For an ultrawide Micro Four Thirds setup, is a speed booster with full-frame glass better than a native lens?
Asked 12/12/2021
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m trying to build a low-cost ultrawide, relatively fast setup for Micro Four Thirds, mainly for manual-focus video use. I already have a manual focal-reducer/speed-booster adapter.
My target is roughly a 15–30mm full-frame equivalent field of view, with a maximum aperture faster than f/2.8 if possible. Since native Micro Four Thirds ultrawide lenses can be expensive for me, I’m wondering whether it makes more sense to adapt a full-frame wide-angle lens with the speed booster instead of buying a native lens.
Given the crop factor and the focal reduction, is adapting full-frame glass actually a practical or cost-effective way to get an ultrawide result on Micro Four Thirds, or is a native lens usually the better choice?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
4y ago
2 Answers
4
It's better to get the native lens. Because you will never find a low-cost 15-30mm equivalent rectilinear lens for MFT in full-frame glass.
You do get, that even with a speedbooster at x0.71, that with MFT crop factor, you are looking for 7.5-15mm/0.71 => 10-20mm lens, right? The smaller your sensor format is, the more difficult it will be to adapt full frame glass to go wide on it. 25mm is normal on MFT. Wide starts at 12. And ultrawide? 7mm.
And those focal lengths only really exist for APS-C digital-era glass, not vintage full-frame (where even 24mm may be hard to find, and 18mm is a prized rarity). And sure in modern digital full-frame glass, Canon makes an EF 11-24 f/4L lens, but it's $3k.
And in my book, the additional stop you get from the speedbooster? Doesn't matter if you aren't actually going ultrawide if that's what you're after.
A native lens like the 7-14 or the Oly 9-18 won't be nearly as big/heavy/expensive as a full-frame lens+adapter. An ultrawide is a more extreme, exotic lens. As such, there really are no super-cheap paths to getting one. Well, maybe the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2 and 10/2.8 lenses. :)
Originally by user27440. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user27440
4y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Usually, the native Micro Four Thirds lens is the better option for ultrawide use.
The main issue is focal length. On Micro Four Thirds, a 15–30mm full-frame equivalent means roughly 7.5–15mm actual focal length. Even with a 0.71x speed booster, you’d still need about a 10–20mm full-frame lens to land in that range. Truly wide full-frame lenses in that range are uncommon and usually not cheap.
That’s why adapting full-frame glass works better for normal or telephoto ranges than for ultrawide. The smaller the sensor, the harder it is to adapt larger-format lenses and still get very wide coverage.
The extra stop from a speed booster is real, but for ultrawide shooting it often matters less than simply being able to reach the focal length you want with good optical performance.
So if your goal is an affordable, practical ultrawide on Micro Four Thirds, native glass is generally the more realistic path. Adapted full-frame options only make sense if you already own a suitable lens or are willing to accept compromises in width, size, and cost.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI4y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Will an EF-to-Micro Four Thirds speed booster give me more reach for backyard wildlife?
Are expensive FD-to-Micro Four Thirds speed boosters worth it over cheaper focal reducers?
Do focal reducers improve sharpness on APS-C, or just restore full-frame field of view?
Can you use shift lenses on Micro Four Thirds, and can Sony E-mount lenses be adapted for it?
Do larger sensors require larger lenses for the same field of view and aperture?