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

[liamlumiere]

The fastest? Not really... I've got a whole bunch of faster ones sitting here.

Here's a complete list of fast medium format lenses:

Fairchild 75mm F/1.9
Zeiss 125mm F/1.5 Sonnar
Zeiss 85mm F/1.4 Planar
Ernostar 85mm F/1.8
Ernostar 125mm F/1.8
Aerojet Delft 64mm F/1.8 
Aerojet Delft 70mm F/1.6 
Aerojet Delft 75mm F/1.7
Aerojet Delft 100mm F/1.4
Aerojet Delft 112mm F/1.4 
Aerojet Delft 150mm F/1.5
Aerojet Delft 300mm F/1.5
Delft Rayxar 105mm F/0.75
Delft Rayxar 150mm F/0.75
Delft Rayxar 250mm F/0.75
Perkin Elmer 75mm F/1.5 
Perkin Elmer 150mm F/1.5
Perkin Elmer 300mm F/1.5
Wild Heerbrugg 98m F/1.4 
Wild Heerbrugg 98mm F/1.0
Wild Heerbrugg 250mm F/1.8
Farrand Optical Super Farron 150mm f/0.87
Leitz Elcan 100mm F/1.4
Mamiya 80mm F/1.9
TTH 100mm F/1.8

 

Aren't those Large Format lenses? We're talking Medium Format here... 

[richg101]

The fastest? Not really... I've got a whole bunch of faster ones sitting here.

Here's a complete list of fast medium format lenses:

Fairchild 75mm F/1.9
Zeiss 125mm F/1.5 Sonnar
Zeiss 85mm F/1.4 Planar
Ernostar 85mm F/1.8
Ernostar 125mm F/1.8
Aerojet Delft 64mm F/1.8 
Aerojet Delft 70mm F/1.6 
Aerojet Delft 75mm F/1.7
Aerojet Delft 100mm F/1.4
Aerojet Delft 112mm F/1.4 
Aerojet Delft 150mm F/1.5
Aerojet Delft 300mm F/1.5
Delft Rayxar 105mm F/0.75
Delft Rayxar 150mm F/0.75
Delft Rayxar 250mm F/0.75
Perkin Elmer 75mm F/1.5 
Perkin Elmer 150mm F/1.5
Perkin Elmer 300mm F/1.5
Wild Heerbrugg 98m F/1.4 
Wild Heerbrugg 98mm F/1.0
Wild Heerbrugg 250mm F/1.8
Farrand Optical Super Farron 150mm f/0.87
Leitz Elcan 100mm F/1.4
Mamiya 80mm F/1.9
TTH 100mm F/1.8

 

all of which either lack usable iq at their widest aperture, and in some cases don;t even have an aperture, are completely unusable due to requiring huge outlay on bespoke remounting, are heavy, are coated and or glass selected for for b+w only, and have colour fringing issues so bad they need to be used in B+W only, or as pointed out, have ffd's too shot to permit focal reduction.  Not to mention most of those lenses lack basic function such as a focus mechanism since all are designed for infinity from high altitudes.

when we're talking medium format 'speed lenses' for focal reducer use that are adaptable, accessible and have basic featurs such as aperture and a focus mechanism on full frame cameras there are very few that will deliver the resolutions required to make the endeavour and expense worthwhile.

1. Hasselblad 110/2 - at f2 this thing matches a 135 format lens for resolution, but has a 80mm image circle.  compressing this down by 0.7x almost doubles the resolution onto a FF sensor, while still using the best area of the image circle.  this hassy could be compressed by 0.5x without running out of image circle for full frame.

2. Rollei 6000 Xenotar 80/2 - as above

 

3. a few ultra projection lenses for 70mm film.  which can be fitted to an off the shelf helicoid and are sharp wide open

 

There are no other medium format lenses that fulfil all of the basic criteria while delivering the base IQ required to make it worth going for a MF lens rather than a fast 135 format lens.

 

 

 

 

 

[liamlumiere]

There are no other medium format lenses that fulfil all of the basic criteria while delivering the base IQ required to make it worth going for a MF lens rather than a fast 135 format lens.

 

 

 

 

 

Hey @richg101, have you tried the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9?

[Nikkor]

Hey @richg101, have you tried the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9?

The mamiya works nice on 35mm so it will only be nicer on MF.

But I have to say that the more I use it, the more I like mamiya rz67 glass. It would be pain in the ass to adapt, but it has this microcontrast that's soo nice, but at the same time it has smooth bokeh like a cine lens, it's like a japanese metamorphosis of zeiss and leica.

[Phil A]

Hey @richg101, have you tried the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9?

I've shot the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 on a Mamiya M645 1000s which I had scanned at around 20 Megapixel, shot on Kodak Portra 400 and Ilford XP2 Super. While I think the look is lovely I think the common 80 2.8 is optically better wide open, but then you would expect that. As a sidenote I think focussing f/1.9 in the waist level finder and then shooting handheld with the mirror slap of the gods isn't for the faint of heart.

I'd think using the MF lenses would be more about rendering than clinical perfection regarding sharpness, etc. If it's for filming, 4k is such a low resolution that I think all of them would be more than enough and give nice results.

[IronFilm]

unfortunately the focal reducer element would protrude too deep into the body and would cause mirror problems.

Are you sure? There is a lot of empty space inside my Pentax 645 to Nikon F adapter. 

Surprised no one has mentioned the fastest (and cheapest) MF lens, the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9, known as the Nocilux for Medium Format. It's sharp with lovely characteristic Bokeh. I use the 110mm f/2.8 also, gorgeous glass.

Wish it is the cheapest! But nope, all my Pentax 645 lenses are much cheaper than the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9 

[Nikkor]

I bought another 80 1.9 for 100€ two months ago, where do you get your pentax lenses? I have a complete set of pentax 67 and some of them are nice, are the 645 any good?

[richg101]

Hey @richg101, have you tried the Mamiya 80mm f/1.9?

I had one briefly while sampling various mf lenses before deciding on a planar 80/2.8 for Forbes.  It's a good lens, but at f1.9 it's not quite good enough IMO.  Only when at 2.8 does it start to get refined (as in, that refined tack sharp look you get from a hasselblad 80/2.8.  the only 80/2 that I've tried that comes close to a good 80/2.8 is the Xenotar for the rollei 6000 series, and even that falls short.

 

Obviously I am coming into this discussion purely with relation to the resolution gain from this new kipon adaptor.  I am looking at it simply as a way to obtain the superb iq by compressing an image from a good 80mm onto a smaller frame and having a resultant 50mm lens that outdoes a 50mm for 35mm format.  

I am biased due to being a 6x6 80mm+ image circle man rather than a 645 70mm one.  If you compare the 80/1.9 vs a planar 80/2.8 on a 645 back you actually won;t see much difference in exposure - certainly nowhere near a stop difference.  and the sharpness at f2.8 on the planar actually makes the dof feel shallower due to the ration between in/out of focus being so much more.

Are you sure? There is a lot of empty space inside my Pentax 645 to Nikon F adapter. 

 

the focal reducer needs to be placed as near to the sensor as possible otherwise it needs to be made a lot bigger - so big it wouldnt fit in the mirror box.  your ffd is also reduced by approximately the same as the magnification of the focal reducer so if your using a 0.7x reducer, the ffd reduces by around 0.7x     

 

   

[Nikkor]

The hasselblad planar 80 2.8 isn't sharp either wideopen, it shines @5.6-8, @2.8 it's just another lens. The best 80mm is the mamiya 7 80 4, but you can't mount that on a speedbooster because it's a rangefinder lens.

[WhiteWolf]

all of which either lack usable iq at their widest aperture, and in some cases don;t even have an aperture, are completely unusable due to requiring huge outlay on bespoke remounting, are heavy, are coated and or glass selected for for b+w only, and have colour fringing issues so bad they need to be used in B+W only, or as pointed out, have ffd's too shot to permit focal reduction.  Not to mention most of those lenses lack basic function such as a focus mechanism since all are designed for infinity from high altitudes.

when we're talking medium format 'speed lenses' for focal reducer use that are adaptable, accessible and have basic featurs such as aperture and a focus mechanism on full frame cameras there are very few that will deliver the resolutions required to make the endeavour and expense worthwhile.

1. Hasselblad 110/2 - at f2 this thing matches a 135 format lens for resolution, but has a 80mm image circle.  compressing this down by 0.7x almost doubles the resolution onto a FF sensor, while still using the best area of the image circle.  this hassy could be compressed by 0.5x without running out of image circle for full frame.

2. Rollei 6000 Xenotar 80/2 - as above

 

3. a few ultra projection lenses for 70mm film.  which can be fitted to an off the shelf helicoid and are sharp wide open

 

There are no other medium format lenses that fulfil all of the basic criteria while delivering the base IQ required to make it worth going for a MF lens rather than a fast 135 format lens.

 

 

 

 

 

Uhm, i don't think you've ever tried any of these lenses. Atleast half of them are perfectly usable wide open and can be adapted using the Kipon adapter. Infact, i think only the Super Farron and the Rayxar lenses can't be adapted because their back focus is too short. The rest should be fine.

Here's two pics taken with the Wild Heerbrug Falconar 98mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 and f/2.8 on a Sony A7s + Nikon F adapter

[richg101]

The hasselblad planar 80 2.8 isn't sharp either wideopen, it shines @5.6-8, @2.8 it's just another lens. The best 80mm is the mamiya 7 80 4, but you can't mount that on a speedbooster because it's a rangefinder lens.

The Planar I am refering to is the later CFE unit, without the shutter.  From my experiences this delivers superb imagine quality at f2.8.  It's sharper than all of the 85mm lenses I have for 135 format.  it outdoes the zeiss planar 85/1.4 at f2.8 (closed down 2 stops), The modern hy6 Xenotar 80mm/2.8, my sonnar 85/2.8, my oly 85/2 at f2.8,  it almost matches the xenotar 80/2 at f2.8.  'Just another lens' it is not!  Hence why Hassleblad have ruled supreme in medium format for so long - the 80/2.8 planar is astounding.  Infact, I was informed by mart mueller during my research into lenses for FORBES that during development of IMAX 15/70, they went through every available medium format option and the hasselblads were the only ones that met the grade.   

[WhiteWolf]

Aren't those Large Format lenses? We're talking Medium Format here... 

No, they're all designed for 6x6 formats. Some of the longer focal lengths may cover a bit more.

[Nikkor]

The Planar I am refering to is the later CFE unit, without the shutter.  From my experiences this delivers superb imagine quality at f2.8.  It's sharper than all of the 85mm lenses I have for 135 format.  it outdoes the zeiss planar 85/1.4 at f2.8 (closed down 2 stops), The modern hy6 Xenotar 80mm/2.8, my sonnar 85/2.8, my oly 85/2 at f2.8,  it almost matches the xenotar 80/2 at f2.8.  'Just another lens' it is not!  Hence why Hassleblad have ruled supreme in medium format for so long - the 80/2.8 planar is astounding.  Infact, I was informed by mart mueller during my research into lenses for FORBES that during development of IMAX 15/70, they went through every available medium format option and the hasselblads were the only ones that met the grade.   

Well that's not the typical Hasselblad 80 2,8  The hasselblad lenses I know are soft in the corners and get sharp when stopping down.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

 

I disagree.  The DOF "range" might be technically equivalent, but it will look different in how the DOF rolls off and in the softness of the out of focus areas.  Also, the flatness and sharpness of the focal plane will probably be different.

That's a common misconception regarding the DOF of different sensor sizes. When the DOF and FOV is technically identical, they are they are identical. Period. The softness and roll off of the out of focus areas are a completely separate subject that's solely related to the BOKEH quality of the lenses, nothing to do with sensor sizes. There are MF lensea that have poor OOF rendition and FF lenses that have gorgeous OOF rendition, and vice versa. 

 

And yes, you can match a FF image to s16. But you'll need a s16 lens with a very wide iris which is very expensive or might even be non existent therefore while you can get the same DOF and FOV with a smaller sensor, it's easiee to get the shallow DOF with the larger sensor. EASIER is the key word here. It can be matched, but costs more and harder to find. 

Example of matching a s16 image to a FF image, a 60mm f/2.8 FF, will be identically matched with a 20mm f/0.95 s16 lens. The smaller the size difference the easier and more affordable it is to match, like s35 to FF, or FF to MF. 

You know why all the initial Zeiss Otus 50mm 1.4 reviews firmly stated it gives a medium format look, it's because it gives the same image a common 80mm F/2.8 MF lens gives on the current 0.7x crop MF cameras. It's as sharp or sharper wide open, has the same FOV, the same DOF, the same or better bokeh, and on a D810/5Ds the same extreme 50mp resolution MF gives. But its an expensive otus here, so it's "easier" to get on the MF camera/sensor size.

It's all about the lenses that makes different sensor sizes have different looks. 

For anyone interested to get a cheap-ish MF portrait/beauty look for studio/portraiture work: a D800,D800E,D810,5DS,5DSR,A7R,A7RII + a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART gives you that MF quality and look. 

 

[Nikkor]

Yeah ebrahim, I think I'm going to sell my Medium Format stuff and get the whole sigma art line up instead, so much more convenient.

I kinda feel for those who make these statements, they have no talent in their eyes, perceptual blindness.

[richg101]

It all becomes moot when you consider why a user would shoot 35mm rather than medium format.  It's all about cost and compactness.  Otus is a doubling of your investment of a 5ds or a7rii, for a 'normal lens' of 50/1.4.  

very few dslr users will think it viable to invest in the Otus lenses and a d810, a7rii or 5ds (which do get you very close to medium format).  If they do, their camera system becomes heavier and more cumbersome than a phase one system and the difference in price isn't as much of a factor (even if investing £20+k in a new setup (usually on a lease).  you can get a phase one camera with a 80/2.8 and a outdated 40mpx back for the same price as a 5ds and an otus, with 16bit colour (which actually makes the 40mpx more powerful than the 50mpx of the 5ds).  

 

The debate here is coming from those who wont ever have the need for an otus and a 5ds in either their professional or hobbyist endeavours.  Why bring them into the equation?    

 

The fact remains that assuming this adaptor doesn;t degrade the iq (and compresses the image circle down in a lossless fashion), users of the a7rii and a good MF lens like a pro quality 80/2.8, they'll have a lens of similar quality (resolution, fringing, distortion, frame illumination uniformity) to the otus 50/1.4.  get a good 80/2.8 for £300-400 and this adaptor and you have a sub £1000 otus setup. 

Unfortunately I doubt the optical designers, and the manufacturers of this unit are at the level of that from zeiss, who left no expense spared on the otus line.

 

 

[Mattias Burling]

I feel that these fell out of the buzz a bit, even now when they are out in the stores.
And specially now when there is so much buzz around the Fuji MF camera.

I mean who doesn't want Medium Format on the cheap?

The adapter + a $100 Pentax 645 Lens + a $500 A7 gives you a pretty affordable Medium Format kit.

I had the A7 and liked it a lot. Much more than I liked the A7ii and A7sii because of the quality/$.

Obviously Im not interested in gaining any resolution like some, Im after the MF aesthetics.
Meaning, being able to use a portrait lens with its DOF and compression but from a nicer distance.

So pretty much the same but opposite reason why MFT and APS-C is so nice for street photography and manual focus.

Philip Blooms Cat tests with the adapter + A7rii.

Personally its still the cost holding me back. I dont care about using it for video and for stills Film is still way cheaper.
My old Yashica D for $100 is sharp as a knife.
My old $50 Zeiss Nettax is pocketable.
My mothers old Certo can be had for $10, is pocketable (jacket) and is simpler to use than a smartphone.

The problem is that they aren't exactly street photo friendly. 
Usable bur not ideal. Not like a range finder.

So after two days of constant hovering over the order button on the adapter and late nights looking at samples form the Fuji GX I decided to go another route.

6x9 Medium Format Fuji Rangefinder

 

Compact Camera

[webrunner5]

33 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

I feel that these fell out of the buzz a bit, even now when they are out in the stores.
And specially now when there is so much buzz around the Fuji MF camera.

I mean who doesn't want Medium Format on the cheap?

The adapter + a $100 Pentax 645 Lens + a $500 A7 gives you a pretty affordable Medium Format kit.

I had the A7 and liked it a lot. Much more than I liked the A7ii and A7sii because of the quality/$.

Obviously Im not interested in gaining any resolution like some, Im after the MF aesthetics.
Meaning, being able to use a portrait lens with its DOF and compression but from a nicer distance.

So pretty much the same but opposite reason why MFT and APS-C is so nice for street photography and manual focus.

Philip Blooms Cat tests with the adapter + A7rii.

Personally its still the cost holding me back. I dont care about using it for video and for stills Film is still way cheaper.
My old Yashica D for $100 is sharp as a knife.
My old $50 Zeiss Nettax is pocketable.
My mothers old Certo can be had for $10, is pocketable (jacket) and is simpler to use than a smartphone.

The problem is that they aren't exactly street photo friendly. 
Usable bur not ideal. Not like a range finder.

So after two days of constant hovering over the order button on the adapter and late nights looking at samples form the Fuji GX I decided to go another route.

6x9 Medium Format Fuji Rangefinder

 

Compact Camera

I always wanted one of those years ago, but they were very expensive then. Everyone else wanted one also LoL. Seems like younger people are getting back into film cameras as of late.

[Nikkor]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

I feel that these fell out of the buzz a bit, even now when they are out in the stores.
And specially now when there is so much buzz around the Fuji MF camera.

I mean who doesn't want Medium Format on the cheap?

The adapter + a $100 Pentax 645 Lens + a $500 A7 gives you a pretty affordable Medium Format kit.

I had the A7 and liked it a lot. Much more than I liked the A7ii and A7sii because of the quality/$.

Obviously Im not interested in gaining any resolution like some, Im after the MF aesthetics.
Meaning, being able to use a portrait lens with its DOF and compression but from a nicer distance.

So pretty much the same but opposite reason why MFT and APS-C is so nice for street photography and manual focus.

Philip Blooms Cat tests with the adapter + A7rii.

Personally its still the cost holding me back. I dont care about using it for video and for stills Film is still way cheaper.
My old Yashica D for $100 is sharp as a knife.
My old $50 Zeiss Nettax is pocketable.
My mothers old Certo can be had for $10, is pocketable (jacket) and is simpler to use than a smartphone.

The problem is that they aren't exactly street photo friendly. 
Usable bur not ideal. Not like a range finder.

So after two days of constant hovering over the order button on the adapter and late nights looking at samples form the Fuji GX I decided to go another route.

6x9 Medium Format Fuji Rangefinder

 

Compact Camera

But Mattias, I don't get it, there is absolutely no difference between formats, only retards like me believe so.

(the "little" fujis are getting more expensive by the day)

[Mattias Burling]

39 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

But Mattias, I don't get it, there is absolutely no difference between formats, only retards like me believe so.

(the "little" fujis are getting more expensive by the day)

The same old story pops up online all the time. Doesn't matter how many times it gets explained.

DOF and Exposure doesn't change with a crop sensor. Its just a crop. And that's why a FF never can emulate MF with so called "equivalent lenses". Just like a 1" can never look exactly like a FF.

If you change lens to get more SDOF youve done just that. Changed lens. Which means a different background compression.

One can see it as a problem or use it as an advantage. Its up to the shooter. I choose the later.

Example:

I like using a 35mm on the street since I can then fill the frame with a person from a comfortable distance.

Only problem is that the DOF is so shallow at f8 set at 3m (2-5m) that its tough to get things on focus.

If I instead use a 17mm lens at f8 set to 3m I get from about 1m to Infinity. Much better.

But its to wide, people dont fill the frame as easily. They look tiny.

Solution, m4/3 crop sensor camera.

Exposure does not change. The DOF is still roughly 1m to Infinity. The only thing thats changed is the crop. I can now fill the frame from roughly the same distance as the 35mm on the FF.

Comparing the 35mm on FF  side by side to the 17mm MFT there is another difference though. Background compression. It has changed because they are different focal lengts. A 17mm and a 35mm. So the "equivalent" wasnt 100% equivalent after all.

So a crop is a crop is a crop is a crop...

This is why Medium Format and Large Format is cool. I can use a 90mm portrait lens, with its DOF and compression. But still see as much background and stay at the same comfortable distance as I would with a 35ish mm on FF.

"Equivalent lenses" is only for distance. A FF can never emulate a MF. Exposure and DOF is unaffected.

The biggest reason for all the fuss imo is that soooooo many people only stare at DOF, DOF, DOF and DOF. They go blind to all the other characteristics of an image.

Same when you try to discuss "image quality" with a large group. At least one sees sharpness and only sharpness as image quality. The discussion is pointless because anyone not picking the sharpest image is brushed off as an "idiot".

The whole thing is just so tiering. I made a video on sensor sizes recently so I could have just a link to post every time the discussion gets brought up. But I haven't had time to upload it yet. And when I see all the heat people get from the DOF cruisaders Im not even sure its worth it.