--> Skip to main content

Metabones Speed Booster: Lens Profiles

Recently I unearthed my (original version?) Metabones Speed Booster. For those not familiar, this adapter is a revolutionary idea that takes full frame lenses and reduces the magnification and image circle to match smaller sensor sizes. They also have the added benefit of increasing the effective aperture. In my case I'm taking Canon EF mount lenses and using them on my Sony e-mount mirrorless cameras.

So one amazing feature of digital photography is the ability of software to correct lens defects. In fact profiles either built in or custom made exist for many lenses that correct for geometric distortion (pincushion or barrel distortion), chromatic aberration and vignetting. I rely on those corrections now.

And it occurred to me, how do profiles work when using the "Speed Booster"? There's glass in there, clearly there's going to be some different defects than the primary lens on its own. Does the profile for the primary lens apply at all when using the "Speed Booster"? How do image editing programs deal with the EXIF data? The exif data while using the SB (I'm going to abbreviate from here on out, ok....) gets changed to match the effective focal length and aperture. For example, when I use my Sigma Art 50mm f1.4, the EXIF data reads 35mm f1.

Look at the straight line on the left: Not bad here applying "Generic Profile" in Capture One (using Canon Mount Sigma 50mm f1.4 wide open using Metabones Speed Booster = 35mm f1.4)

Look at the straight line on the left: Strong pincushion distortion when applying "Manufacturer Profile" in Capture One (using Canon Mount Sigma 50mm f1.4 wide open using Metabones Speed Booster = 35mm f1.4)

Look at the straight line on the left: Not bad here too using "Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art Profile" in Capture One (using Canon Mount Sigma 50mm f1.4 wide open using Metabones Speed Booster = 35mm f1.4)
This is just an initial test, I hope to do more. Clearly using the manufacturer profile (embedded in the lens) isn't working right. I can imagine that somehow the correction software is thrown off by a 50mm lens reporting that it's 35mm.

Normally I'd say unfortunately I don't have any Canon mount lenses that have strong distortion to test. But of course, I'm lucky to have a wonderful stable of lenses.

The only lenses I have with serious distortion are native Sony e-mount lenses. And they were designed knowing that such flaws can now be corrected in camera on the fly and in post. Where as Canon lenses can still be put on film cameras where that's not possible.

Without regard to distortion, I found that the optical performance was pretty good in the center, OK at the edges. And AF was OK. Not

I hope to test this a little further later. But feel like I learned a little bit at least here.

(full resolution samples are here: https://urbantexture.smugmug.com/Hidden/LensbustersSamples/Metabones-Speed-Booster-and-Capture-One-profiles/n-kZcfGk/)


Popular posts from this blog

Linhof Serial Year List - Salomon Says

Recently I've acquired a few Linhof cameras. I got a 5x7 view camera from Oakland Museum's White Elephant Sale. Later I stumbled upon a Color Kardan 90 Jahre Jubalaeum edition on Craigslist. And more recently, I found a "baby Technika" 2x3 (6x9) at Oakland's East Bay Depot for Creative Re-use. Not knowing much about Linhof large format cameras, I tried getting more info online, and came across a strange thread on the Large Format Photography Forum . Basically on this thread various Linhof owners ask a guy named Bob Salomon what year their Linhof was made. And the thread is over 100 pages long! Sifting through that thread is mindnumbing. Why Bob doesn't just publish the list of serial numbers is beyond me. Maybe it's just nice to feel needed. So I started compiling a spreadsheet of the serial numbers and the answer Bob gives. If you don't feel like spending a couple days reading this thread to get a hint as to the age of your Lin

Lossy DNG File Sizes by ISO.

Fairly recently I discovered the magic of lossy DNG's. My stock photo library is ever growing. Though JPG's might really be enough for my archive, I've been keeping my raw files. RAW files take up lots of space. And RAW files can't typically keep user generated EXIF data in the file. RAW files keep their keywords and other metadata in a sidecar, that is if you regularly save the EXIF data to file. So recently I've been converting all my RAW files to lossy DNG's. After testing the highest ISO setting on the new-to-me A7R IV, I converted the files to lossy DNG's only to find a surprise. The very high ISO lossy DNG's were much larger than the original Sony RAW files! Lossy ARW vs Lossy DNG full image sample So I thought it would be a good test to shoot from the lowest to highest ISO, convert to lossy DNG and see where the file size savings invert. Here's the data as seen in the above screen shot: ISO Lossy Sony ARW Raw file size (MB) Lossy DNG file siz

From the Archive: Obsolete Film Data Sheet Scans - ORWO Information

Here's a sheet I got from writing ORWO Technischer Kundendienst back in the 1980's. It lists development times for all the ORWO Black and White films sold for export at the time (NP15, NP22, NP 27) combined with western developers Microphen, Atomal, Rodinal, Refinal, D-76, & ID-11. A little bit of ORWO history- Germany's big photo film/paper manufacturer up until Germany's losing WWII was AGFA (short for  A ktien G esellschaft F ür A nilinfabrikation - or corporation for some sort of plastic manufacture.) Germany was occupied by the winning powers USSR/USA/GB/FR and the rift between the USSR led to some complications for industries. Depending on your view of history the US and western allies were much friendlier to the land they occupied (remember the USSR lost many millions of their citizens to the NAZIs which made them much less tolerant.) In any case, some factories in the east moved to the west with many key employees. Most photo enthusiasts know of the t