Comparing Focal Adapters: The Metabones Speed Booster vs the RJ Photo Lens Turbo

[Joseph Moore]

Hope some people find this helpful.

 

http://blog.josephmoore.name/2014/11/01/comparing-focal-adapters-the-metabones-speed-booster-vs-the-rj-photo-lens-turbo/

 

[Cinegain]

I actually have the updated RJ Lens Turbo with Nikon F/G mount and it in fact does come with an attachable lens support.

Also, it allows me to change aperture on my Nikon-mounted Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Sigma ART 18-35mm f/1.8 just fine.

I'm expecting the RJ Lens Turbo FD - M43 as well. These adapters will do an awesome job at a fraction of the cost of a Metabones.

More here: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/9086/rj-lens-turbo-m43-adapters/p1?Sort=newest

 

Cool demo someone did:

 

Zhongyi ( http://www.zyoptics.net ) also makes Lens Turbo's... e.g.

[Inazuma]

Nice info but you didn't actually reveal which adapters were adapter 1 and 2. Also in the 14mm test the aperture of the lens was clearly different (judging by the background defocus) which would change the sharpness of each image.

 

BTW I also tested these two adapters a few months ago (didn't post anything though) and got a strangely mixed bag of results. Whilst the colours with the Metabones were indeed better, the RJ seemed to have an overall sharper image whilst the Metabones was sharper in the centre and quickly became softer as you looked off-centre. The results were inconsistent though. Sometimes the RJ was sharper than the Metabones throughout and sometimes it was the other way round.

 

Another difference I found was that my zoom lenses which were supposed to be parfocal were not so on the RJ but were on the Metabones. Not sure how much that has to do with the rotation of the back element of the adapter.

 

To be fair, the issue with the play on both sides of the RJ adapter is reason enough not to get it IMO.

[Guest]

I'm confused ...

[dahlfors]

Seems like the T4 comparison is not made equally if I'm not mistaken.

 

Check

'>

vs

'>

 

Look out the window at the tree and look at the plant to the right. This does not look like focus is "slightly off" as stated in the article. It rather looks like you are comparing them with the lens set at different apertures.

 

If aperture actually was the same in your setup, there's some serious softness in the Lens Turbo.

 

No wonder the sharpness seems to be the same in the 400% closeups either - they both link to the same photo. Also: I'd turn down the digital sharpening in camera when comparing sharpness of focal reducers, I can see that it's still on, producing halos.

 

Edit: I noticed that the 400% file for the lens turbo is actually uploaded to your site if I change the URL manually... It's just your page that links the same image twice.

 

Interesting test. I was in the same boat and didn't want to skimp out on optics, so I went for the speedbooster when I got mine. Looks like the Lens Turbo holds up nicely for 4K resolution and is a viable affordable alternative.