Personal View site logo
RJ Lens Turbo m43 adapters
  • 782 Replies sorted by
  • kurthkurth

    @CameraRick

    looking forward to hearing what you think. I've got a 17-40 I'd like to use with this.

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @Psyco Yep, I know the Tokinas flaws come out when we use some other cameras or adapters but the smearing seems to be different. The Metabones actually invokes some of this smearing IMO as well. Do you have any other tests with different lenses? It seems to be most noticeable for some of us on foliage

  • CameraRickCameraRick

    @vicharris I also ordered this adapter (it's the first EF-MFT focal reducer there is), I don't think it will be the perfect thing but it's a temporary solution, and the price is really fine. I'd wonder if I couldn't sell it for 80€ when I'm "done with it" afterwards.

    I'm also really looking forward to it and doing some serious tests! :)

  • gamebgameb

    yep

  • lonely1lonely1

    By tak you mean a takumar lens?

  • gamebgameb

    Tak test is coming soon, as my m42 RJ booster arrives...

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    @Adam_Mercier

    First post in topic :-)

  • Adam_MercierAdam_Mercier

    Is it possible to make a passive EF to MFT speed booster? Maybe not as nobody did it...

  • nomadnomad

    @vicharris Most of the lenses tested are not great in the corners, the Helios for example is a nice vintage lens, but was never known for good corner performance. Judging from the only known good lens, the Nikon, I can't see much smearing at all, just a tad more CA. Even that might be the Nikon itself, since we are looking more into the corners with the Speedbooster.

    I'd still like to see a test with a known good M42 like a Tak with the RJ to really judge it. Plus, the image plane getting curved can definitely play a role here.

  • lonely1lonely1

    On the left is the regular adapter and the right the RJ speedbooster, both used in the video and photo's.

    adapters.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 402K
  • gamebgameb

    Great, this is what I wanted to know. Cheers

  • lonely1lonely1

    The m42-RJ adapter is a small adapter which fits perfectly without shaking of the lens, everything fits tight. On most regular adapters it doesn't and there's movement. @gameb what do you mean by dimensions of the adapter? The adapter is 3 cm high x 6 cm wide x 18,84 cm whole circle, if that is what you mean.

  • PsycoPsyco

    @vicharris if you refer to my pictures - a lot of that smearing in the corners is the Tokina.

    And with other pictures - to really see how good it is, we would need some pictures with objects (a wall) that is exactly along the focal plane, and I think thats going to be hard as the focal plane might get bent a lot by this adapters.

  • vicharrisvicharris

    I know I've been scolded over my opinion of these cheaper adapters time and time again but can all of you who are looking at this thread honestly say you can't see the massive smearing on the edges of the frames with these things? And once again, like I said, it's my opinion and the forum is called PV, so.................

  • gamebgameb

    @lonely1 Thanks for your efforts. Can you please post the dimensions of this Adapter?

  • adamquesadaadamquesada

    @lonely1 thanks for those!

  • lonely1lonely1

    And finally how does a video sample perform with the RJ Speedbooster? See my test video here:

    Keep in mind that all shots were taken with the lens at f1.8, and the iso kept at level 200, (lowest possible)

  • lonely1lonely1

    Shot taken with a Helios 44-2 2/58 at f2.0 without and with RJ speedbooster m42/m43.

    rsz_p1060027.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 364K
    rsz_p1060025.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 390K
  • lonely1lonely1

    My conclusion is, it is a wonderful adapter, and really keeps its sharpness, a wider angle and a light stop more. Great quality build. see pictures

    rsz_p1060011.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 321K
    rsz_p1060010.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 440K
    rsz_p1060009.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 477K
  • lonely1lonely1

    another example

    rsz_p1060004.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 429K
    rsz_p1060005.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 461K
  • lonely1lonely1

    Taken with an old Chinon 50 mm 2.0 lens set at 2.0 on a regular m42 adapter and the RJ speedbooster m42 adapter attached also at 2.0. Notice the wider angle and a light stop more?

    rsz_p1060007.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 414K
    rsz_p1060006.jpg
    2304 x 1296 - 429K
  • lonely1lonely1

    I just received the m42 version of this adapter and i post some screenshot comparisons in a minute.

  • PsycoPsyco

    @zigizigi I don't have the time to set up a tripod and do a real A/B test, but I took pictures with both adapters handeld (framing changes!) in photo mode and scaled them down to 1920x1080 - the differences are still pretty obvious.

    The RJ speed booster is a lot sharper. The Fotodiox is only in the outer most corners a bit better, the rest of the image is a bit "blurry", probably there is still some coma.

    Lens used: Tokina 11-16mm at 11mm and F2.8. Focus was on the blue letters on the white paper in the middle of the frame.

    Fotodiox_small.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 361K
    RJ-booster_small.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 361K
  • zigizigizigizigi

    @Psyco Can you do some AB comparison? I mean stills or video would be great.

  • PsycoPsyco

    Update: I adjusted the lens group in the RJ speed booster and now I get infinity focus.

    I also tested the RJ speed booster against the Fotodiox Pro.

    Fotodiox Pro:

    • much better built quality of the housing

    • no "blue dot"

    • infinity focus out of the box

    RJ speed booster:

    • better glas (sharper picture, more kontrast)

    • lens group can be adjusted to specific lens

    The things definitly to improve with the RJ speed booster would be, to give it a better housing (the iris control is so cheaply made!) and to get rid of the blue dot. As I will use the adapter most of the time with open aperture, I would prefer a better housing to be the first target (take the Fotodiox housing and place the RJ optics in it and it would be a very good adapter).

Add a Comment