Anyone use Pixco speed booster

[Diacyclops81]

Noticed that there is a Pixco brand speed reducer for M42 to m4/3 that is pretty cheap. No electrical contacts of course, so that probably reduces cost. Curious about optical quality and results.....

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Noticed that there is a Pixco brand speed reducer for M42 to m4/3 that is pretty cheap. No electrical contacts of course, so that probably reduces cost. Curious about optical quality and results.....

I have one tucked away somewhere. I don’t remember any issues with it. Pixco are a fairly good brand. Not sure just how many optics manufacturers there are in China. I know that RJ were using Mitakon elements, but that was some years ago. Not at all surprised if Pixco and others were using the same glass.

I think that it would be a given that not a lot of adapter manufacturers had their own optics division.

 

[Gnafu the Great]

I have a Pixco focal reducer (MD-to-MFT), and I've been happy with it for the price. Note that some sellers (wherever they may be) may accept an offer below the listing price, which can make it a safer bet if you're unsure.

For MD, there are a couple lenses that had aperture pins that hit the front element surround. I was able to grind them down, but I don't know that you'd even run into that with M42. Aside from that, and for the lenses that fit better, it's been decent. There is some noticeable (but very easily corrected) purple fringing in some situations, and the edges/corners are not as sharp as I'd like on wider lenses. If you're not pixel peeping or you're mostly shooting closer subjects, you might not even notice.

I mainly bought it to use with wider lenses for video, and I do use it a lot with a Sigma 24mm in that regard. But the surprise hit has been my 70-300mm: it becomes a ~50-210mm f/3.2-4 that is reasonably sharp edge to edge. For photography, I've used it with that lens more than any other. The soft edges with 24-50mm primes keeps me from using it for anything where I want edge-to-edge sharpness.

As long as you go in with the right expectations and aren't expecting it to be perfect with every lens, I think it's worth the money.

 

[JimH123]

I have a Pixco focal reducer (MD-to-MFT), and I've been happy with it for the price. Note that some sellers (wherever they may be) may accept an offer below the listing price, which can make it a safer bet if you're unsure.

For MD, there are a couple lenses that had aperture pins that hit the front element surround. I was able to grind them down, but I don't know that you'd even run into that with M42. Aside from that, and for the lenses that fit better, it's been decent. There is some noticeable (but very easily corrected) purple fringing in some situations, and the edges/corners are not as sharp as I'd like on wider lenses. If you're not pixel peeping or you're mostly shooting closer subjects, you might not even notice.

I mainly bought it to use with wider lenses for video, and I do use it a lot with a Sigma 24mm in that regard. But the surprise hit has been my 70-300mm: it becomes a ~50-210mm f/3.2-4 that is reasonably sharp edge to edge. For photography, I've used it with that lens more than any other. The soft edges with 24-50mm primes keeps me from using it for anything where I want edge-to-edge sharpness.

As long as you go in with the right expectations and aren't expecting it to be perfect with every lens, I think it's worth the money.

How does the price compare with the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II? This one is $125 at B&H Photo.

Mitakon Zhongyi Minolta MD Lens to Micro Four Thirds (bhphotovideo.com)

I have the m42 to MFT version and here is an example using the legacy Vivitar 55mm f2.8 (made by Komine) to an Olympus EM1ii. If the price is close, the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II is a better speed reducer.

Here is an example. Please look at the leaves in the corners. I chose this image since the corners were easy to judge. A poor speed reducer is most likely to be poor in the corners.

Also note: Corners are also affected by the quality of the lens you are converting. This Vivitar happens to to be sharp to the corners.

 

[ProfHankD]

Noticed that there is a Pixco brand speed reducer for M42 to m4/3 that is pretty cheap. No electrical contacts of course, so that probably reduces cost. Curious about optical quality and results.....

You made me look at the Pixco adapters. For Sony E, they actually give charts with MTF, light falloff, and distortion. Let's just say they get points for honesty, but they're NOT happy graphs....

 

[Street_Photography]

Noticed that there is a Pixco brand speed reducer for M42 to m4/3 that is pretty cheap. No electrical contacts of course, so that probably reduces cost. Curious about optical quality and results.....

Yes, it was horrific and I sent bit back immediately. I had popular M42 lenses like the Helios, Super Takumars, Yashica, Pentacon etc... the extra width was just extending their already poor edges. Maybe if you dont shoot around f2.2 like me, then it will be OK e.g. f5.6 to f8. It was sold in aother brand or I ordered Pixco and got another brand.

I would recommend you pay more for proven quality. Something like the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II is what I would get if I tried again.

 

[Gnafu the Great]

How does the price compare with the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II? This one is $125 at B&H Photo.

Mitakon Zhongyi Minolta MD Lens to Micro Four Thirds (bhphotovideo.com)

I have the m42 to MFT version and here is an example using the legacy Vivitar 55mm f2.8 (made by Komine) to an Olympus EM1ii. If the price is close, the Zhongyi Lens Turbo II is a better speed reducer.

Here is an example. Please look at the leaves in the corners. I chose this image since the corners were easy to judge. A poor speed reducer is most likely to be poor in the corners.

Also note: Corners are also affected by the quality of the lens you are converting. This Vivitar happens to to be sharp to the corners.

I agree the LTII is significantly better, but it's also about twice what I paid for the Pixco. I got an LTII a while back on a good deal, but that particular copy had a couple issues and I sent it back. I grabbed the Pixco much later on a whim, and it's been good enough for the price. If I buy another focal reducer, it will almost certainly be an LTII. But for now, I'm happy to have spent less than $65 .

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Noticed that there is a Pixco brand speed reducer for M42 to m4/3 that is pretty cheap. No electrical contacts of course, so that probably reduces cost. Curious about optical quality and results.....

I have one tucked away somewhere. I don’t remember any issues with it. Pixco are a fairly good brand. Not sure just how many optics manufacturers there are in China. I know that RJ were using Mitakon elements, but that was some years ago. Not at all surprised if Pixco and others were using the same glass.

I think that it would be a given that not a lot of adapter manufacturers had their own optics division.

Well that fell flat ....

Does anyone really know how many serious manufacturers of lens optics there are in China?

Does Pixco run an optical foundry?

I am sure that it is relatively easy to set up machine shop to make adapters but what economies of scale are involved in adding their own optics division?

If you buy Zhongyi you get Mitakon glass and Mitakon is principally an optics firm that just happens to own the Zhongyi brand. The Zhongyi optical design is patented and I am sure that if the optic elements are the same in any Chinese adapter brand then Mitakon would either have supplied the optics or would be happy to sue the firm to desist and/or pay damages.

So whilst we pontificate on image quality we don’t really know the source of the optics in the Pixco, nor could we know. But if someone had a recent-made copy of both they could pull them apart and check the optics used. Myself? I could not be bothered. But of course the Pixco optics could indeed be provided by another firm not Mitakon (even Pixco) and as such are probably also used in other focal reduction adapters. (Which no doubt are equally horrible).

Of course Mitakon could be selling a lower (cheap) set of optics to makers of low-price focal reduction adapters on a .... psst ... its cheaper but don’t tell where it comes from ... basis.

But my guess is that Pixco buy in their optics from another company that specialises in optics. The same goes for the run of the mill cheap Electronic Focal Reduction manufacturers. Surely they must often just assemble from bought components and market them.

So when do we arrive at just who is who in Chinese optics and which companies use which glass supplier?

 

[ProfHankD]

Does anyone really know how many serious manufacturers of lens optics there are in China?

Define serious?

For making shaped elements, at least dozens and likely hundreds do significant volume production. Lens elements are not that hard to make and are used in huge numbers of products, not just cameras and displays/projectors, but also light fixtures, etc.

It's a much smaller set of companies that regularly puts optics into barrels with an aperture, focus, and consumer camera mount. However, ask Laowa -- there are still plenty of companies in China capable of building credible-looking rip-offs of any lens design. Fewer seem capable of serious optical design....