Canon EF lenses on MFT cameras?

Thanks so much Chris

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

Just a quick question.  Why not use the Oly 7-14 PRO lens?

3 hours ago, PhotoJunkie said:

Just a quick question.  Why not use the Oly 7-14 PRO lens?

This is, of course, a good lens (but certainly not better UW than the Pana 7-14mm). It will need at least a 200mm domeport and probably IQ is not as good as the Canon 8-15mm with 140mm (maybe even with 100mm) domeport. Also the overall characteristics is different between rectilinear and fisheye WA. In the end it is, as always, a matter of personal taste and preference...

Wolfgang

Thanks for the reply.  I failed to realize that you were dealing with fisheyes.

@Architeuthis and @Interceptor121: To follow up on the adapted Canon 8-15 FE on MFT: If one were to go for a  lighter setup, would the Zen DP-100 Fisheye Dome Port be a viable alternative to the Nauticam 140mm dome?

What is interesting from the Zen N120 port chart is that the DP-100-N120CR does not have a specified extension ring:

https://www.portchart.net/zen-only/by-combination-group/nauticam-n120/

I'm not sure how this can be feasible; I've reached out to Zen customer support for clarification.

Have either of you considered the 100mm dome for 8-15FE on GH5?

[mention=55769]Architeuthis[/mention] and [mention=34353]Interceptor121[/mention]: To follow up on the adapted Canon 8-15 FE on MFT: If one were to go for a  lighter setup, would the Zen DP-100 Fisheye Dome Port be a viable alternative to the Nauticam 140mm dome?
What is interesting from the Zen N120 port chart is that the DP-100-N120CR does not have a specified extension ring:
https://www.portchart.net/zen-only/by-combination-group/nauticam-n120/
I'm not sure how this can be feasible; I've reached out to Zen customer support for clarification.
Have either of you considered the 100mm dome for 8-15FE on GH5?

52 minutes ago, joncroweucl said:

@Architeuthis and @Interceptor121: To follow up on the adapted Canon 8-15 FE on MFT: If one were to go for a  lighter setup, would the Zen DP-100 Fisheye Dome Port be a viable alternative to the Nauticam 140mm dome?

What is interesting from the Zen N120 port chart is that the DP-100-N120CR does not have a specified extension ring:

https://www.portchart.net/zen-only/by-combination-group/nauticam-n120/

I'm not sure how this can be feasible; I've reached out to Zen customer support for clarification.

Have either of you considered the 100mm dome for 8-15FE on GH5?

Hi Jon,

Initially I have considered the Zen DP-100 (for EM1II, but this should not make a difference), but I did not acquire it. Partially the reason was the right extension: The DP-100 comes with built in extensions for the Canon 8-15mm, Tokina 10-17mm or nothing (blunt N120 version). The Nauticam 34.7mm N85-N120 is made for the Metabones 0.71x focal reducer, while one wants to use the 1x Smart adapter with Canon 8-15mm. The Smart adapter is 5.63 mm longer than the 0.71x speedbooster, so none of the versions fit as they are. I made  a table with all N85-N120 extensions that I found available from Nauticam (used with or without additional available N120 extension rings) and calculated how much the deviation (in mm) is from the recommended one:

The closest match would be the 47mm N85/N120 extension together with the Tokina version (DP-100-N120T) with only 0.3mm deviation. I refrained, however, from ordering this combination, since I was thinking in case it would not work I have an extension and a domport that is not good for any of the lenses that I have. The 34.7mm N85/N120 adapter, that is designed for the Metabones adapter, gives 2.6mm deviation at the best. I do not know, how much worse IQ would be, but I think the smaller the dome radius is, the more effect on IQ per mm wrong positioning...

I am eager to hear what Zen support tells you. I also asked them and was told that fisheye lenses are very tolerant for wrong positioning and they recommend the 34.7mm N85/N120 adpater plus 25mm extension (as listed above) - but they cannot guarantee anything...

Wolfgang

P.S.: I see now, that Massimo has also answered. I agree that it is better to take the Tokina 10-17mm with the small DP-100: using the DP-100-N120T with 0.71x speedbooster and Tokina 10-17mm lens is the optimum and does not need any further adjustments...

I think the question to ask is whether anyone is successfully using the 8-15 with Zen 100mm dome on a full frame Canon.  Zen are recommending it and produce a port specifically for that the Canon and Nikon 8-15 fisheye zooms.  If people are using it and are happy (enough) with the results it's highly likely it's going to perform just as well with a m43 system if you place the dome in the same spot.  Note I said perform, it will certainly work but the quality penalty is a bit unknown.  But I don't expect it to be significantly worse than using a native m43 8mm fisheye lens unless the positioning was way out.

I don't have the experience to prove it but I expect if you are within 1-2mm you are not going to notice a difference in performance - The closest most manufacturers get is +/-5mm using multiples of their standard extension rings.  I would recommend a combination that has the calculated extension or less, additional extension may start to introduce vignetting.  

If you want an example have a look at this link with shots from a Nikon 8-15 fisheye behind the ikelite 8"compact dome port:  https://www.ikelite.com/blogs/reviews/nikon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-underwater-photography-review

The entrance pupil on this setup is well forward of the centre of curvature as the dome used is a very small segment of a sphere - it has to be well forward so it won't vignette.   This shows the lens still performing OK when not placed exactly in the right spot.   I'm not saying it's as good as the image you'd get in the 140mm dome with the correct extensions - but it might be acceptable.  But for this application we are talking about getting the entrance pupil within a few mm or the recommended position.

It's generally said on this forum that the small 4"domes suffer a bit of an image quality penalty on full frame cameras, but people will accept this to make a better wide angle macro setup, the smaller the dome the better in such a setup as it directly impacts upon subject size in the frame and also the ability to light the image well.  This is going to be less of an issue on m43 as you are cropping much of the worst parts from the image.

So in summary I believe if you get the lens positioned within a few mm of the calculated position , performance will be at least as good as it for the 8-15 in a 4"dome on a full frame Canon.

42 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

I think the question to ask is whether anyone is successfully using the 8-15 with Zen 100mm dome on a full frame Canon.  Zen are recommending it and produce a port specifically for that the Canon and Nikon 8-15 fisheye zooms.  If people are using it and are happy (enough) with the results it's highly likely it's going to perform just as well with a m43 system if you place the dome in the same spot.  Note I said perform, it will certainly work but the quality penalty is a bit unknown.  But I don't expect it to be significantly worse than using a native m43 8mm fisheye lens unless the positioning was way out.

I don't have the experience to prove it but I expect if you are within 1-2mm you are not going to notice a difference in performance - The closest most manufacturers get is +/-5mm using multiples of their standard extension rings.  I would recommend a combination that has the calculated extension or less, additional extension may start to introduce vignetting.  

If you want an example have a look at this link with shots from a Nikon 8-15 fisheye behind the ikelite 8"compact dome port:  https://www.ikelite.com/blogs/reviews/nikon-8-15mm-fisheye-lens-underwater-photography-review

The entrance pupil on this setup is well forward of the centre of curvature as the dome used is a very small segment of a sphere - it has to be well forward so it won't vignette.   This shows the lens still performing OK when not placed exactly in the right spot.   I'm not saying it's as good as the image you'd get in the 140mm dome with the correct extensions - but it might be acceptable.  But for this application we are talking about getting the entrance pupil within a few mm or the recommended position.

It's generally said on this forum that the small 4"domes suffer a bit of an image quality penalty on full frame cameras, but people will accept this to make a better wide angle macro setup, the smaller the dome the better in such a setup as it directly impacts upon subject size in the frame and also the ability to light the image well.  This is going to be less of an issue on m43 as you are cropping much of the worst parts from the image.

So in summary I believe if you get the lens positioned within a few mm of the calculated position , performance will be at least as good as it for the 8-15 in a 4"dome on a full frame Canon.

There is no difference in the positioning of the lens vs. domeport on different sensors. The difference is that with MFT one uses just the central part of the image circle, approx. 26% of the area compared to FF. Hence the IQ in the corners will be much better (as is the angle of view narrower: 8mm fisheye on FF is circular fisheye, while on MFT it is 180° diagonal fisheye)...

I can confirm that on MFT (EM5II and EM1II) camera, sharpness, also in the center, is at least as good with the Canon 8-15mm (with 1x Smart adapter) and also with Tokina 10-17mm (with 0.71x speedbooster) compared to the native Zuiko 8mm. This hold for the lenses behind the Nauticam 140mm port and also the Zen DP-170 (where the positioning is much closer to the port glass as ideal, since the DP170 is a WA port with larger radius, not a fisheye domeport that ought to be a hemisphere).

I have no experience, however, with the DP-100. But I remember faintly that Chris is using a 8mm fisheye with the DP-100?

Wolfgang

8 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

There is no difference in the positioning of the lens vs. domeport on different sensors. The difference is that with MFT one uses just the central part of the image circle, approx. 26% of the area compared to FF. Hence the IQ in the corners will be much better (as is the angle of view narrower: 8mm fisheye on FF is circular fisheye, while on MFT it is 180° diagonal fisheye)...

I can confirm that on MFT (EM5II and EM1II) camera, sharpness, also in the center, is at least as good with the Canon 8-15mm (with 1x Smart adapter) and also with Tokina 10-17mm (with 0.71x speedbooster) compared to the native Zuiko 8mm. This hold for the lenses behind the Nauticam 140mm port and also the Zen DP-170 (where the positioning is much closer to the port glass as ideal, since the DP170 is a WA port with larger radius, not a fisheye domeport that ought to be a hemisphere).

I have no experience, however, with the DP-100. But I remember faintly that Chris is using a 8mm fisheye with the DP-100?

 

Wolfgang

Yes I have the Zen DP-100 with the Panasonic 8mm - it should have similar performance to the 8mm end of the 8-15 from a dome port optics perspective.  Corners are pretty good at f8. but I do see some purple fringing in the far corners with the Panasonic.

7 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

Yes I have the Zen DP-100 with the Panasonic 8mm - it should have similar performance to the 8mm end of the 8-15 from a dome port optics perspective.  Corners are pretty good at f8. but I do see some purple fringing in the far corners with the Panasonic.

This is interesting. Just yesterday, after watching the Wetpixel episode on WA macro tools, in a severe attack of GAS , I ordered the Zen DP-100 (Tokina version). I plan to use it with the Tokina and 0.71x speedbooster for WA macro. It will last until I have the dome here, but I will report on performance as soon as I have some results...

Wolfgang