others it doesn't? I am waiting for my M42 one to use with my Takumars. So if I am lucky it will work. And what if I am unlucky? I mean, these kind of things shouldn't be like this. At least if @zigizigi hasn't done some basic error, which doesn't look like it at all. I hope they have a good return policy.

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @zigizigi

    It sounds very weird. No such things as two apertures exist.

    What is adapter aperture and that is lens aperture in your terms?

    As for G lenses you need to use adapter ring only. And for all else you need to use lenses ring leaving adapter one open.

  • JiveJive

    @zigizigi yes, quite strange. If anything, the ring on the RJ adapter should simply be adjusting the lens' own aperture (for aperture control on G lenses without aperture ring). Can you post a picture of the adapter that shows its own aperture?

  • zigizigizigizigi

    That was my misconception, sorry, folks. I'm still in the process of figuring out how it works. What the ring on the adapter actually does is pulling the lever on the lens that gradually opens the aperture blades from wide-open to user set value. So it's just another way to control lens's aperture.

    I turned the ring, saw aperture blades inside, heard them clicking... me, monkey, was fooled by perception.

    I've edited the above post to leave only the relevant part of my test. Just to avoid further confusion.

  • PsycoPsyco

    @zigizigi Sorry, but I really don't understand your test - not in terms of aperture, but in terms of sharpness.

    My Tokina is for sure not the most sharp lens out there, but my own short tests produced much more sharp images as yours with a test chart and on a tripod (I assume).

    What is that blur with open aperture - even in the centre? Is it possible that the test chart is out of focus? (Did you focus with closed aperture and then only opened up the iris, without readjusting focus?

  • RatLabProductionsRatLabProductions

    I might pick up one of these cheap M42 boosters for my cheap vintage russian lenses. They are soft anyway and used for specific soft looks anyway. I went with the Metabones for my higher quality Nikon lenses.

    We live in a great day and age when there are so many options to suit every different need.

  • tetakpataktetakpatak

    It would be great if someone who owns the adapter could make just a 3-4 static video scenery shots this way:

    • same lens, same aperture, tripod, M mode, WB temp fixed
    • shot 1: with adapter in 1080p
    • shot 2: without adapter in 720p

    Each of that 3-4 double shots that way, each with different scenery (like trees/grass or buildings or so) and afterwards crop in the video editing software shot 1 to 720p and display them side by side in the final, rendered video file in 720p, one half of the screen for each shot.

    Maybe it sounds confusing, I mean just the same thing like I did here:

    By watching the same crop it would make us very easy to see how is the optical performance of the adapter compared to without adapter. Oh yes, it should be also the same camera, not like in the video comparison, where I've used different cameras and lenses.....

  • CFreakCFreak

    @tetakpatak doesn't 720 mode on the GH2 have worse moire/ailiasing than 1080 mode? Doesn't that skew the results?

    I could see the ailiasing in the side-by-side video from the GH2 while the NEX-7 had none of that problem.

  • gamebgameb

    I have a simple basic doubt about lens turbos/speedbooster: When I use them with a lens that has lets say a max aperture of 2.8. The result will be a 2.0. But what about the DOF? Will the setup be a DOF that corresponds to a 2.8 lens or to a 2.0 lens?

Add a Comment