Kipon / Baveyes medium format speed booster for full frame Sony A7 series

[Andrew Reid]

They have just made this -

http://stkb.co.jp/info/?p=2679

Medium format look on your A7S II?

[Nikkor]

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

[Cinegain]

Interesting. I know they do a 0.7x PL too ( http://world.tmall.com/item/521200581514.htm ).

Two months back ( http://www.43rumors.com/kipon-announces-the-baveyes-ef-and-m42-speed-booster-adapters/ ) I saw they even had a M42 to M43 0.7x ( http://world.tmall.com/item/521181289088.htm | http://global.rakuten.com/en/store/auc-stkb/item/baveyes-m42-m43/ ), which spiked my interest. Not sure if their line-up of focal reducers is any reputable, though, or how they compare with the others. They're up in price from the 'Lens Turbo' ones.

[Nikkor]

Interesting. I know they do a 0.7x PL too ( http://world.tmall.com/item/521200581514.htm ).

Two months back ( http://www.43rumors.com/kipon-announces-the-baveyes-ef-and-m42-speed-booster-adapters/ ) I saw they even had a M42 to M43 0.7x ( http://world.tmall.com/item/521181289088.htm | http://global.rakuten.com/en/store/auc-stkb/item/baveyes-m42-m43/ ), which spiked my interest. Not sure if their line-up of focal reducers is any reputable, though, or how they compare with the others. They're up in price from the 'Lens Turbo' ones.

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.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

For what I know, sensor size different ''looks'' come from field of view and depth of field.

We've reached the conclusion some time ago that you can get the same FF look with a s35 camera by using a faster lens to match DOF and wider lens to match FOV. Then the aesthetic and image are identical. BUT , the point is, you DO need a faster lens, which means vastly lower quality wide open to match DOF of FF and vastly more expensive glass overall while with FF you can achieve that shallow DOF and FOV with an endless cheap slower lenses available that are much higher quality at f/2.8 vs s35 lens at f/1.2.

The same goes with medium format.

With a Canon/Nikon 50mm F/1.2 you get the same look as a MF 100mm f/2.8 or so, but the point is that the medium format glass at f/2.8 is much sharper with higher contrast than the hazy and expensive FF f/1.2 lenses.

The medium format look will be achieved with this speedbooster if it doesn't affect IQ, and that an incredibly exciting invention we've been waiting for since Sony started making FF mirrorless cameras with sensor qualities equal and higher than MF ones (48mp, 12bit raw uncompressed tonality, incredibly high dynamic range, exceptional lowlight performance, etc - that's my response for those who will come out and say MF aesthetic is about resolution, DR, tonality, sorry but FF sensors reached that and exceeded while your MF sensor technology is a bit stagnant) and the only missing piece to match MF was the lenses. With a SB, we complete the equation and effectively shoot medium format using a small A7R/II + Focal reducer + one of thr many MF High percision lenses.

I don't know this company so I doubt the results as any decrease in IQ will eliminate the MF lens ''aesthetic'' advantage alltogether.

 I was expecting @Brian Caldwell to make this piece, he has the idea, and Metabones SBs offer unparalleled optical performance. I hope he/they make one with as high quality optics as the SB Ultras in terms of glass-induced image loss.

[Cinegain]

Interesting to note...

Designed by IB-E OPTICS in Bavaria

http://www.ibe-optics.com/Hande_Vision | http://handevision.de/about-handevision/

Handevision is the result of the long-term cooperation between the German lens manufacturer IB/E Optics GmbH and the branch specialist Shanghai Transvision Photographic Equipment Co. Ltd, also known by its trademark Kipon as a manufacturer of high-quality adapters. 

Still the 2nd most expensive native mount lens for the M43 system... http://geizhals.eu/?cat=acamobjo_oly&asuch=&bpmax=&v=e&hloc=at&hloc=de&hloc=pl&hloc=uk&hloc=eu&plz=&dist=&mail=&bl1_id=30&xf=2305_Micro-Four-Thirds&sort=-p And they've new ones coming up: http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/handevision-announces-five-new-lenses-24355075-and-90mm-f2-4/ .

[Nikkor]

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.

[mercer]

Ebrahim, buahahah you will see.

...mystery 50 2.8 buahahaha best bokeh ever and nobody knows about the lens.

Is that the Rikenon M42? Or a Domiplain? Oh wait, it's the Schneider Edixa.

Damn, now you have me intrigued. I love f/2, f/2.8 lenses. 

[Nikkor]

Is that the Rikenon M42? Or a Domiplain? Oh wait, it's the Schneider Edixa.

Damn, now you have me intrigued. I love f/2, f/2.8 lenses. 

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

[Don Kotlos]

This is exciting!

Other than the price/availability another important information that is missing is the brightness of the adapter. Metabones has this as maximum aperture. 

[Nikkor]

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

[richg101]

This is exciting.  I highly doubt this unit will have optics of quality good enough to make investment in decent medium format glass worthwhile.  ie, even my Hasselblad 40mm/4, 50mm/2.8, 80mm/2.8 110mm/2 and 150mm/2.8 and this adaptor will only result in a set of lenses equating to:- 28/2.8, 35/2, 56/2, 77/1.4, 105/2.  

 

This will be a formidable set no doubt, but at around £3000 for the hassy lenses (at current ebay prices) and probably £500 for the adaptor, as well as each of the hassy lenses being upwards of 1kg each! the excitement is damped since for £3500 you can get an incredible set of 35mm format lenses that will likely match the look, with moderately better image quality.

 

Now, if metabones are watching and create something like this but with optics at the level of the SB ultra, then the hassle will be worth it (for resolution).  Unfortunately there aint enough fast (f2.8 or faster) medium format lenses like the shutterless hasselblad lenses to make the act of developing a truly superb focal reducer worthwhile in marketing terms.

That said, I'll definitely be getting one of these.  my hassy's will deliver pretty good resolution and squeezing the lp/mm tighter with this (providing optical performance is good) will make the 110/2 a badboy!   

[Nikkor]

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?  

 

[richg101]

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?  

 

I think you may be right.  Contax 645 lenses will definitely yield more of a benefit from this than 6x6 hassy's.  Been examining that photo of the unit and the optical element doesnt look big enough to trasmit what would be required from the 110mm/2.   The 645 80/2 might be a little beaut on this, but still...  for the price of this adaptor and the contax 80/2 you could get a sigma 50mm/art and get the same look and obliterate the resolution.

 

If metabones made a 0.55x unit for 6x6 lenses with 80mm+ image circles with sb ultra performance and apo correction for the hassy F lenses on digital sensors then we'd be cooking!  the 50mm/2.8 would result in a 28mm/1.6 with great mtf.  the blad 50mm at 2.8 on full frame almost matches the c/y 50/1.4 at f2.8 when compared for resolution on a7rii.  compressing the resolution by almost twice would be amazing in resolution terms. 

[kaylee]

For what I know, sensor size different ''looks'' come from field of view and depth of field.

here we go again *starts shaking in fear*

We've reached the conclusion some time ago that you can get the same FF look with a s35 camera by using a faster lens to match DOF and wider lens to match FOV. Then the aesthetic and image are identical.

wait. please... im begging you. im freaking out rn. not being ironic here: > does this mean theoretical lenses which dont exist? with wider apertures than they normally have? talk to me like im 4 years old. i feel like i get this if it means, If lenses on my 35mm ff camera had wider apertures, they could give a medium format look for their respective fields of view 

With a Canon/Nikon 50mm F/1.2 you get the same look as a MF 100mm f/2.8 or so

again, please help me understand this. why is this so confusing to me?? ive shot medium format film but it was a looong time ago. today i feel like i have a pretty strong handle of sensor size in relation to depth of field in practice, and maybe this is a more theoretical discussion? like an "all things being equal" comparison??

crying rn bc i feel so dumb  

[richg101]

 

wait. please... im begging you. im freaking out rn. not being ironic here: > does this mean theoretical lenses which dont exist? with wider apertures than they normally have? talk to me like im 4 years old. i feel like i get this if it means, If lenses on my 35mm ff camera had wider apertures, they could give a medium format look for their respective fields of view 

 

The benefit of a FF-APS-c speed booster is a lot greater since the availability of fast and wide lenses for FF is pretty good.  

In medium format terms your point is very valid though since there are still limitations on how you could go about trying to replicate a 150/2.8 for medium format, when using a FF lens.  on paper you;d need a 105/2 lens for full frame in order to match a MF 150/2.8 and this 0.7x focal reducer (assuming the focal reducer is actually delivering good performance).  HOWEVER, you'd actually need a 105/1.4, stopped down to f2 in order to obtain both the dof/fov ratio as well as the image quality you can obtain from the 150/2.8 MF lens wide open.  There are NO 135mm format lenses that will replicate the balance of IQ and dof/fov that is achieved by a 150/2.8 on medium format.

The OTUS line of lenses somewhat bridge the gap.  The new 28/1.4 at f2 on FF will likely outdo my Schneider SA 40/3.5 on 645 in terms of resolution, while providing similar fov/dof.    But at £3000 per lens they become less viable.  You can get 3 of the schneider 40/3.5's for the price on a single otus.  This brings an interesting point, in that if you look at the optical diagrams of the otus lenses they are infact not that far removed from a high end MF lens with a focal reducer stuck on the back.  

 

 

again, please help me understand this. why is this so confusing to me?? ive shot medium format film but it was a looong time ago. today i feel like i have a pretty strong handle of sensor size in relation to depth of field in practice, and maybe this is a more theoretical discussion? like an "all things being equal" comparison??

  

 

Since OTUS lenses are the only real option for wide open shooting with superb IQ on FF, these would be the closest direct comparison against high end lenses on medium format.

 

OTUS 28mm at f2 on the A7Rii will probably be a close match to a 40/3.5 wide open on a 6x4.5 frame of portra400, drum scanned. 

 

if this focal reducer squeezes the image onto a smaller frame transparently then in some cases and with the best medium format lenses bought at good prices you'll have a poor mans OTUS.   

 

 

 

 

 

[kaylee]

thank you rich~!!

[jcs]

S35, FF, and MF looks can be equivalent: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

[Nikkor]

 

The benefit of a FF-APS-c speed booster is a lot greater since the availability of fast and wide lenses for FF is pretty good.  

In medium format terms your point is very valid though since there are still limitations on how you could go about trying to replicate a 150/2.8 for medium format, when using a FF lens.  on paper you;d need a 105/2 lens for full frame in order to match a MF 150/2.8 and this 0.7x focal reducer (assuming the focal reducer is actually delivering good performance).  HOWEVER, you'd actually need a 105/1.4, stopped down to f2 in order to obtain both the dof/fov ratio as well as the image quality you can obtain from the 150/2.8 MF lens wide open.  There are NO 135mm format lenses that will replicate the balance of IQ and dof/fov that is achieved by a 150/2.8 on medium format.

The OTUS line of lenses somewhat bridge the gap.  The new 28/1.4 at f2 on FF will likely outdo my Schneider SA 40/3.5 on 645 in terms of resolution, while providing similar fov/dof.    But at £3000 per lens they become less viable.  You can get 3 of the schneider 40/3.5's for the price on a single otus.  This brings an interesting point, in that if you look at the optical diagrams of the otus lenses they are infact not that far removed from a high end MF lens with a focal reducer stuck on the back.  

 

 

Since OTUS lenses are the only real option for wide open shooting with superb IQ on FF, these would be the closest direct comparison against high end lenses on medium format.

 

OTUS 28mm at f2 on the A7Rii will probably be a close match to a 40/3.5 wide open on a 6x4.5 frame of portra400, drum scanned. 

 

if this focal reducer squeezes the image onto a smaller frame transparently then in some cases and with the best medium format lenses bought at good prices you'll have a poor mans OTUS.   

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.

[kaylee]

S35, FF, and MF looks can be equivalent: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/

As the sensor size increases, the ability to more easily achieve shallow depth of field increases. That’s it!

"more easily" was what i wanted to hear. ::boom:: thank u