How good (optically) are focal reducers?

timo

Veteran Member
Messages
6,126
Solutions
2
Reaction score
2,246
Location
Singapore and London, UK
My experience has been disappointing, connecting Pentax K-mount manual lenses to M43. Anything outside dead centre was so soft as to be unusable. But then I did buy the cheapest I could find.

What has been the general experience using focal reducers/converters? Is the quality price-related - quite possible, as these converters involve lens elements, unlike simple converters for manual lenses?

Should I have another go?
 
I own two brands in micro four thirds mount. The Metabones and viltrox. The Metabones is well designed and works well, I have both a 0.71x and the 0.64x ones.

The viltrox isn't great.

If your are going to buy an adapter like this, from my limit experience I would pick the Metabones ones.
 
At one time I had a Metabones Contax/Yashica-to-m43 adapter/reducer. Don't remember the de-mag value. But I do remember it not only widened my C/Y lenses but also improved their performance on my GX7 and GX8 compared to using the same lenses via a non-optical adapter.

Addendum: found the following post of mine from 2013:


Simple math tells me I had the .72x version.

-Dave-
 
Last edited:
Focal reducers are awesome in theory, but it seems that the Metabones Speedbooster and Speedbooster Ultra series focal reducers make more of the theory a reality than the rest, with the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II trailing close behind.

A perfect focal reducer wouldn't alter any characteristics of the base lens, but any real focal reducer will to some degree. At the very least, the additional surfaces of glass (coated or not) will introduce their own flaring / ghosting characteristics. The original Lens Turbos infamously had some issues with these.

The Metabones reducers are designed to worth with a wide range of focal lengths, with a wide range of exit pupil distances, and really fast base apertures. They were also designed with the sensor stack of their intended systems in mind (Sony E, MFT, etc).

Not all of that can necessarily be said for sure of the ZY LT II, the Viltrox reducers, the Kipon ones, or the "no-name" brands, but we'd really need to investigate patents (and do real-world comparisons / tests, which is difficult to do fairly) to see. I don't recall ever seeing anyone do a comprehensive shootout, but we should be able to dig up a couple one-on-one comparisons if we Google or fish through our bookmarks/history hehe.

Having used a couple ZY LT II reducers personally, I've found that they introduce central SA for already-fast base lenses (f/1.4, f/1.2, etc), but that they perform really well with slower apertures/lenses. Comparisons done in the past on this forum confirm this behavior, where it's hard to tell the difference between a ZY LT II and a Speedbooster once the lens starts getting stopped down. There is also a bit of a greenish/yelow color cast introduced by the LT II, which might be flare-related. Both of my LT II reducers were bought used for around $50 USD a pop, after the focal reducer trend kinda died down.

Speaking of which, now that full-frame MILCs are so accessible, reducers make less sense these days once you consider the cost of a "good" one, but they still have their niche in videography, where people might want or need the extra stop of light, the increased field of view, or to reduce the loss of field of view when going into crop modes that unlock higher framerates on some cameras.
 
My surnamesake Brian Caldwell is a revered US lens designer who designed the Metabones "Ultra" formula. Brian used to post occasionally on dpreview and insisted that his design always improved the image of the host lens that was focal reduced. He argued as much on several threads at the time. I have enough reason to doubt his veracity. The optics were patented of course. He has not posted on dpreview in recent years that I know of.

Mitakon also patented an optical design for their Zhongyi Focal Reduction adapter. I don't know if the Viltrox design was also patented but I might guess that the swatch of other brands out to China might share a common generic formula.

The principle of Focal Reduction has been well known to optics designers since the early days of photography and there is no special magic about it in principle. Some lenses were actually built with internal focal reduction elements to concentrate the light on a smaller area to gain more "lens speed". Not gifted with optical design expertise myself I think that the 7Artisans 50mm and 35mm f0.95 aps-c lenses might use some focal reduction effect.

The reason why we have only recently seen the rise and rise of Focal Reduction Adapters (FRA) is that they need extra space between the lens and camera mount to work their magic. The birth of ML camera bodies provided the space for lenses made for the longer Flange Focus Distance dslr bodies. Note the space needed for the lenses increases with the strength of the focal reduction effect. However the higher the effect the shorter the made length of the FRA must be. Obviously those competing elements of design limit the end power of the FRA in a practical way. 0.71x is about right to put a FF image fully on to an aps-c lens or put an aps-c image fully on a 4/3 lens but not good enough to put the full FF image circle on the 4/3 sensor. 0.64x was as close as Brian Caldwell could get for a M4/3 FRA for FF lenses - even then the rear FRA element is very close to some M4/3 bodies as to not be recommended for use on them. 0.50x for M4/3 bodies would be a magic concept but was apparently a bridge too far.

There is/was a white paper on the Metabones site that explains the benefits of the FRA in a non-technical manner.
 
Focal reducers are awesome in theory, but it seems that the Metabones Speedbooster and Speedbooster Ultra series focal reducers make more of the theory a reality than the rest, with the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II trailing close behind.

A perfect focal reducer wouldn't alter any characteristics of the base lens, but any real focal reducer will to some degree. At the very least, the additional surfaces of glass (coated or not) will introduce their own flaring / ghosting characteristics. The original Lens Turbos infamously had some issues with these.

The Metabones reducers are designed to worth with a wide range of focal lengths, with a wide range of exit pupil distances, and really fast base apertures. They were also designed with the sensor stack of their intended systems in mind (Sony E, MFT, etc).

Not all of that can necessarily be said for sure of the ZY LT II, the Viltrox reducers, the Kipon ones, or the "no-name" brands, but we'd really need to investigate patents (and do real-world comparisons / tests, which is difficult to do fairly) to see. I don't recall ever seeing anyone do a comprehensive shootout, but we should be able to dig up a couple one-on-one comparisons if we Google or fish through our bookmarks/history hehe.

Having used a couple ZY LT II reducers personally, I've found that they introduce central SA for already-fast base lenses (f/1.4, f/1.2, etc), but that they perform really well with slower apertures/lenses. Comparisons done in the past on this forum confirm this behavior, where it's hard to tell the difference between a ZY LT II and a Speedbooster once the lens starts getting stopped down. There is also a bit of a greenish/yelow color cast introduced by the LT II, which might be flare-related. Both of my LT II reducers were bought used for around $50 USD a pop, after the focal reducer trend kinda died down.

Speaking of which, now that full-frame MILCs are so accessible, reducers make less sense these days once you consider the cost of a "good" one, but they still have their niche in videography, where people might want or need the extra stop of light, the increased field of view, or to reduce the loss of field of view when going into crop modes that unlock higher framerates on some cameras.
I believe that there is also some technical limit around Focal Reduced effect f0.80 or f0.85 which has always been mentioned in a mysterious manner and which I have not grasped. However it would only worry the few that wished to use them with lenses of f1.2 or faster native aperture.

[Edit] this old post explains it better and more accurately (from the horses mouth so as to speak):

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59223870

There is a lot of chit chat about this era where Brian Caldwell has made helpful contributions. Also on the M4/3 forum where he strenuously defends his "Ultra" design as "always improving the Focal Reduced Image". Of course lens faults are probably made worse as well.

("Brian" of course, is Brian Caldwell the designer of the Metabones optics)

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Last edited:
At one time I had a Metabones Contax/Yashica-to-m43 adapter/reducer. Don't remember the de-mag value. But I do remember it not only widened my C/Y lenses but also improved their performance on my GX7 and GX8 compared to using the same lenses via a non-optical adapter.
MFT does have a particularly thick sensor stack, and Speedboosters are designed with that in mind.
Addendum: found the following post of mine from 2013:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52784195

Simple math tells me I had the .72x version.

-Dave-
Regarding improvement, here's something that may be of interest, even though it's just a simulation:

Konica + SB Ultra (assumed, left), Konica 40/1.8 (right).
Konica + SB Ultra (assumed, left), Konica 40/1.8 (right).

This is how a Konica 40mm f/1.8 fares with a Speedbooster Ultra example. I couldn't include the sensor stack glass because I have the free version of the software and am limited in how many elements/groups/surfaces I can simulate, so I omitted it on both sides. Since the Konica wasn't designed to have one in front of it in the first place, perhaps this is a non-issue. The diagrams cover the same angle of view - the Konica on a full-frame camera would have a slightly larger field of view.

The prescriptions for the Konica were extracted from a patent (and the glass types were chosen with fairly educated guesses), while the example prescription for what is presumably an SB Ultra was taken from Brian Caldwell's patent (where glass types were explicitly stated).

With this pairing, the actual focal reduction ratio is 0.727925x, when 0.71x was expected. The focal reducer needs to be closer to the Konica to get the expected reduction, which is impossible (darn). Other than that, things are looking great if you ask me!

When we view the spot diagrams at the same scale, the spots are indeed marginally smaller on the focal reduced system, especially with mid wavelengths, when both systems are focused to minimize their size over their field of view.

Is this synthetic comparison fair, though? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
While we're at it, has anyone actually used one of these and have a comment about image quality?

I've seen very few, but still conflicting accounts, about image quality, and it's too expensive to just try one at USD500 + shipping. I'd love to hear from anyone who's used the Sony version.

https://kipon.com/product/baveyes-m645-s-e-0-7x/
 
This is the link to the Metabones White Paper:

https://www.metabones.com/assets/a/...Speed Booster ULTRA for M43) - Whitepaper.pdf

It is a pdf and was taking a while to download so I just copied the address for this post. I have read the original white paper several times myself.
Ah yes, I recall skimming the White Paper before. It's a great advert for SpeedBoosters, and has data to back up claims.

I found what is likely the LT II patent , but being a scanned PDF with no obvious lens prescription data to be seen, it just includes a really nice drawing.
 
Focal reducers are awesome in theory, but it seems that the Metabones Speedbooster and Speedbooster Ultra series focal reducers make more of the theory a reality than the rest, with the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II trailing close behind.

A perfect focal reducer wouldn't alter any characteristics of the base lens, but any real focal reducer will to some degree. At the very least, the additional surfaces of glass (coated or not) will introduce their own flaring / ghosting characteristics. The original Lens Turbos infamously had some issues with these.

The Metabones reducers are designed to worth with a wide range of focal lengths, with a wide range of exit pupil distances, and really fast base apertures. They were also designed with the sensor stack of their intended systems in mind (Sony E, MFT, etc).

Not all of that can necessarily be said for sure of the ZY LT II, the Viltrox reducers, the Kipon ones, or the "no-name" brands, but we'd really need to investigate patents (and do real-world comparisons / tests, which is difficult to do fairly) to see. I don't recall ever seeing anyone do a comprehensive shootout, but we should be able to dig up a couple one-on-one comparisons if we Google or fish through our bookmarks/history hehe.

Having used a couple ZY LT II reducers personally, I've found that they introduce central SA for already-fast base lenses (f/1.4, f/1.2, etc), but that they perform really well with slower apertures/lenses. Comparisons done in the past on this forum confirm this behavior, where it's hard to tell the difference between a ZY LT II and a Speedbooster once the lens starts getting stopped down. There is also a bit of a greenish/yelow color cast introduced by the LT II, which might be flare-related. Both of my LT II reducers were bought used for around $50 USD a pop, after the focal reducer trend kinda died down.

Speaking of which, now that full-frame MILCs are so accessible, reducers make less sense these days once you consider the cost of a "good" one, but they still have their niche in videography, where people might want or need the extra stop of light, the increased field of view, or to reduce the loss of field of view when going into crop modes that unlock higher framerates on some cameras.
I believe that there is also some technical limit around Focal Reduced effect f0.80 or f0.85 which has always been mentioned in a mysterious manner and which I have not grasped. However it would only worry the few that wished to use them with lenses of f1.2 or faster native aperture.

[Edit] this old post explains it better and more accurately (from the horses mouth so as to speak):

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59223870

There is a lot of chit chat about this era where Brian Caldwell has made helpful contributions. Also on the M4/3 forum where he strenuously defends his "Ultra" design as "always improving the Focal Reduced Image".

Of course lens faults are probably made worse as well.
Well since the image is being reduced, many lens aberrations are made smaller! :-D

Focal reducers can of course introduce their own faults, the LT II doesn't handle faster lenses particularly well when it comes to SA, for example.
("Brian" of course, is Brian Caldwell the designer of the Metabones optics)
I'll have to find a thread where he chimed in that was particularly helpful to me to understand the pros and cons of focal reducers better. It may have been regarding one of verybiglobo's tests / comparisons?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59177445 includes a quote from Brian regarding testing:

I have a comment regarding focal reducer testing. Although it is certainly of interest to test focal-reduced lenses on APS-C vs non focal-reduced on fullframe, this is ultimately a losing proposition, with the possible exception near the center of the image. After all, to achieve parity the focal reducer would have to improve the image by a factor of 1.5x in linear dimensions. This leads many people to falsely claim that any glass adapter will reduce lens quality.

However, comparing a lens that is focal-reduced vs plain on the same format (APS-C) can give a very different result, and is a better measure of how the focal reducer actually impacts the performance of the lens.


verybiglobo's test that includes this comment:

 
Last edited:
This is the link to the Metabones White Paper:

https://www.metabones.com/assets/a/...Speed Booster ULTRA for M43) - Whitepaper.pdf

It is a pdf and was taking a while to download so I just copied the address for this post. I have read the original white paper several times myself.
Ah yes, I recall skimming the White Paper before. It's a great advert for SpeedBoosters, and has data to back up claims.

I found what is likely the LT II patent , but being a scanned PDF with no obvious lens prescription data to be seen, it just includes a really nice drawing.
I only saw the lens diagram on the box with the qualification "Patented"

Nothing more than that.
 
While we're at it, has anyone actually used one of these and have a comment about image quality?

I've seen very few, but still conflicting accounts, about image quality, and it's too expensive to just try one at USD500 + shipping. I'd love to hear from anyone who's used the Sony version.

https://kipon.com/product/baveyes-m645-s-e-0-7x/
I have the M645 to L mount version, cost an arm and a leg, but I thought "limited edition".

Was an incorrect guess.

I have never closely checked the results. Must run some tests to refresh my memory.
 
While we're at it, has anyone actually used one of these and have a comment about image quality?

I've seen very few, but still conflicting accounts, about image quality, and it's too expensive to just try one at USD500 + shipping. I'd love to hear from anyone who's used the Sony version.

https://kipon.com/product/baveyes-m645-s-e-0-7x/
I have the M645 to L mount version, cost an arm and a leg, but I thought "limited edition".

Was an incorrect guess.

I have never closely checked the results. Must run some tests to refresh my memory.
 
I must investigate further.
 
If your are going to buy an adapter like this, from my limit experience I would pick the Metabones ones.
I have the Metabones Canon FD > Fuji X and I have also been pleased with its performance.
 
.. But I do remember it not only widened my C/Y lenses but also improved their performance on my GX7 and GX8 compared to using the same lenses via a non-optical adapter.
In what way, what improvement did you see?
More even peformance from edge to edge and corner to corner. I imagine the Metabones' optics were in part designed to do this.

-Dave-
 
While we're at it, has anyone actually used one of these and have a comment about image quality?

I've seen very few, but still conflicting accounts, about image quality, and it's too expensive to just try one at USD500 + shipping. I'd love to hear from anyone who's used the Sony version.

https://kipon.com/product/baveyes-m645-s-e-0-7x/
I have the M645 to L mount version, cost an arm and a leg, but I thought "limited edition".

Was an incorrect guess.

I have never closely checked the results. Must run some tests to refresh my memory.
Ok. That L adaptor is optically identical to the Sony E version. You can get a replacement Sony E mount if you like.

https://kipon.com/product/replaceab...ic-l-mount-for-focal-reducer-m645-s-e-l-0-7x/

I'd be very interested to see what you think of the baveyes adaptor in respect to sharpness ( and edge sharpness), CA and purple fringing. I tend to use lenses wide open and of course this is where you're likely to see optical issues.
I have a swag of Mamiya 645 lenses, have you any preference on which one I could use? My time is more at a premium but at least the spring weather has been very good. :)
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top