Mitakon, Metabones, Roxsen, Camdiox, focal reducers, share your experiences.

[milandro]

I was wondering if there were FR forum members willing to share their experience with this gizmo.

 

I have been wandering about both the quality of the images compared to the much more expensive Metabone speedboster and about the quality of the manufacture, in particular how good the bayonet is ( any chance the Mitakon might shave some metal?).

 

I was wondering if anyone had any for sale and why.

[Casa]

I'm very happy with my Lens Turbo II, but I might not be the best person to ask because I'm not much of a pixelpeeper. I got it for vintage lenses like Helios 44, Pentacons etc, which have "charisma" but are usually not considered the best, sharpest lenses in the world. So if the Lens Turbo's edge to edge sharpness or vignetting isn't the best, I wouldn't even notice or care. What I noticed is a general increase in sharpness and contrast compared to "dumb" adapters, and in general photos taken with the Turbo look much better than those taken with simple adapters. The 1 stop light increase also made some old glass suddenly suitable for lower light scenarios. For me a great buy. Also, you can buy the version for Canon EF and get a "3 in 1" adapter - there are simple and very cheap adapter rings for Pentax K and M42 to Canon, so for $20 more you can use a huge variety of old lenses. 

I'm not sure if the Speed Booster can be used in the same way. I'm sure the optical and build quality is better, but for my style (portrait, vintage look etc.) the Lens Turbo II is just great. I couldn't afford a Speedbooster anyway. 

[milandro]

Thanks @Casa. Any images ( preferably with and without focal reducer) which you would like to share?

 

I am very intrigued by the concept that pictures with the turbo adapter might look better than with a simple adapter. I didn’t consider this initially but after you’ve mentioned that, I’ve given this some thought.

 

It might be explained with the fact that sensors (unlike film for which these lenses were made) deal rather badly with deflected light coming at an angle on their surface and deal much better with light rays as perpendicular as possible.

 

By reducing the focal length, the various focal reducers, also reduce the size and the angle of the image circle hence “ straightening" the deflection causing the resulting image to be sharper despite adding glass (which is always going to be detracting from a lens because of added among other things, dispersion).

 

Of course the better the glass (e.g. low dispersion and other things) you add the better this would be.

 

Which, ideally would call for a comparative test between the various adapters with high resolution images. One that I haven’t found, yet, on line.

 

However this might be more true with regard to the center of the image than it is at its corners, which, by the very nature of this idea that sensors deal badly with light coming at an angle, are always at certain disadvantage anyway.

 

I wonder if it wouldn’t be possible ( WARNING: I have no idea if this is at all possible!) for Fuji to capitalize on this adapter market ( which, let’s admit it, might in fact take something away from their potential sales although adaptive photography is not for everyone) by producing, if this is at all possible, something inspired to the Pentax teleconverter  (yes I realize that a teleconverter in not the same as a focal reducer) which came out in the early stages of autofos photography and which made ordinary lens to be somewhat autofocus.

 

 

 

 

In other words you could take a Fuji made focal reducer with electrical contacts with the camera, put it in between your camera and a “ legacy” lens and have it shift inside to focus the image.

 

 

I don’t often engage in fantasy world creations but I’ll indulge myself this time      .

[Sator-Photography]

I have one Mitakon Lens Turbo adapter (but not for the Fuji X-mount). The fit is excessively tight and I had to use brute force to get it on, and then again to remove it. I was twisting with all my strength on both counts. I'm not sure if I dare to mount the thing ever again. 

 

This sort of thing cannot possibly be good for the mount. If it shaves metal, then there is the danger of ending up with a permanently loose mount with all lenses. Even small tolerances measurable only in microns have been shown to be detrimental to image quality, especially on wide angle lenses. There is the theoretical risk of this permanently reducing the IQ of your entire camera with all lenses. 

 

I also have used Metabones adapters. These do not have this same problem. This alone, in my opinion, makes it preferable to spend the extra money on the Metabones version. 

 

Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

[milandro]

Have you used the Metabone speed Booster or any other metabone adapters? Was the lens turbo type I or II?

 

This of the over-tight fit seems to be a problem more common on Canon Nikon than it is specifically on Fuji, besides, Mitakom makes lots of ( not cheap ) lenses for Fuji which seem to fit just fine.

[Sator-Photography]

Yes, Mitakon lens mounts are fine, it's just the M42 to NEX adapter I tried that was frightfully tight, which I suspect has much to do with their "twist closed to tighten" design. It doesn't mount straight on like a lens does, as there is a second component that you have to twist closed to tighten it fully. This design is likely to be common to their adapters irrespective of mount.

 

The Metabones adapters all work well. The Mitakon is a Lens Turbo II model. I do like the Metabones focal length reducers, which effectively double the number of lenses for that mount combination. It does seem to push up the MTF plots a little, but if you study what Metabones has published (eg on the Otus) you can see that it also introduces a touch of astigmatism. Still, they are handy to have when you want a wider field of view and more speed, although microscopic misalignments between lens-adapter-mount probably also reduce IQ. 

[Sator-Photography]

Here is a photo of my M42 to NEX adapter showing how you have this secondary twist to close design:

 

 

 

 

It's not going to matter what the mount is, I suspect it's this common closure design that tends to make things awfully tight.

[milandro]

No, this is not the configuration of this adapter for Fuji cameras, quite the opposite! There is no locking mechanism and it is a straight bayonet fitting like all their lenses for Fuji

[Sator-Photography]

If that's the case it might be OK, though I would still check reviews to make sure the fixing aren't too absurdly tight. Keep in mind that even before locking the adapter I had to twist it into place with brute force—next the lock made it even tighter!  So when you mentioned shaving metal in the opening post, it gave me the shudders...

 

If Metabones offered a M42 adapter I would have brought that one instead of the Mitakon.

[milandro]

You can clearly see that your Sony adapter is very different from the Fuji version, clearly there are no rings in that version which need locking and there are many reviews of this product an no one has reported this problem.

[Sator-Photography]

Well you might be OK then. I chose Mitakon over other cheaper makers because even amongst Chinese makers there's the good, the bad, and the ugly. Mitakon's adapters often cost a little bit more and their premium grade lenses are not too bad. You get what you pay for even here. I suspect that their NEX adapter design represents a bit of engineering overkill in firmly securing the adapter. At least it goes to show that they are aware that even a minutely loose adapter will significantly reduce lens acutance, and E mounts connections are amongst the least solid of them all. Clearly, they didn't feel that such engineering overkill was necessary to achieve stability on a Fuji X mount. 

[milandro]

The world of the many Chinese alternative makers of accessories is a jungle and amongst the many unknown makers one can at least trust the ones that are better known such as Mitakon.

 

They have been making lenses for a long time after all.

 

I am not big with adaptive photography, for me is and stays mostly a fun exercise but for most photographic applications I’d prefer autofocus lenses with the exception of the two Samyang 8mm and 12mm which I own.

 

Having said this, I wouldn’t mind using, albeit just in some situations, the older M42 lenses ( 28, 58, 100, 135)  that I have bought mostly to be used with another gizmo, the kipon tilt adapter.

 

The point of using one of these adapters would be to have a better performance in terms of light efficiency and resolution and actually have a lens element to protect the sensor from the elements while playing around with the lenses.

 

I see this as a bonus in adaptive photography. You protect your sensor and at the same time you improve the performance of your lens, the downside is adding weight to lenses that are already rather heavy.

[quincy]

I'm interested in lens adapters for Fuji too. I happen to have some nice Canon FD lenses from my film days (85 1.8, 50 1.4, ...) and I recently thought about giving them a new life on the X-T1.

Is there by any chance a list of Fujifilm X-Mount compatible lens adapters?

The Zhongyi and the Metabones adapters with focal reducer (would not want one without focal reducer) look both quite promising, but as you said, It's hard to tell only from a video. I didn't even see a difference.

[milandro]

There are many sites or blogs with a plethora of so called tests but frankly speaking nobody seems to follow a “ system” that I can understand. It would be nice if the Polish site  lenstip http://www.lenstip.com   test them. Their tests I can certainly understand and have been a good base to compare lenses for me.

 

I think I will end up buying something based on availability and affordability. Most probably the Mitakon which seems to tick all the boxes.

 

I am afraid that especially the second criterium will exclude the Metabones, for me.

[Larry Bolch]

A local store had both the Metabones Speed Booster and adapter, so for convenience bought both. Simply, they worked. No drama, no workarounds, no esoteric tips needed.

Most of my shorter Nikon lenses are redundant to my Fuji primes, but not the longer lenses. I specially like my f/1.8 105mm with and without the Speed Booster. More than adequately sharp wide open, and with the reduced focal length, a f/1.2 105mm field of view. I found that my Perkin Elmer (marketed by Vivitar) 600mm Solid Cat mirror lens, very difficult to focus with either the adapter or Booster. No loss, it is massive and very heavy. While rated as a f/8.0, it is more like a t/11.0—quite a dark view. I also tried my 28mm PC-Nikkor shift lens and it worked fine. I have the excellent Fuji 60mm, but if I needed to work even closer, my 55mm MicroNikkor would do the job. Macro does not lend itself to autofocus, so the 55mm would not be a problem. Again, I could use it with or without the booster.

[ErictheAckActor]

I'll stick with Metabones. Spent $600 on the Canon Aspherical 55mm 1.2 in the FD mount so why cheap out on the better version when using such pristine glass?

[milandro]

because, for all you know,  it might be as good as and cost less than half? How do you know it isn’t?

 

If it were that simple of anything you should always buy, without comparison, the most expensive thing and assume that because they ask more money that has to me that it is automatically better.

 

It might very well be so, but not because it has to be so based on price.

 

My purpose in starting this thread was to assess the quality of each on merit, not basing this on a price which might or might not reflect a better image quality.

[rdelbar]

I have done extensive testing with the (original) Metabones Speed Booster and a series of Nikon F (and compatible) lenses. There's lots to read at fujixtras.blogspot.com. 

 

Part of the 'improvement' in image quality (or, at least, the reduction of original imperfections from the adapted lens) is due to the reduction of the imaging circle: most optical abberrations get reduced through the same process. When using a top quality focal reducer, that largely compensates for the imperfections from the additional lens elements.

 

Having an adapter/focal reducer with electrical contacts at the body mount side does not bring any advances unless there's an equivalent provision at the lens mount side AND the adpted lens has electrical contacts/control AND the adapter offers is an appropriate translation between the respective control protocols. That's a lot to ask for. To my best knowledge, the only working case is with high-end Canon EF-S to Sony E-mount adapters.

[milandro]

Yes, you are a well know “ tester” on the internet and very good tests they are too.

 

I remember your comments on the kipon adapter. You said, back then, that you were going to show us some of the results of you using them, but that you were very busy. I have bought it and gained  some experience myself with it.

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/866-kipon-tilt-adapter-would-you-please-show-some-of-your-images/

 

Your test shows that on a aps-c you are likely to see an improved image quality by using a metabone sped booster as opposed to a simple non optical adapter.  Unfortunately you haven’t made a comparative test with different focal reducers.

 

I am not interested in adapters with electrical contacts since the lenses that I would be using would be mainly M42 without electrical contacts.

[ivansinger]

I bought one of the Fotodiox Excell+ for NikonG-> FX focal length reducer adapters and was very unhappy as it introduced blur as well as distortion at smaller than the rated apertures of 4.5. It is the same price as the Mitakon LensTurbo II, but I wanted the adaptor to offer a declicked aperture iris option and the LTII does not do that. However, the similar Fotodiox Pro NikonG -> FX adapter is quite good. I use it mostly in its declicked config with lenses and it is a breeze to focus and keeps the optics sharp. DOF is very thin so you really need the focus peaking to highlight your focal plane to nail focus. Instead of buying the Metabones at ~$500, I just use a couple of the Nikkor fast, wider primes (20/2.8, 24/2.8, 35/2, and 50/1.4) instead.

[ErictheAckActor]

Meh, price isn't a factor for me

[milandro]

How lucky. Good for you.

 

Not everyone is the same position though. I would hope that you might appreciate that.

[dfallsfilm]

I have EOS-Fuji X Lens Turbo from Roxsen and EOS-Fuji X Lens Turbo II from ZY Optics. I been using it since June 2014. Original Lens Turbo is prone to flare like blue highlight spot at the center of the frame or any where the highlights shine the brightness. Lens Turbo II improved that flare issue/blue spot. LTI is fine for monochrome. LTII is great for both color and monochrome. Only thing you should be concern about, when using old glass to EOS-FX LTII, some glasses aren't multi-coated, so it'll flare. Some lenses have a rear optic that will touch the glass of Lens Turbo II, using a tape behind the lens will prevent it from hitting the glass. This why it is mostly design for modern glass which performs better. I also heard the same issue happended with M42-FX LTII adapter. Not all classic lenses have that sort of problem. I love using it, I used mostly M42 lenses and some EOS lenses like Rokinon 85mm T1.5 EOS. Any more questions.. let me know! Recommended? If you going to use EOS lenses like Rokinon or Canon EF, go for it. If you going to use classic lenses, you must find the right adapter before adapting it to EOS-FX LTII. Happy Thanksigiving!!

[mabelsound]

Hi there, have any of you actually tried using Pentax K lenses with a PK > EF adapter mounted on the EOS Lens Turbo II? Would love to hear your impressions, if so.

[milandro]

Thanks for sharing experiences.

 

The adapted lens touching the lens turbo element should be only an issue with some wideangles and not all manners of lenses. Also, wideangles with a not very light efficient design shouldn’t protrude inside the lens turbo.

 

Anyway, I have a problem with this thread.

 

I am still waiting to see real world pictures contributed by FR forum members to benefit and inform other forum members.

 

I would much prefer that kind of contribution to some shameless “ plugs” promoting sites or blogs outside FR to increase traffic there instead of sharing things here! If one comes here, one should contribute pictures and content here, it is not ok to use FR rumors as a trampoline to launch topics and divert traffic onto other sites unless indispensable ( when quoting content that one doesn’t own).

 

So, please, share pictures (preferably with and without) to show us what these things do.