Canon FD to X mount reducing adapter

Is there such an animal?  I'm currently using my FD lenses on the X-E2 and it's driving me crazy that I have to do a double take every time I pick up a lens to ensure that it will give me the proper field of view.  A reducing adapter will go a long way toward making things seamless.

Thanks

Aoi Usagi wrote:

Macro guy wrote:

Is there such an animal? I'm currently using my FD lenses on the X-E2 and it's driving me crazy that I have to do a double take every time I pick up a lens to ensure that it will give me the proper field of view. A reducing adapter will go a long way toward making things seamless.

Thanks

Yes there are, usually called "Focal Reducer". Speedbooster is also another name, but is specific to Metabones brand. Just look up "FD-FX focal reducer" on your favorite website and it should pop up. Be aware of generic brand products, where the optics is not very good. I have a Mitakon Lens Turbo II EF-FX and has good image quality. I think the worst was Fotodiox, which they later changed the name to "softening lens" because it was like adding Vaseline to the front of your lens. Unfortunately Mitakon stop selling FD-FX focal reducers, but you may find a used one somewhere.

Thanks!  I'll look for either Mitakon or Metabones.

I had the speedbooster on my X-T1 and 3, the photos never really looked like they could with the amazing FD glass. I got the booster because I was previously using the FD lenses on an A7. Looked amazing.

I'd get an A7 instead of paying for a speed booster, same price and will look way better. Keep the fuji for fuji glass.

AlexBG wrote:

I had the speedbooster on my X-T1 and 3, the photos never really looked like they could with the amazing FD glass. I got the booster because I was previously using the FD lenses on an A7. Looked amazing.

I'd get an A7 instead of paying for a speed booster, same price and will look way better. Keep the fuji for fuji glass.

What was the difference with the speed booster?  Were the images softer, lower contrast or something else?

Macro guy wrote:

AlexBG wrote:

I had the speedbooster on my X-T1 and 3, the photos never really looked like they could with the amazing FD glass. I got the booster because I was previously using the FD lenses on an A7. Looked amazing.

I'd get an A7 instead of paying for a speed booster, same price and will look way better. Keep the fuji for fuji glass.

What was the difference with the speed booster? Were the images softer, lower contrast or something else?

Colour rendition was the main one. I went from sony to fuji for the amazing fuji colours and get that with the fuji lenses. Not adapted lenses, with or without the booster to be honest. The booster adds a piece of glass that is not specific for the lens or camera science.

I'm predominantly a film shooter with my Leica M3 with leica and voigtlander lenses and had a set of chrome nose FD lenses, the 50mm 1.4 was beautiful on the A7, tones, bokeh, contrast, the right amount of sharpness/softness for me, then when I got the X-T1 I sold the FD stuff.  Just wasn't the same and the fuji glass was great.

I only really shoot people so like lenses with a 'look' to them. Which you normally get with legacy glass adapted.

Buy the speedbooster, it's a great bit of kit. Don't get a knock off one. Maybe try a now speedbooster adapter first. Only £10 or so and you will see if you like what the lens gives you on your camera, it's personal choice.

Aoi Usagi wrote:

AlexBG wrote:

I had the speedbooster on my X-T1 and 3, the photos never really looked like they could with the amazing FD glass. I got the booster because I was previously using the FD lenses on an A7. Looked amazing.

I'd get an A7 instead of paying for a speed booster, same price and will look way better. Keep the fuji for fuji glass.

Do you actually own the Metabones brand Speedbooster, or a different brand focal reducer? I have the Lens Turbo II and while it does lower contrast a bit, it actually makes lenses sharper and less CA because it shrinks the image circle (at least on my low megapixel XT-1). In my opinion, having the wider 35mm focal length is more important to me than the lower contrast, which I can fix in post.

Buying generic focal reducers can be hit and miss in term of optical quality. And Yes, having an actual Full frame camera will always triumph over a focal reducer.

Yeah I did. For me shooting people I liked having the whole image circle to get the bokeh and soft outside areas of the image.

I think you've explained why I didn't like the look of the reducer better than me.

I also wanted the wider 35mm focal length so got the reducer, I just lost the look of the lenses.

If you want to take a quality lens and then add a so so element to it and get so so results, get one

Morris

Morris0 wrote:

If you want to take a quality lens and then add a so so element to it and get so so results, get one

Morris

Focal reducers vary in quality, and how particular lenses perform with various focal reducers also vary. In any event, they have several elements to take advantage of using the close-to-full image circle of a FF lens. The Metabones and Viltrox seem to score well above the lower cost offerings in detailed reviews.

Roger Cicala (Lens Rentals) did detailed analysis and came to a different conclusion than Morris (and he was surprised). Essentially, he found that concentrating the image can significantly reduce CA and improve contrast (slightly). That is what I have found with the EF100 f/2. A closer to flawless lens such as the L200 appears to hold close to even, but not improve:

L200 with Viltrox .71x reducer (EXIF of XC200 obviously is not correct due to FW version used)

All teleconverters induce at least a bit of degradation due to expanding the image and using less of the optical surface as designed. Sometimes they are a necessary evil. As for focal reducers, there clearly are instances that more fully using the FF lens as designed to concentrate the image onto the smaller image circle can actually improve optical performance, but the results tend to be highly variable.

JNR wrote:

Morris0 wrote:

If you want to take a quality lens and then add a so so element to it and get so so results, get one

Morris

Focal reducers vary in quality, and how particular lenses perform with various focal reducers also vary. In any event, they have several elements to take advantage of using the close-to-full image circle of a FF lens. The Metabones and Viltrox seem to score well above the lower cost offerings in detailed reviews.

Roger Cicala (Lens Rentals) did detailed analysis and came to a different conclusion than Morris (and he was surprised). Essentially, he found that concentrating the image can significantly reduce CA and improve contrast (slightly). That is what I have found with the EF100 f/2. A closer to flawless lens such as the L200 appears to hold close to even, but not improve:

L200 with Viltrox .71x reducer (EXIF of XC200 obviously is not correct due to FW version used)

All teleconverters induce at least a bit of degradation due to expanding the image and using less of the optical surface as designed. Sometimes they are a necessary evil. As for focal reducers, there clearly are instances that more fully using the FF lens as designed to concentrate the image onto the smaller image circle can actually improve optical performance, but the results tend to be highly variable.

Interesting and thank you for the correction.  Your image looks quite good.

Morris