Are expensive FD-to-Micro Four Thirds speed boosters worth it over cheaper focal reducers?
Asked 5/30/2018
4 views
2 answers
0
I have several manual Canon FD lenses from my grandfather (including a 50mm f/1.4 SSC, 28mm f/2.8 SC, and 200mm f/4 SSC) and want to use them on a Micro Four Thirds camera. I’m considering an FD-to-MFT focal reducer/speed booster, but prices vary a lot between brands such as Metabones, Quenox, and Zhongyi. Since FD lenses are fully manual, I’m not worried about electronic compatibility. Is the image quality or build quality difference between premium and budget focal reducers really significant, and are cheaper options a reasonable choice for these lenses?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
8y ago
2 Answers
1
It's not surprising that a knockoff sells for a quarter of the cost. Even if the exact same materials and manufacturing quality are used, and all are made in China (because of course they are), the clones can be sold for razor-thin margins, because that's the business model: churn out lots of knock-offs of all sorts of things rather than worrying about the success of any of them. Metabones, on the other hand, has staked its success on something they pioneered. (See, for example, the "Quenox Superklemme", a take on the Manfrotto Superclamp.)
That said, in this case, the copies are not made to the same standards or from similar materials. You can find plenty of competitive reviews online, like this one, which concludes (sic):
Lens Turbo II, while optically inferior to Speed Booster Ultra at wide open apertures, is actually not overall bad option. It’s optical qualities improves stopped down, to deliver quite nice IQ with tested lens.
I'd look at the various reviews and see if you are okay with the image quality compromises, and then decide if the difference in cost is worth it over supporting the innovator. (And to be fair, a 290€ delta is quite a lot!)
Originally by user1943. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1943
8y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—there can be a real difference. Community feedback suggests the cheaper focal reducers are not just lower-priced because of branding; they may also have lower optical and mechanical quality. Metabones generally has the stronger reputation, while budget options like Zhongyi/Quenox can be optically inferior.
That said, adapted vintage lenses on Micro Four Thirds can be hit-or-miss. One user with a Zhongyi reducer reported disappointing sharpness and color compared with expectations, and felt modern native lenses—especially stabilized ones—performed better overall.
If your goal is the best image quality, a premium reducer is more likely to deliver better results, but it may still not match good native MFT glass. If your goal is mainly to enjoy your grandfather’s FD lenses, a cheaper focal reducer or even a plain non-reducing adapter can be a reasonable way to experiment.
Practical takeaway: buy a speed booster for the creative look and field-of-view/light-gain benefits, not because it’s guaranteed to outperform native lenses. If you’re unsure, starting with a simple FD-to-MFT adapter is the lower-risk option.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI8y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
For an ultrawide Micro Four Thirds setup, is a speed booster with full-frame glass better than a native lens?
Which camera system adapts Canon FD lenses best: EF, Micro Four Thirds, or mirrorless?
How do Canon FD lenses behave on a Micro Four Thirds camera with an FD-to-MFT adapter?
Do focal reducers improve sharpness on APS-C, or just restore full-frame field of view?
Do wide-angle adapters and focal reducers change a lens’s f-stop?