Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
RJ Lens Turbo m43 adapters
  • 782 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    There's 3 levels of glass companies are using for these adapters. The first Fotodiox was the bottom level, all these other ones are level 2 and the Metabones is level 3.

    It is just your own fantasy and fairy tale. No such things as "glass levels" ever existed. You can talk about tolerances, coatings and techniques, but not "glass levels".

    All that you see here is better designer for Metabones adapter who know exact specs for coatings he wanted.

    That we need is to make good comparison tests and help them improve. Instead of you go bashing every manufacturer.

    RJ already made good progress, and they are working hard. I am sure that Metabones quality adapters will be available soon.

    It just sucks seeing guys wasting money on inferior products especially when they are getting raped in taxes and import fees. Luckily we really don;'t have that in the US but other countries it seems horribly high.

    And this is just not appropriate comment, especially your fantasies about taxes and fees. Any member can PM me and ask about real fees situation, instead of baseless stuff here.

    To conclude. Let people express their own opinions, instead of having yours spilled other each and every topic.

  • brianc1959brianc1959

    In general, the optical design plays at least as large a role as lens coatings in the formation of central hotspots. Diagnosing the cause and then correcting the hotspot is often a far more difficult task than correcting aberrations.

  • JuMoJuMo

    Coming from the man himself. Personally, I'm glad I went with Metabones, I love it - I've never had an issue with my Speedbooster and the quality is top notch. It's on my camera 95% of the time now. My only regret is that I bought it just before the BMPCC Speedbooster was announced. I will probably own both eventually, I just would have bought them the other way around. Oh well, what can you do?

    @brainc1959 Any plans for BMPCC Speedboosters in different mounts?

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @JuMo

    It is not topic about Metabones adapters, period.

  • kurthkurth

    That we need is to make good comparison tests and help them improve. Instead of you go bashing every manufacturer.

    yeah...that's the spirit. People think making things is easy. It ain't ! Feedback is what it's all about....from a man with a few patents !

  • ARTnVIDEOARTnVIDEO

    Comparison test help all, and even if the test show that one is better than the other for whatever reason, both manufacturers are trying to provide what we want... it's always good to have options.

  • JuMoJuMo

    @Vitaliy_Kiselev My bad, focal reducer cross over.

  • PsycoPsyco

    Update: I adjusted the lens group in the RJ speed booster and now I get infinity focus.

    I also tested the RJ speed booster against the Fotodiox Pro.

    Fotodiox Pro:

    • much better built quality of the housing

    • no "blue dot"

    • infinity focus out of the box

    RJ speed booster:

    • better glas (sharper picture, more kontrast)

    • lens group can be adjusted to specific lens

    The things definitly to improve with the RJ speed booster would be, to give it a better housing (the iris control is so cheaply made!) and to get rid of the blue dot. As I will use the adapter most of the time with open aperture, I would prefer a better housing to be the first target (take the Fotodiox housing and place the RJ optics in it and it would be a very good adapter).

  • zigizigizigizigi

    @Psyco Can you do some AB comparison? I mean stills or video would be great.

  • PsycoPsyco

    @zigizigi I don't have the time to set up a tripod and do a real A/B test, but I took pictures with both adapters handeld (framing changes!) in photo mode and scaled them down to 1920x1080 - the differences are still pretty obvious.

    The RJ speed booster is a lot sharper. The Fotodiox is only in the outer most corners a bit better, the rest of the image is a bit "blurry", probably there is still some coma.

    Lens used: Tokina 11-16mm at 11mm and F2.8. Focus was on the blue letters on the white paper in the middle of the frame.

    Fotodiox_small.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 361K
    RJ-booster_small.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 361K
  • lonely1lonely1

    I just received the m42 version of this adapter and i post some screenshot comparisons in a minute.

  • lonely1lonely1

    Taken with an old Chinon 50 mm 2.0 lens set at 2.0 on a regular m42 adapter and the RJ speedbooster m42 adapter attached also at 2.0. Notice the wider angle and a light stop more?

    rsz_p1060007.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 414K
    rsz_p1060006.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 429K
  • lonely1lonely1

    another example

    rsz_p1060004.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 429K
    rsz_p1060005.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 461K
  • lonely1lonely1

    My conclusion is, it is a wonderful adapter, and really keeps its sharpness, a wider angle and a light stop more. Great quality build. see pictures

    rsz_p1060011.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 321K
    rsz_p1060010.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 440K
    rsz_p1060009.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 477K
  • lonely1lonely1

    Shot taken with a Helios 44-2 2/58 at f2.0 without and with RJ speedbooster m42/m43.

    rsz_p1060027.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 364K
    rsz_p1060025.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 390K
  • lonely1lonely1

    And finally how does a video sample perform with the RJ Speedbooster? See my test video here:

    Keep in mind that all shots were taken with the lens at f1.8, and the iso kept at level 200, (lowest possible)

  • adamquesadaadamquesada

    @lonely1 thanks for those!

  • gamebgameb

    @lonely1 Thanks for your efforts. Can you please post the dimensions of this Adapter?

  • vicharrisvicharris

    I know I've been scolded over my opinion of these cheaper adapters time and time again but can all of you who are looking at this thread honestly say you can't see the massive smearing on the edges of the frames with these things? And once again, like I said, it's my opinion and the forum is called PV, so.................

  • PsycoPsyco

    @vicharris if you refer to my pictures - a lot of that smearing in the corners is the Tokina.

    And with other pictures - to really see how good it is, we would need some pictures with objects (a wall) that is exactly along the focal plane, and I think thats going to be hard as the focal plane might get bent a lot by this adapters.

  • lonely1lonely1

    The m42-RJ adapter is a small adapter which fits perfectly without shaking of the lens, everything fits tight. On most regular adapters it doesn't and there's movement. @gameb what do you mean by dimensions of the adapter? The adapter is 3 cm high x 6 cm wide x 18,84 cm whole circle, if that is what you mean.

  • gamebgameb

    Great, this is what I wanted to know. Cheers

  • lonely1lonely1

    On the left is the regular adapter and the right the RJ speedbooster, both used in the video and photo's.

    adapters.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 402K
  • nomadnomad

    @vicharris Most of the lenses tested are not great in the corners, the Helios for example is a nice vintage lens, but was never known for good corner performance. Judging from the only known good lens, the Nikon, I can't see much smearing at all, just a tad more CA. Even that might be the Nikon itself, since we are looking more into the corners with the Speedbooster.

    I'd still like to see a test with a known good M42 like a Tak with the RJ to really judge it. Plus, the image plane getting curved can definitely play a role here.

  • Adam_MercierAdam_Mercier

    Is it possible to make a passive EF to MFT speed booster? Maybe not as nobody did it...

Add a Comment