• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / a7RIV / Metabones 1.26x Expander on GFX 100 with Otus 55

Metabones 1.26x Expander on GFX 100 with Otus 55

March 21, 2020 JimK 7 Comments

Three or four weeks ago I received a Metabones 1.26x expander for Nikon F-mount lenses on Fujifilm G-mount cameras. This is an adapter with glass — and quite a bit of glass, at that — inside. It increases the focal length of any lens attached to it by a factor of 1.26, and expands the coverage of lenses meant for full frame cameras to 33×44 mm, so there is no vignetting. I’ve been busy with the color profiling work, so I didn’t unpack it until yesterday.

All the glass makes it fairly heavy. It’s otherwise a typical Metabones adapter, with their control ring for G lenses, and a bit tight on the camera side. It feels a tiny bit gritty when you mount it on the camera, but naked-eye inspection looks OK. It does have an Arca Swiss foot, which is useless on the GFX 100 because of the “front porch”. Because it’s raining today, I didn’t check alignment. We’re forecast to have a week of this rain, so it’ll probably be a while before I get to that.

I tested the adapter with a Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 F-mount lens. I also tested it on an a7RIV with another Metabones adapter (with no glass). I usually normalize to picture height when I’m making comparisons across formats, because I generally prefer 4:3 to 3:2 aspect ratios, especially in portrait orientation. The ratio of the height of the GFX 100 sensor to that of the a7RIV is 1.375:1, so the Metabones expander increases the vertical angle of view slightly.

Here’s my indoor test scene, with a 22-inch low-contrast Siemens Star target, the GFX 100, the Otus 55, and the Metabones expander:

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, center. f/1.4

Here’s the protocol:

  • Target distance 7  meters.
  • The heaviest RRS legs
  • Arca Swiss C1
  • Self-timer set to 2 seconds
  • Manual focusing at taking aperture
  • ISO 100
  • Indicated f-stops from f/1.4 through f/8 in whole stop intervals (making the effective f-stop about 2/3 of a stop narrower for the GFX 100 shots)
  • Developed in Lightroom
  • Sharpening amount 20, radius 1, detail 0 (which is substantially less sharpening than Lr’s default)
  • White balance to gray target background
  • Adobe Color profile

The GFX 100 shots are magnified by a bit under 150%. The a7RIV shots are blown up slightly more, so that the picture height of the crop is the same ratio to the picture height of the full sensor. You could argue that I should have preserved angle of view by blowing up the a7RIV shots slightly less than that, and I wouldn’t argue very much, but this is my practice for multi-format Siemens Star comparisons.

In the center:

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, center. f/1.4

 

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, center, f/1.4

There is some indication that the GFX is seeing information from the lens beyond the Nyquist frequency, but the contrast there is low.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, center. f/2

 

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, center, f/2

The same is true, but there is more contrast here.

 

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, center. f/2.8

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, center, f/2.8

 

Now the contrast looks about the same.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, center. f/4

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, center, f/4

There’s still more contrast with the Sony, as you’d expect — no expander is perfect. F/4 looks like the best on-axis shot here. In other circumstances, with no expander, I’ve see the Otus 55 best between f/2 and f/2.8.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, center. f/5.6

 

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, center, f/5.6

The Metabones adapter is really looking pretty good here.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, center. f/8

 

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, center, f/8

Diffraction is softening things up.

In the upper-right corner:

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, corner, f/1.4

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, corner, f/1.4

Not much difference.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, corner, f/2

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, corner, f/2

We are losing something with the adapter, but not much.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, corner, f/2.8

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, corner, f/2.8

Now the difference between the expander and the no-glass adapter is significant.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, corner, f/4

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, corner, f/4

The a7RIV is doing better, but you wouldn’t call the GFX image bad.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, corner, f/5.6

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, corner, f/5.6

Now the expander image is quite respectable.

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on GFX 100 with Metabones Expander 1.26, corner, f/8

 

Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 on Sony a7RIV, corner, f/8

The expander image is softer.

I consider this an impressive performance for the Metabones expander. You’ve got to expect some loss in quality with a teleconverter, but this is quite modest. Of course, as with most adapters, I would expect the degradation to vary with the lens, with the shorter lenses being the most problematic. But that’s a test for another day.

 

a7RIV, GFX 100

← Camera differences in Adobe Color Profile An apology →

Comments

  1. Jean-Pierre Peretti says

    March 23, 2020 at 3:31 am

    Thanks a lot, Jim. Very useful, and pleasantly surprising.
    Probably better results to expect than with the Laowa Magic Format Converter (MFC) x1.5 ? The later showing no use of special glass in it’s construction… Any a priori opinion ?
    Best regards
    Jean-Pierre

    Reply
  2. Hrannar Hauxon says

    May 26, 2020 at 4:38 am

    Interesting test. It would also be interesting to see a test where comparing the metabones expander image to upscaled image using bare lens in 35mm crop mode.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 16, 2021 at 7:44 am

      The a7RIV is basically a GFX 100 in 35 mm crop mode.

      Reply
  3. Mike King says

    February 24, 2021 at 9:52 am

    Jim, always fascinated with your scientific approach and need to spend more time looking over your older posts. Kind regards, Mike

    Reply
  4. Piotr Gesicki says

    July 21, 2021 at 6:48 am

    Hello,

    Really nice job.
    Did You tested distortion of this expander (barrel or pincushion)?

    Best,
    Piotr

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 21, 2021 at 6:54 am

      I did not.Sorry.

      Reply
  5. Lee R. says

    January 21, 2022 at 5:16 am

    I know it’s less of a concern, but looking dead center at the star, the false colour moire on the Sony A7r4 is noticeably worse. All else being equal I myself wouldn’t trade slightly better overall contrast for false colour moire, but YMMV.

    The pixel pitch on both sensors is the same, but the Fuji is able to spread the image out across 66% more pixels.

    I’m simply impressed that Metabones can teleconvert/expand an image from any given lens this reliably & wonder how well the Laowa “Magic Format Converter” fares.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.