Nikkor

Back in the day they would make movies where the target audience would identify with the character, I can't see this being the case with the new Star Wars unless they plan to change their audience.

You guys know the "brenzier" panorama thing, take a look at the images and see the difference very clearly. A 30 shot is something like a 4x5", this speedbooster is more like a 4 shot.

For that kind of money they could have made it autofocus , those fancy guys. Meanwhile in China. http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/this-is-the-new-zonlai-25mm-f1-8-e-mount-lens/

Pretty expensive, and it's aps-c only if I got it right.

The best wideangle adapter I know of is the trump 35. http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk/dogschidtoptiks/trumpsystem/dog-schidt-optiks-trump38-attachment You will have to ask richard if it's a good idea. The oliviascope 1.5 is about to released, maybe that's another option?

The otus lenses don't have a speedbooster array inside, they are all crazy complex retrofocus designs. Retrofucs lenses have the benefit of more even illumination an resolution, but they are harder to design and they need a lot of elements for good correction. Simetrical designs are very simple and give good results without great material effort, but they are not as even. Have a look at the 50 and 85, usually such lenses have almost simetrical designs, but the otus lenses look like a distagon.

You don't have to go for the hasselblad stuff, it looks like there will be a lot of mounts available. Most of the modern medium format lenses are pretty good, and hasselblads aren't even the best ones. 645 lenses are all very fast and designed for the smaller area, so they are more useful, but you already know that Btw,anybody wants to trade a Nikon D3 for a sony A7s?

It doesn't change perspective, but it makes things more awesome

It's a medium format lens. Obviously 0.7x only turns it into a boring 35 f2 but a great one.

It's perfectly fine for video. If you shoot ugly stuff it will look shitty and soft, if you shoot nice stuff it will look nice and soft. People watch movies and bd rips that are much softer so no problem.

Ebrahim, buahahah you will see. I just got my 110 f2 in the mail, impressive quality I'm seeing on the groundglass. Buahahahahaha. Can't wait to use my noritar 80 2 and mystery 50 2.8 buahahaha best bokeh ever and nobody knows about the lens.

They have the extra first concave element ,like the spees boosters but still less elements than these, the optics also have a larger diameter. It wouldn't surprise me if they are all the same, and that the hasselblad speedbooster is the same as the nikon to e mount and that the housing is just different. We will see.

Oh god finally, time to sell my nikon stuff and buy a A7.

Lubricant, my friend.

I think the title should say "why we should always use magnifying glass".

Quesabesde asked, they sasy the rumors are not true, later on they say that "nikon doesn't make statements about unannounced matters". So this is nothing new.

The video looks great shure, but I doubt the Raven will be any better than the Dragon. If you have watched the cheapo marvel series that are on netflix (jessica jones, daredevil) you will see that it can look pretty bad even in a professional environment (I mean, what is more important than highlights when you have all the lights you couold possibly need?).

If it's under 1000€ and has the nice arri stuff going on it might be an option, but I have a feeling this won't be the case

First speed boosters didn't do a thing, then it was that they did something but that native glass was better, and now that all what he has said was wrong, he exits saying that fullframe will be better than speedbooster plus lens. Sorry, that's obvious, but we all know that it's a falacy in this context, I even mentioned a couple of posts before, this "conversation" was about the usefulness of speedboosters (originally it was about Nikon mirrorless,the NX and it's weird mount nobody wants but the ones who bought lenses), you made a fool out of yourself by saiying they were a hack, useless and only for amateurs. Once without arguments your stick to a triviality to save your ego, it might work for your ego. If the focal reducer is designed for a specific lens, there is no problem, it might even work better. I guess the next thing your ego spits out is that there is a tiny loose in transmission, and that's why it's a hack , useless and only for amateurs.

Hey tugela did you discover this all by yourself, pretty insane man. And all of this just because tugela doesn't want to believe that the NX mount sucks and is as good as dead.

Brian, I was wondering if the reason why my nikkor 28 1.4 looks so bad on digital is because of the glass on top of the sensor of my nikon d800 and if using the lens with a speedbooster on a smaller sensor would give it the punch it lacks (it also lacks in the center, but specially in the corners). Or if it's just a bad lens or copy and just not evident on 35mm film.

gh4 or nikon.

At least we have reached the point where you accept that the speed booster does indeed increase the resolution. You can't use a speedbooster with a native lens. Do you get the logic behind the argument? Nikon has a patent of a "native" DX lens which has an built in speedbooster (i posted this earlier). They must be very stupid a nikon, they should know that adding glass elements,bla bla. Yes they were specificly designed for it, but why use a speedbooster anyway? Even when competing with native lenses, A good speedbooster and some good FF glass does probably piss the very expensive m43 glass in the face. It seems that bigger lenses with larger image circles seem to give better results as their smaller counterparts. For example, let's take the pentax 105 2.4 for the pentax 6x7. It has a very primitive double gauss design and it is from the 60s, but I can shoot wide open with it and still get good resolution. On 35mm only in recent years there are lenses that give that kind of resolution, planars from the 60s shot at f1.4 are soft and full of aberrations.

Very interesting tugela. Now let's come back to reality. When using a speedbooster you are in the case where you have a lens that has an image circle larger than the one needed to fill the sensor. The speedbooster "takes that circle and compresses it", this means the aberrations will also be scaled and you end up with more resolution. It will not be as good as using a bigger sensor, but it will be sharper than using the lens without the speedbooster. http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed Booster White Paper.pdf check fig 21 for a real world sample You don't have to thank me, just say something coherent.

Check with stills and post some samples