Jump to content
Architeuthis

Canon EF lenses on MFT cameras?

Recommended Posts

Question re canon 8-15 with smart adapter. The lens is now 5mm longer so the glass is closer to the dome
Are there consequences on image quality? There is also a 35 extension ring in case this is not perfect?

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Question re canon 8-15 with smart adapter. The lens is now 5mm longer so the glass is closer to the dome
Are there consequences on image quality? There is also a 35 extension ring in case this is not perfect?

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

Hi Interceptor,

I did not test the 1x Smart Adapter with the 30mm extension (I use it for the 0.71x speedbooster). I always use 35mm (1x Smart) and 55mm (1x Smart +1.4x Kenko; 35+20mm).

Here a listing of the extensions how I use them (they are probably appropriate - but i did not do any test series nor measurement of entrance pupil; I choose them after corresponding with and as suggested by Nauticam and Zen):

image.thumb.png.48c42bfd08c8101005201399783ac4b8.png

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am looking at your FOV table and am not sure how you tested that. 

The Tokina 10-17 with the speedbooster is 7.1 - 12.07 on the MFT body the Canon is 8 - 15 

The theoretical field of view calculations on an 8mm show less than 180 degrees however when you are looking at lenses you need to consider 22.5 mm as the diagonal which means at 8 mm you will get  fisheye anyway and the Tokina should vignette at wide end a little and at the same time because the crop with the speedbooster is 0.71 giving a total of 1.42 the lens will be wider than the nominal 100 degrees more 110 degrees.

At the same time the 8-15 should not go below 88 degrees with the smart adapter

I will run some comparisons with the panasonic 8mm fe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Am looking at your FOV table and am not sure how you tested that.

=> I did not test, but calculate. There are several construction types for fisheye lenses available, and Canon and/or Tokina may not be strictly 100% one type. Formula for equisolid fisheye was taken (FOV (equisolid fisheye) = 4 * arcsin (frame size/(focal length * 4)); "framesize" is diagonal im mm, in case you want diagonal FOV). The differences between types are not hughe, so problem is a little bit academic. Results are very good to estimate what you will get...

 The Tokina 10-17 with the speedbooster is 7.1 - 12.07 on the MFT body the Canon is 8 - 15

=> Exactly. Tokina with booster gives vignetting @10mm (=7.1mm) and one need to zoom out a little to avoid. Canon @8mm with Smart 1x adapter is just perfect (with booster there is, of course, even more vignetting, so 0.71x is even less desireable).

The theoretical field of view calculations on an 8mm show less than 180 degrees however when you are looking at lenses you need to consider 22.5 mm as the diagonal which means at 8 mm you will get  fisheye anyway and the Tokina should vignette at wide end a little and at the same time because the crop with the speedbooster is 0.71 giving a total of 1.42 the lens will be wider than the nominal 100 degrees more 110 degrees.

=> The calculations for equisolid FE gives 170 degree FOV. Since there are different construction types and real lens may be a mixture, 8mm cam give 180 degree for another (as Zuiko or Pana 8mm)...

=> The difference between the (calculated) 170.2 of the Canon 1x @8mm and 180 degree is not so much in reality: note that the spacing of degrees on the diagonal is not uniform with fisheye and the increments become smaller and smaller the closer you come to the corner (this makes the "fisheye" look). I am even not so shure that the specifications of manufacturer are so accurate, when they say it is 180 degree: it could very well mean some degrees less (maybe also more), when precisely measured...

At the same time the 8-15 should not go below 88 degrees with the smart adapter

=> see here the table with exact values (also FOVs for rectilinear WA lens are given - they can be calculated very accurate, of course):

image.png.405a2427b7534392d0da3b1f434a3f4e.png

are

I will run some comparisons with the panasonic 8mm fe

I am really eager to hear what your practical experience will be (I am very fond of the Canon 8-15mm with 1x - it became my standard WA lens). AF performance will depend on camera body: with EM1II C-AF+tracking work very well, while with EM5II S-AF is o.k. ...

 

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very interested in the 8-15 with smart adapter as it fills a gap. Right now I have nothing between the 130 degrees of the WWL-1 and 180 degrees of the 8mm fisheye

I also want to see how it performs around 105 degrees and what is the level of distortion as I am hoping to take the 8-18mm out of the mix 

For autofocus I only use single AF with wide angle shooting f/8 mostly for macro AFF but otherwise even just centre on single AF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

I also want to see how it performs around 105 degrees and what is the level of distortion as I am hoping to take the 8-18mm out of the mix

The level of fisheye distortion becomes reduced as the FOV is reduced upon zooming in. My guess is that the WWL-1 (and also the WACP) have similar amount of fisheye distortion when compared to "zoomed out" fisheye lens at comparable FOVs

Sharpness of Canon 8-15mm @15mm on MFT is superb as @ 8mm and with every fisheye (is'nt the Zuiko (or Pana) 8mm providing superb optical quality :)?). The trick how WWL1 and WACP manage to get such IQ might well be that they produce zoomed-in fisheye optics together with the standard zoom lenses.

I did, however, never use WWL-1 nor WACP, so I cannot say for shure. Really interested to hear from someone who uses both WWl1 and Canon 8-15mm on MFT and can compare in practice...

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The level of fisheye distortion becomes reduced as the FOV is reduced upon zooming in. My guess is that the WWL-1 (and also the WACP) have similar amount of fisheye distortion when compared to "zoomed out" fisheye lens at comparable FOVs (the trick how WWL1 and WACP manage to get such superb IQ might well be that they produce zoomed-in fisheye optics together with the standard zoom lens). I did, however, never use WWL-1 or WACP, so I cannot say for shure. Really interested to hear from someone who uses both WWl1 and Canon 8-15mm on MFT and can say from practice...
Wolfgang
I did extensive tests on wwl-1 and you are correct it has the same behaviour of fisheye around 10.6 mm but the missing 2.5 to 8 are very important!

Sent from my SM-A505FN using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Architeuthis one other consideration you want to make on the fisheye lenses in general is that although the specifications for field of view are given on the diagonal this is not really what matters to us. We are interested in the horizontal and vertical field of view.

When I compared the WWL-1 with the 7-14 I found out that while on the diagonal there is a difference on the horizontal the lenses behave similarly and on the vertical the 7-14 is actually wider. This is an outcome of the fisheye distortion that pulls the diagonal and then compacts it back in the frame in a barrel shape. In my tests the fisheye distortion on the wwl-1 is present until 2.5x zoom on the 14-42 and is less apparent in video just because the 16:9 crop is not affected by the vertical compression so the image is more straight

So in in reality 15 on the canon zoom on mft body with 1x converter is not the same as 12 mm rectilinear but is like a 13 on the horizontal and 14 on the vertical if it makes sense.

The teleconverter on the 1x for me makes very little sense as I am under what I would call true wide angle (90 degrees on horizontal corresponding to 8 linear)

When I look at the tokina on MFT body with speedbooster ultra this does not make too much sense as due to the crop factor being 1.42x and not 1.5 or 1.6 the lens remain too wide when fully zoomed

So the way I see it is that for what I need (once I decide to spend a fortune in lens ports adapters and glass)

Canon 8-15 (fundamentally from fisheye to 13.5 mm) 1x or corresponding to kenko + metabones on the nauticam chart

Leica 12-60 rectilinear (this is mostly for portrait work of mid size fish)

Olympus 60 mm macro

I am hoping to cover every wide angle situation with the 8-15 including split shots and wrecks, split will need a large acrylic dome to float

I will keep you posted as I go along...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Architeuthis

First tests with tripod confirm what I thought on the horizontal a 12mm rectilinear is the same as the 8-15 at 14mm zoom 

Image quality is pretty much the same at the same aperture, the Canon 8-15 exhibits fringing while the panasonic does not but this is because the camera corrects it for all panasonic lenses. The purple fringing is only visible in corner at 1:1 pixel ratio and once you click remove chromatic aberrations in Lightroom it goes away without any loss of sharpness it is really tiny

Field of view I have not been able to do scientific test the canon is much longer lens and the additional lenght means the Panasonic is closer to the target of around 3 inches therefore the frame looks bigger however I am extrapolating that once the front are at the same distance it will be identical more or less

One consideration is obviously as this is DSLR size the dome is much bigger and so is the port compared to the Nauticam acrylic 4.33 or even smaller 3.5". If you are into wide angle macro this lens is not really the best combination and better rely on the panasonic for that.

Will report on the port system once it arrives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deposited some sample images for the Canon 8-15mm, 1x adapter and EM1II that I took during last week's exciting workshop at the Red Sea:

 

Wolfgang

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interceptor,  have you compared the 8-15 + 1x adapter vs the WWL-1 in the overlapping range?

How does the barrel distortion and image quality compare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overlapping range is 10 onwards I have not done scientific testing

However in general terms:

1. The native 14-42 will have corrections applied in camera for distortion vignetting etc that apply to both video and stills. For video is baked in. The lens has around 5% distortion so there is an element of softening of corners

2. The 8.15 mm is extremely sharp across the whole field of view and it won't be corrected in any form by the body there is an element of chromatic aberration uncorrected

I have taken some test shots with the 8-15 mm and my conclusion is that for stills clearly there is no comparison the 8-15 mm is better and you can correct ca and vignetting in raw processor

For video you need to check the amount of CA in the frame as this is uncorrected with the 8-15. The 8-15 will be sharper but it is not just about sharpness

Personally I would not use the 8-15 mm for video because of lack of IS and because the range 8-10 is not possible to cover with lights

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting post for a newby in MFT.

 

I have a GH5 with Nauticam housing and I'm wondering if the Nikon lenses from my old equipment (Tokina 10-17, Nikon 105VR) will work properly with the Viltrox NF-M1 adapter. In the pictures it seems to be too big to fit in the housing.

 

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0104/0380/7298/files/NF-M1-__13.jpg?v=1591360988

 

Any experience with this combination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it looks too big it probably is, the Nauticam housing has an n85 port and the ID is a maximum of about 77mm at least on the ports I have - I have seen references to need to remove the tripod foot from metabones adapters for other combinations.  Looking at the adapter, the foot appears non removable and I'd estimate it is about 80-85mm high so too big to fit through a N85 port - which it would need to do as it needs to be right at the port opening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 6:35 PM, Tryger said:

Very interesting post for a newby in MFT.

 

I have a GH5 with Nauticam housing and I'm wondering if the Nikon lenses from my old equipment (Tokina 10-17, Nikon 105VR) will work properly with the Viltrox NF-M1 adapter. In the pictures it seems to be too big to fit in the housing.

 

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0104/0380/7298/files/NF-M1-__13.jpg?v=1591360988

 

Any experience with this combination?

I have no experience with Nikon lenses. As Chris says, the adapter you linked has this, apparently, non-removable foot what makes housing difficult (In your case I would ask Nauticam for help whether a solution is known to them)...

I use this adapater here (for both Metabones 1x Smart adapter and 0.71x speedbooster (MFT to Canon EF)): https://www.nauticam.com/products/n85-to-n120-34-7mm-port-adaptor-for-metabones-ef-mft-mount-t-speed-booster-ultra-0-71x

In principle any extension that has the length of the adapter should work, but a N85 to N120 adapter provides more space and the subsequent N120 extensions and ports can be used for a later FF system as well, while the N85 items go with the MFT system...

 

Wolfgang

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, @Architeuthis and @Interceptor121, for your contributions to the 8-15 on MFT discussion. It has been very helpful and informative indeed!

I have a question regarding the N85-120 34.7mm port adapter and port extension length required for different lens adapters.

Looking at the spec sheets, one can see a a discrepancy in the depth for the Metabones and Vitrox adapters :

  • Metabones Adapter Canon EF to MFT  -  67 x 35 mm
  • Viltrox EF-M1 Adapter  -  67x 25 mm
  • MB Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x  - 72 x 25 mm

The N85-120 34.7 port adapter is specified for the Speedbooster (25mm D) and N120 Canon Port Chart indicates 30mm extension for 8-15 FE. The Vitrox EF-M1 lens adapter has the same depth as the Speedbooster.

Wolfgang and Massimo; based on the specified depths of these lens adaptors, would you recommend:

  • 35mm extension for Metabones Adapter Canon EF to MFT (as tested)
  • 30mm extension for Viltrox EF-M1 Adapter (as inferred from Port Chart)

Thanks again and best regards, 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, joncroweucl said:

Thanks, @Architeuthis and @Interceptor121, for your contributions to the 8-15 on MFT discussion. It has been very helpful and informative indeed!

I have a question regarding the N85-120 34.7mm port adapter and port extension length required for different lens adapters.

Looking at the spec sheets, one can see a a discrepancy in the depth for the Metabones and Vitrox adapters :

  • Metabones Adapter Canon EF to MFT  -  67 x 35 mm
  • Viltrox EF-M1 Adapter  -  67x 25 mm
  • MB Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x  - 72 x 25 mm

The N85-120 34.7 port adapter is specified for the Speedbooster (25mm D) and N120 Canon Port Chart indicates 30mm extension for 8-15 FE. The Vitrox EF-M1 lens adapter has the same depth as the Speedbooster.

Wolfgang and Massimo; based on the specified depths of these lens adaptors, would you recommend:

  • 35mm extension for Metabones Adapter Canon EF to MFT (as tested)
  • 30mm extension for Viltrox EF-M1 Adapter (as inferred from Port Chart)

Thanks again and best regards, 

Jon

I recommend you check the length of the Viltrox adapter by yourself instead relying on product decriptions, at least the length difference between the two Metabone adapters, cited above, is not correct (the real world difference between 1x Metabones and 0.71x speedbooster is 6.5mm and not 10mm (I have them both here, but unfortunately cannot check the Viltrox)).

In case the 1x Viltrox is indeed the same length as the Metabones 0.71x speedbooster (I cannot figure out how this would be possible, 1x glasless adapters must add exactly the same extension to the system to perform adaption...), the extension, recommended by Nauticam, would be 30mm (it is 35mm for the Metabones 1x to compensate for the extra 6.5mm).

Maybe the lengths that you have from the technical descriptions is the overall length, including parts that will be engulfed by the camera or lens, when mounted. Relevant is the length that the adapter adds to the lens system, when the adapter is once mounted...

 

Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

I recommend you check the length of the Viltrox adapter by yourself instead relying on product decriptions, at least the length difference between the two Metabone adapters, cited above, is not correct (the real world difference between 1x Metabones and 0.71x speedbooster is 6.5mm and not 10mm (I have them both here, but unfortunately cannot check the Viltrox)).

In case the 1x Viltrox is indeed the same length as the Metabones 0.71x speedbooster (I cannot figure out how this would be possible, 1x glasless adapters must add exactly the same extension to the system to perform adaption...), the extension, recommended by Nauticam, would be 30mm (it is 35mm for the Metabones 1x to compensate for the extra 6.5mm).

Maybe the lengths that you have from the technical descriptions is the overall length, including parts that will be engulfed by the camera or lens, when mounted. Relevant is the length that the adapter adds to the lens system, when the adapter is once mounted...

 

Wolfgang

Thanks Wolfgang,

See below photo of Viltrox EF-M1 mounted on GH5. I recognise measuring tape is not necessarily the most accurate tool but length of protrusion from the lens mount is ~25mm. I'm expecting then 30mm extension is best suited for Viltrox EF-M1, 35mm extension for Metabones 1x.

IMG_20210419_114556.thumb.jpg.29d20d234dcd00d036675eb4104f3a60.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joncroweucl said:

Thanks, @Architeuthis and @Interceptor121, for your contributions to the 8-15 on MFT discussion. It has been very helpful and informative indeed!

I have a question regarding the N85-120 34.7mm port adapter and port extension length required for different lens adapters.

Looking at the spec sheets, one can see a a discrepancy in the depth for the Metabones and Vitrox adapters :

  • Metabones Adapter Canon EF to MFT  -  67 x 35 mm
  • Viltrox EF-M1 Adapter  -  67x 25 mm
  • MB Canon EF Lens to Micro Four Thirds T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x  - 72 x 25 mm

The N85-120 34.7 port adapter is specified for the Speedbooster (25mm D) and N120 Canon Port Chart indicates 30mm extension for 8-15 FE. The Vitrox EF-M1 lens adapter has the same depth as the Speedbooster.

Wolfgang and Massimo; based on the specified depths of these lens adaptors, would you recommend:

  • 35mm extension for Metabones Adapter Canon EF to MFT (as tested)
  • 30mm extension for Viltrox EF-M1 Adapter (as inferred from Port Chart)

Thanks again and best regards, 

Jon

1. I do not recommend the speedboster. You don't need an f/2.8 lens and the field of view is reduced

2. The extension required for flange adapter is 35mm does not matter who makes it. The adapter should not be the same depth of the speedboster or it would crop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, joncroweucl said:

Thanks Wolfgang,

See below photo of Viltrox EF-M1 mounted on GH5. I recognise measuring tape is not necessarily the most accurate tool but length of protrusion from the lens mount is ~25mm. I'm expecting then 30mm extension is best suited for Viltrox EF-M1, 35mm extension for Metabones 1x.

IMG_20210419_114556.thumb.jpg.29d20d234dcd00d036675eb4104f3a60.jpg

Canon EF flange distance 44mm. MFT 19.25. Difference 24.75.

Additional extension needed 24.75-19.25=5.50mm 

The speedboster is shorter so needs only 30mm extension

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, joncroweucl said:

Thanks Wolfgang,

See below photo of Viltrox EF-M1 mounted on GH5. I recognise measuring tape is not necessarily the most accurate tool but length of protrusion from the lens mount is ~25mm. I'm expecting then 30mm extension is best suited for Viltrox EF-M1, 35mm extension for Metabones 1x.

 

The added length that I measured for the Metabones are:

   1x adapter: 24.7 mm

   0.71x speedbooster: 19.3 mm

=> Viltrox 1x has same length as 1x Metabones and requires the same extension, i.e. 35mm. You also need a zoomgear extension. printed 3D (I put the file somewhere here and Massimo has the file for download on his homepage)...

 

Wolfgang

  

 

 

Edited by Architeuthis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, both! Very relieved that I haven't shot myself in the foot going for the Viltrox and that 35 mm is the confirmed extension required. 

Now to schedule a call with my accountant (read: explain it to my wife).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

I recommend you check the length of the Viltrox adapter by yourself instead relying on product decriptions, at least the length difference between the two Metabone adapters, cited above, is not correct (the real world difference between 1x Metabones and 0.71x speedbooster is 6.5mm and not 10mm (I have them both here, but unfortunately cannot check the Viltrox)).

In case the 1x Viltrox is indeed the same length as the Metabones 0.71x speedbooster (I cannot figure out how this would be possible, 1x glasless adapters must add exactly the same extension to the system to perform adaption...), the extension, recommended by Nauticam, would be 30mm (it is 35mm for the Metabones 1x to compensate for the extra 6.5mm).

Maybe the lengths that you have from the technical descriptions is the overall length, including parts that will be engulfed by the camera or lens, when mounted. Relevant is the length that the adapter adds to the lens system, when the adapter is once mounted...

 

Wolfgang

I have to correct my previous post from April 19th: the difference between metabones 1x and 0.71x is NOT 6.5mm, as I have stated erroneously, but is of course 5.6 mm. The rest stays valid...

 

Wolfgang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...