ZY Optics launches optically improved version of its Turbo Adapter for Micro Four Thirds

I have allready an adaper witch has no optics in it. The focal lenght stays the same. I don't want to have an telconverter (there are Zeiss teleconverter for C/Y). I like to have the opposite of a teleconverter, like this one and the speedbooster from Metabones. Metabones Speedbooster C/Y-m43 costs 399$. Quite expensive. But maybe cheaper ones are inappropriate for the excellent Zeiss lenses.

Most will just use a C/Y to Canon EF adapter along with this, although I understand the desire for a native C/Y solution. The good thing is EF mount has pretty small flange distance so many mounts can be adapted to it (M42, Leica R, etc.)

I use old Zeiss C/Y lenses on M4/3 with a simple adapter, but I'm disappointed with the results in terms of image quality. It seems they were designed for full frame film, and they don't perform very well on electronic sensors. Have you tried them?

"Far better results" Not too sure. An a6000 equipped with the E mount Lens Turbo will have the same signal to noise ratio as an A7 with the same lens at the same aperture. The only benefit of the A7 then is a one stop increase in dynamic range at high illumination.

@ijm5012 Sorry, not thinking in terms of video but it may well be useful for your purposes.

@GG I agree with your assesment of snr and dr - but my point is that a focal reducer reduces IQ - that's why Zhongyi redesigned it.

@Androole I said no such thing

What I am saying is simply that if you love your legacy ff glas, treat it to a ff sensor.

@eyeswideshut, yes if you're talking about photos then a FF camera will outperform a m43 camera. Although I must say that I own two GH4's, a lens turbo similar to this, and three Canon FD lenses and find the photography results very acceptable. Where the GH4 really excels is in video though, and that's the reason why I bought the FD lenses and Lens Turbo in the first place.

You are correct though, as used A7's can be found for ~$700 in virtually brand new condition. If someone want's to used some adapted glass, the A7 or A7II are tremendous values (I don't feel the same way about the native lenses, bu that's a whole 'nother story).

@ijm5012 Don't worry. I find the the results from mft cameras more than acceptable too. Been using them since 2009, first as a backup to a DSLR and in time for about 80% of my photographic needs. Anything needing "modern" lenses (sharp wide open, corner to corner type of stuff), autofocus, zoom, long reach or uwa and I go with mft. Anything having to do with my pile of Pentax K mount, Takumars and growing cache of Leica M/M39 lenses and I stick on a Sony A7. That has little to do with the real, marginal or putative benefits of the ff sensor as such. It is simply about the size of the sensor - the native format of my legacy lenses as it were. Who wants to shoot a 50mm Sonnar or Summicron with the equivalent angle of view of a 100mm lens all the time ? ;-) That's where the A7 comes in.

I'm certain the results are better than using a focal reducer - which in any case limits you to only one mount (Nikon or Canon in this case).

"Who wants to shoot a 50mm Sonnar or Summicron with the equivalent angle of view of a 100mm lens all the time?"

Hmm, I'm not sure you read up on what focal reducers actually do.

"which in any case limits you to only one mount (Nikon or Canon in this case)."

Not at all. An EOS mount focal reducer allows you to mount M42, OM, Contax, Nikon, etc glass. It has a flange distance shorter than most other legacy mounts.

@maenwhile Golly you are right - should have said 50mm * 0.726 = 68.8705234159779614mm. Silly me using such short hand.

I'm also in full agreement with you regarding the mount. Buy an eos=>mft focal reducer, stick a Pentax K => eos adapter on it, insert the original Pentax M42 => Pentax K adapter ring into it (important to get the original, the chinese knock offs are no good), mount a 50mm Takumar and enjoy the fov of a 68.8705234159779614mm lens on ff. Wow. That sounds like a plan.
Now what am I going to do with the Summicron? Wait for the M/M39=>mft focal reducer?
Again, imo if you love your legacy glass treat it to a sensible sensor and don't fiddle with focal reducers.

Ha ha, anyone can make something quite simple sound complex. I have both, both have their uses.

Golly, sorry for using the shorthand "most", thought you'd understand that rangefinder glass has a really short flange length. There will be no M focal reducer.

"To make the Turbo Adapter compatible with non-G Nikkor lenses the new Version II model features an aperture ring that connects with the iris controller on the lens mount."
Eh? Surely the reverse...
Non-G lenses already have an aperture ring.

I think the iris controller in Nikon G lenses is a pin inside the lens mount, so when the ring on the speed booster is turned then the aperture is changed inside the Nikon lens.

Yep, I'll get the EF-FUJI Lensturbo, because like that I can use all my adapted glass on the Fuji, with only one adapter.

E mount is electronic control of aperture while G is mechanical, so most likely there will not be an E mount with aperture control.