New Metabones MFT adapter makes the magic: your lens faster, wider and sharper!


It’s Monday Morning and this news will shock you and you wake you up! :)
Metabones just announced the new “Speed Booster” Adapter that makes any FF or APS-C (and not MFT!) lens faster, wider and sharper! Philip Bloom posted the news as first and explained how it works:

The Metabones ‘Speed Booster’ is a 0.71 x focal reducer, that will effectively turn your full frame 50mm f/1.8 lens into a 35mm f/1.2 lens. Note, doing so (as a guide) will increase the aperture of that lens by one stop. It will be available in January 2013 from Metabones’ web site and its worldwide dealer network for US$599 / £372 plus shipping and applicable taxes and duties

The adapter reduces the image circle of FF or APS-C lenses and both will cover the MFT sensor area. The only not so good things about the lens are you can use only APS-C or FF lenses and not MFT or FT lenses!

Here is an image that shows you how it works:

The image circle gets reduced and this actually doesn’t decrease the image quality!

And here is a video sample shot by Philip on a NEX camcorder (APS-C):

194 grams from James Miller on Vimeo.

Take some time to read Philip Bloom post and than let me know:

How much do you like that new adapter?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Gekopaca

    Really too much expensive!

    • Anonymous

      Don’t buy it then

      • Steve

        It’s annoying how all the cheapo idiots have impacted the market. Its hard to buy anything of quality anymore because every moron feels they should be able to afford whatever they like.

        If you don’t appreciate a quality product, and are not willing to pay for it, then fuck off and stop whinging.

        • Dr. Greenthumb

          You know, Steve, go buy lens adapter for the price of the lens. It very questionable who is idiot after all…

          • Duarte Bruno

            It is a lens too, you know?

            • Anonymous

              yeh single element one – with no focus ro moving parts!

        • Rob-L

          It’s not an issue of not being able to afford it, it’s a question of value. Keep over paying for overpriced crap, sucker.

          • It is expensive yes, but for me the idea of combining a decent 57mm f/1.2 & 85mm f/1.4 with such adapter is better/cheaper option then buying the equivalent native lenses(if they exist at all).

        • Steve. Price does not make quality. Most product on the market is not high quality but the marketing people want to ‘Position’ it at the top. This applies to most things one purchases, not just camera equipment. We now purchase things priced on the whim of a marketing guru who in most instances is just part of the grab brigade- charge what is the maximum. Quality has nothing to do with it. Having said that it is not always the case.

          Also, if you cannot express yourself without the use of bad language then keep your comments to yourself. Is that understood.

          • Anonytrackball

            You are quite right on the language Jim. It is not wanted here.

    • ProShooter

      It’s only 600$. I make that in less than 3 hours work. Not everybody is a poor bum and not everything is meant to be affordable to everyone.

      I’ll get one as soon as they’re out.

      • Sam Waldron

        Clearly a comment from a “professional” person. Who cares what you make per hour and it makes no difference to something being priced properly or others being cheap. The only reason the price on this item is high is because of the limited production, the actual production cost in quantity would not be that high as the R&D is loaded up front. This could easily be mass produced at the same quality level at a fraction of the cost.

      • Sam Waldron

        Sigh…. if only I could polish cock for $200 an hr too….

        • Ghud

          @ Sam Watson
          Thats a bargain my wife charges much more lol

      • Philip Broom

        WELL GOOD FOR YOU “ProShooter”!!! Clearly an individual with insecurity issues that he has to GLOAT!!

    • hillin

      It’s not just about money, the idea of this product is great, don’t measure it with a steel ring and an optic. It revealed the possibility to reuse FF lenses much more efficiently. Are there many (relatively) cheap f/.95 lenses on the market? You can get one with a f/1.4 FF lens. You can even have a f/1.2 lens converted to f/.85, that’s incredible.

  • Anonymous


    If this actually works well, it’d be pretty darn awesome! Particularly when using old MF glass. It’s a bit more useful for the APS-C folk, but still… a 50mm f1.4 75 f1… Still essentially the same DoF but at a substantially wider angle. Bettter yet a 35mm f2.8 would be a 25mm f2 on M4/3. It would give us APS-C type DOF, essentially. It would be great if they could make a 0.5 converter though, in order to fully fix any angle of view difference(and a little extra light wouldn’t hurt =P).

    I imagine this will be particularly useful for the video folk too, where potential optical imperfections tend to be less looked down upon, and neither minimal size nor AF tends to matter as much.

    If it works well, I don’t think the price is too outlandish either. Looking at the main website, it says it was designed by caldwell photographics in the USA, which a quick google search shows some work with large format lenses. Seems legit!

    • hsalonen

      “I imagine this will be particularly useful for the video folk too, where potential optical imperfections tend to be less looked down upon, and neither minimal size nor AF tends to matter as much.”

      Actually, this adapter promises to fix chromatic aberrations, coma, etc.. Because teleconverters add more of those, their inverse teleconverter should reduce them, right?

      I am not sure, if their logic is solid, but I am most interrested in their results. Somebody buy that now!

      • rrr_hhh

        A reverse converter would just make them appear smaller in the frame, this IMO is the blunt theory behind that marketing saying. It doesn’t tell you anything concerning possible flaws added by that extra piece of glass.. So we should wait to know more about it.
        To my eyes this adapter looks like something more tailored for videographers shooting with APSC bodies than for still photographers using MFT cameras.

        • you are worrying about an extra piece of glass, i suppose that means you never use filters in front of your lens either?

          • rrr_hhh

            Only if a special filter is, like an ND filter or a polarizing filter; never a skylight nor a protective filter (there are hoods to protect the lenses) and never more than one filter at a time. Further they are adding a lens in this adapter, this is not like a simple filter, much more chance for it to add some problem.

            • ok but it depends what kind of problem will be added, most lens abberations are also reduced because of the reducer i have read, and prob a 0,5x reducer is more difficult to create then this 0,7x version.If there problems to be expected, i think the added advantages are worth it.

    • napilopez

      Same as above poster, had forgotten to write my username.

      Just saw the embedded video and some others at the source link as well. For video purposes at least, there seems to be no noticeable loss in IQ. Granted, those aren’t exactly the most difficult lighting conditions in the world, but at the very least sharpness seems to be completely fine.

      That said, their claims of optical improvement make complete sense, assuming the optic is good(which I would think so , given the price tag, the manufacturer, and the designer of the optic). The smaller focal length and increase in speed are somewhat obvious, as you are squeezing a larger image circle(and therefor more light), into a smaller space. It makes sense regarding aberrations too. For example, something like CA, which might be 5 pixels wide without an optical converter, would get reduced to something like 3.

      On the other hand, problems that might’ve been removed through the sensor crop might re-appear, such as vignetting and sucky corners. The point is, on an APS-C cam you should get something a lot closer to what the image would like like on an FF camera, both regarding angle of view and DoF. For an M4/3 cam, you’ll get something to what the lens would look like mounted on an APS-C cam without a focal length reducer. Improvement all around.

  • hsalonen

    The image quality does get reduced – IF there is a bad optic inside. It all comes down to their inverse teleconverter quality.

    With $600 price tag – I am waiting for reviews.

    PS. It doesn’t actually reduce their f-stop, it just scales the image for the sensor. Example

    50mm/1.4 lens, 1.5x crop sensor

    35mm/1.0 “equivalent” with adapter
    50mm/1.4 lens original speed
    50mm/1.4 lens true equivalent
    75mm/2.1 lens equivalent without adapter

    • all light is collected on a smaller areas, so more dense….thats why it gets the bonus of about an extra stop

      • … add here the impact on DoF. (Since circle of confusion is made smaller by the adapter.)

        The equivalency bunch would go crazy, recalculating their “math.” But I’m pretty sure they – instead of the old “1 == 1/2” swan song – would end up with something like “1 == 1/4 for some special values of 4.”

        P.S. It appears the focal reducers are popular in the astronomy. Google for “focal length reducer.” And there are questions floating why there are no such reducers for the SLRs.

        • I think you should not worry about the dof,prob the test images from Phil are not enough for convincing in this regard, but the SHG 35-100 (which i owned and am pretty sure it uses FR too)shows gorgeous dof rendering, very similar to a 70-200…i know its a very subjective matter if its experienced as nice or ugly, but the upcoming mft version is going to be on my list of wannahaves.

          • peterGrad

            @ Ulli
            The difference with the Olympus SHG lenses is that any convertor built in would be very specifically tuned to the lens in question.Compared to the one fits all solution here

            • yes i am aware of that.

    • El Aura

      The f-stop IS reduced. The f-stop is defined as the ratio between the focal length and the entrance pupil (the size of the aperture when viewed from the front of the lens). The size of the physical aperture does not change, nor do any lens elements between the front of the lens and physical aperture change. Thus the entrance pupil stays the same.

      But the focal length changes and thus the f-stop. This is exactly the same as with a TC just that the factor is smaller than one (instead of being larger than one).

      • JHCCAZ

        @El Aura
        Exactly correct, good explanation. I would have said “f-number” instead of “f-stop” in this context, but still you are accurate and clear. Thanks.

  • Stupig

    They should make one for EOS-M — once the AF catches up, it’ll be able to use 24-70 like a 24-70.

    • hsalonen

      The site says they are planning to. Right after Micro Four Thirds. I am happy that priorities go this way :)

    • hsalonen

      The site says they are planning to. Right after Micro Four Thirds. I am happy that priorities go this way :)

    • film makers don’t need AF, but AF can be usefull when shooting stills!
      if AF was suported in would handle like putting a 43s lense on M43 body with adapter, and slow Phase AF :D

  • Andy

    Is the adapter for mirrorless or SLR lenses?

    • napilopez

      SLR lenses only. You essentially have to use the reduced flange distance in order for this to happen, but it wouldn’t take up any more space than any other passive adapter.

  • a universal focal reducer, wow, this is interesting, especially because of the extra stop. I think IQ should be ok as certain lens flaws will be reduced too..i just thought it would be hard to make such FR as a universal solution, rather then a dedicated one for certain lens or lenses.

    • Duarte Bruno

      I can’t think straight right now, this will turn my Konica Hexanon 57mm F1.2 into what exactly???

      • OldAlaskan

        You’d have a 40mm f/0.85.

      • southbymidwest

        I’m pretty sure the math works out as follows…

        System — Focal length — Light gathering — Depth of field
        On FF — 57mm — 1.2 — 1.2
        On APS-C — 86mm — 1.2 — 1.8
        On m43 — 114mm — 1.2 — 2.5

        Lens + focal reducer
        On FF — N/A
        On APS-C — 60mm — 0.9 — 1.2
        On m43 — 80mm — 0.9 — 1.8

        • OldAlaskan

          Right. Thanks for clarifying it.

        • That assumes the same reducer is used for the m43 version.

          • i almost cant imagine they will make a 0.5x version for MFT, with the 2 stop bonus….but if that would be true, prob the price would go even more up?

            • I dont think .5 is possible

              • just that, its seems like an awfully deep step
                Id be happy to eat my words though
                it would mean that FF lenses adapted to 43rds would be FF focal length and speed in equivalent terms, there would be no more FF shallow DoF BS, and at least 3 guys are out of a job on DPR forums ;)

                • B&Hshopper

                  You are spot on about the FF lens on mFT only problem is we would need to buy those monster lenses.I tried for fun a couple of old Nikon AIS lens on mFT. When I first jumped into mFT it is fun for about five minutes then you stop and think, why would I want to use huge heavy , manual focus lenses on a kit I bought for its small size .Maybe the equivalence gang would make up their bonus shifting FF lenses

        • 57/1.2 on 43rds, thats 114/2.4 on FF
          with the FR it becomes
          40/.07 on 43rds, and 80/1.8 on FF

          what is going to get confusing is its indicated aperture would be 1.2, but apparent aperture (to FF) be 1.8. Effectively it picks up a stop, still the sound of 40/.07 is roughly the fastest lens ever made as used by Kubrick

  • G_C

    i had imagined this in my head a while ago, i’m glad to see it’s not only possible but in production~!!

  • Alfons

    hmm… This adapter with OM mount would make my old OM lenses much more usable. There must be a reason no one has previously made adapter like this, right? Interesting to see the image quality!

    • Vivek

      I plan to use my OM 50/1.2 via an EOS to OM adapter. Quite a few SLR mounts can be used on the EOS mount via inexpensive and readily available adapters.

    • JeremyT

      Limited market, I imagine. It’s a really neat thing, but until recently there haven’t been enough camera/lens combinations which would really benefit from it.

      The question I have is whether electronic functions and AF are supported in cases where the mount is compatible. That’s obviously not the case with M4/3 (since we have no compatible full frame lenses to begin with), but it could be really interesting for Nikon 1 / NEX / etc where full frame lenses are electronically compatible…

    • Dwaine Dibbly

      I was thinking the same thing: OM mount for MFT users, and a Minolta mount for NEX users.

      Interesting bit of kit. Hopefully the reviews will be positive.

  • Such a device would fix the problem of legacy wides in m4/3.

    With wides you don’t really need AF, but sharpness across the frame. Any old German or Russian 35mm would be converted to UWA. I also had a dream about my Zenitar 16mm, which is still inexpensive and quite sharp.

    m4/3 would have a crop factor equal to APS, which is terrific for wides. And it would still have an advantage for teles w/o adapter.

    Bring it on!

    • rrr_hhh

      At 600$ ? That s the announced price.. Getting the 12mm F2 Olympus sounds like a much better solution !

      • Elf

        Totally agree. At that price there are many native lenses I would rather have. I would be more interested in the rumored adapter that offered Apeture and Auto focus for EOS lenses for my EOS primes.

      • maybe if you only need 1 or 2 lenses ok, but if you work with more lenses then its goin to be very interesting imo.

    • rrr_hhh

      At 600$ and 194 gr. for the adapter, this is both an expensive and heavy solution. Why not spare a little more to get the 12mm F2 native Olympus which allows zone focusing too. Such an adapter may have been of interest back in the earlier days when there were few native lenses around, but it doesn’t make much sense now. Not at this price and this weight if you are a stills shooter.

    • rrr_hhh

      At 600$ and 194gr ? In what is it more interesting than the Olympus 12mm F2, which allows zone focusing too ? It is nearly as expensive !

      • rrr_hhh

        Sorry for the duplicates ! The post wasn’t showing up !

        By the way : happy to see that I’m nomore limited to the mobile verion when using an iPad ! Thanks admin !

        And what about the awaited baby ? I hope everything went well : if I remember correctly it was expected for the Christmas season.

    • Critical focus is harder to archive at wide angle, yet it shows when its missed.
      Ultimately AF is never needed, but its a desirable feature.

    • well its a bit different when looked at in total
      what it does is bring a 35mm lens closer to 43rds

      IOW its FL becomes closer and the lens speed effectively goes up
      they say 50 f/1.8 to 35 f/1.2

      a 50/1.8 on 43rds becomes 100/3.5 equivalent to FF
      since with the FR it becomes
      35/1.2 on 43rds, its 70/2.5 on FF

      try a 57/1.2 on 43rds, thats 114/2.4 on FF
      with the FR it becomes
      40/.07 on 43rds, and 80/1.8 on FF

  • For now I’m more interested in James Miller’s discourse about a ‘live’ m43 BMCC. The Bloom lookalike mentions that a couple times in his blurb. I wonder if he has insights that such a beast is being developed. We are entering NAB season, BMCC is being challenged by the likes of Kinefinity and a bunch of others rumored to compete with the witchbox at NAB. Black Magic is extremely slowly delivering Cinema Cameras starting with EF mounts, and m43 reportedly to be delivered much much later. Meanwhile, the competition can strike hard and kill the witch before she even produces.

    Here’s a solution to their pitiful dilemma: BMCC announce an active m43 BMCC at NAB and promises delivery within a month or offer substantial rebates for any delays. That should quell the competition. If not, BMCC can be shot down in the game they started. Very stupid business maneuver BMCC did last year, announce something they can’t deliver.

    See ya’ll in Sin City in April! No fools.

  • Miroslav

    Wow, what a way to wake us up :)! Finally! Someone had to make something like this.

    Only drawbacks of this are:
    -it’s only 0.71x, so no real full frame coverage for FF lenses on m4/3. OTOH APS-C lenses should have their native focal length.
    -the extra bucks charged for the electronics. Not needed for lenses with mechanical aperture and focus rings.

    I’d like to see passive adapters ( only optics included ), for more mounts ( Canon FD, Minolta, Pentax K, etc. ) with 0.5x ratio – that would be really useful for m4/3. And some kind of better MF aid – focus peaking or digital split image.

    With this one, we’re able to use only EF-S and DX APS-C lenses, since it’s another piece of APS-C optics with m4/3 mount.

    But I’m sure more versions will come.

    • I dont mind the 0.7x reduction, appearently its very hard to get a universal FR done? And there not much aps-c lenses out there i think. Passive version would be enough for me too.

      • Miroslav

        “and there not much aps-c lenses out there i think.”

        Right, but there are some that can be very interesting:

        Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 becomes 12-35mm F2 on m4/3 (24-70mm eq.)
        Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 becomes 8-11.5mm F2 on m4/3 (16-23mm eq.)
        Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 becomes 12-50 F2-3.2 on m4.3 (24-100mm eq)

        For Oly users, stabilization in lens is not important and non-stabilized Tamron and Sigma can be found very cheaply. They are huge, but still smaller than Oly’s own 4/3 14-35 F2.

        Of FF lenses, Samyang 24mm F1.4 comes to mind. It becomes 17mm F1 on m43 (34mm eq.).

        And all of these are available in Canon EF mount, so only one adapter is needed.

  • I’m less excited after I saw the price…

    an m43 version is coming? I don’t see it on the metabones site yet

  • Camaman

    So this is like the famous Olympus f/2 zooms.
    I remember everybody saying 35-100mm was built as a 70-200mm but with a smaller image circle than FF to begin with.

    Aren’t they built with a built in focal reducer?

    • thats the rumor yes, but with some say it has FR and others say it has not, because experts could not recognize the FR part, and Olympus never confirmed it. But if you look at the size of the SHG f/2 zooms, then its easy to believe they have the FR too.

  • Dannecus

    I’m with Anentropic. I was excited until I saw the price. Given that price it is going to be a choice between this adapter or buying another native M43 prime. I’m thinking the prime lens will win

    Shame, excellent idea, if it takes off and the price comes down, could be a real winner and encourage those with lots of FF or APS-C kit to make the switch to M43 bodies.

    • Probably the Chinese could reverse-engineer a much cheaper one with no electrical contacts for MF lenses with different mounts.

      I already have a Praktica B to EOS mount adapter that could take advantage of the Metbones’ one, but the electrical contacts would be entirely wasted. So, yes it is v. much a matter of price too.

      • Miroslav

        I’m not holding my breath for Chinese copy of this, they are not exactly renowned for quality optics – and the optical part here is the masterpieces. I rather hope Metabones will see that there’s money to be made from passive version as well.

        • being a focal reducer (FR) it condenses the image circle
          They are used in astro photography to accomplish 2 things
          contrast and sharpness go up as does lens MTF value

          that said, this thing may already use optics ground in China
          so there may be no reduction in quality, these things are ground by robots these days anyway. At the moment these guys have no competition, but I expect there real worth is around that of a cheaper 3rd party 1.4x adapter. Whatever that is ..

    • rrr_hhh

      IMO, both the price (600$) and weight (194gr) are dissuading. I’m with you : better get another native lens.

      • Anonymous

        The main draw of something like this would be the fact you can have faster glass than is natively available in M43.

        Take for example the Rokinon 35mm or 85mm f/1.4 lenses. With this, they would be f/2 FF equivalent when mounted on M43 – basically the same as the Nokton f/.95 lenses. And compared to those it starts to look like a bargain (price-wise, if not weight-wise).

        I don’t expect it to be a huge draw for most people, but for anybody yearning for faster glass this could be a good option. I expect video shooters would be most interested.

        • rrr_hhh

          We already have : 12mm F2, 20mm F1.7, 25mm F1.4, 45mm F1.8, 75mm F1.8, Voigtländer 17mm and 25mm F0.95, plus the announced Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2.
          Who needs more shallow DOF ? When focusing becomes a pain and when you thrive to get your whole subject into focus ? And when you have to stop down anyway, because the corners sharpness is sinking ?

          • MAFAv8r

            I tend to agree. I am going for m43, for a reason. I cannot justify carrying lots of lenses. I already have 2 for the micro, and will probably max out at 2 primes more, so for me the benefit is not there. Of bringing large lenses, nor I am not into extreme shortness of DOF. I still want some detail in the background. For example, as I look at the classic sports photographs, from mid 1900’s you could still details in the people around the sports star being photographed. There expression adds to the appeal of the photo. Even my own wildlife portraits I am going back bringing more detail into the background, not less.

  • BigTam

    If I understand it properly, mounting a cheap (but excellent) FF 50mm 1.8 on MFT would normally result in a 100mm, and with 0.71 focal length reduction, it becomes a 71mm f1.4. Total cost less than the Oly 75.

    Or will the MFT version have a different FL reduction?

    • Anonymous

      no, it becomes a 35mm in term of focal length.
      In term of light, it will be a f1.2

      in term of the image, it will be a slightly cropped version of a 50mm f1.8mm on film or FF sensor

      • Anonymous

        in the last sentence, I mean in term of perspective, depth of field, etc

    • OldAlaskan

      I contacted Metabones to clarify the effect on the speed booster on a 4/3 system.

      “If I put a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (FF) lens with the speed booster on my micro 4/3 camera the result (on my micro 4/3 system) will be the equivalent of a 71mm f/1.0 lens on a FF system. Right or wrong?”

      Their response: “Right.”

    • a FF 50/1.8 becomes the equivalent 100/3.5 on 43rds
      with the FR it becomes
      35/1.2 on 43rds equivalent to 70/2.5 on FF

  • nugu

    Theoretically the MFT Adapter could be a 0.5x meaning 2 Stops more. This is because of the smaller diameter of 43 sensors- or am i wrong?

    • theoretically, but then only FF lenses would be usable, APS-C lens image circle maybe wouldn’t cover the m43 sensor… so the 0.7 is more versatile and still very useful

      • Anonymous

        depensd what you need to do

        I want a 0.5 adapter to use legacy FF glass. DX glass without autodocus… bof!

      • not many aps-c lenses anyway, but i think its harder to make a 0.5x reducer? at least that was the conclusion in some of the DP threads about why the SHG f/2 zooms were not f/1.4 (where it was gossiped the SHG f2 zooms do have 0.5x reducer but Olympus limited the F output mechanically to f/2 due to poorer performance at f/1.4……but all just rumors though

        • The Other Chris

          I believe Kodak holds/held the patent to a 0.5x reducer.

          • yes but i think it was already expired during the time of the DP threads, or even long before

    • Anonymous

      0.5 x reducer… So my Nikkor 50mm/1.4 would be a 25mm with light gathering of a 1/1.4 = 0.7??? What about DOF??

      • Nobody

        You will not only gain shutter speed, but DOF as well, since FOV gets wider.
        Which means, you can get closer to your subject to produce similar composition.

    • theoretically correct
      FF lenses would operate at there prescribed specification
      IOW a 85/1.2 FF lens with the 0.5 FR would be equivalent to 85/1.2on FF
      kinda neat isnt it

  • valia kalda

    Apparently micro 4/3 cameras will be able to use both full frame AND cropped (DX) lenses with the Speed Booster!

    • Camaman

      I guess my huge Samyang + Nikon to m43 adapter OMD combo is staying.
      By using this baby i will get 60mm f1.0 that has reach like 120mm and DOF like FF 2.0 while full open.
      Helooooo, perfect long, stabilized, portrait lens, on the cheap.

      -100mm f2 is also interesting, giving us 140mm reach and f1.4 light gathering
      -135mm f2 givess us a 190mm reach at f1.4 light gathering

      …if my math is correct.

      • OMega

        I think your maths are incorrect Camaman, if I read it correctly your
        -100mm will become a 70mm
        -135mm a 94.5mm, while your aperture calculations are correct.
        However this I think will only apply to APS-C mount bodies using a 36x24mm format lens. The information seems somewhat vague, and more complicated as ever more peeps come up with their own calculations. As regards using such a device on a u43 body (that is this sites purpose), I have an idea the lens will maintain it’s focal length while becoming faster due to the magnification of the convertor counter acting the multiplying effect of a conventional adaptor.

        Untill the people at Metabones, give definite details of a u43 (even possibly a 4/3rds version) of this device I will not believe anything myself. I will add that as yet I have been unable to open the Metabones link.

        • valia kalda

          Don’t spoil my dream of mounting my sigma ff 12-24mm on my e-m5 thus getting a 9mm rectilinear f/2.8 lens :)

        • camaman was referring to the equiv reach iin 24×36 i guess, so his comments are correct about this.

          • valia kalda

            Thanks, you are right.:-)

        • valia kalda

          No, no I was already multiplying for m43 sensor crop

  • peppone

    So the UWA sigma 8-16mm on m4/3 with this adapter will be an 5.68-11.36mm???? D:

    • Vivek

      You nailed it! :)

      That is the lens to use with the Speed booster on m4/3rds!

  • Guys, please explain just a little thing to me.

    If it was so simple (at least optically) why the hell Pana or Oly wouldn’t replicate a classic 50/1.4 FF lens and put such a “converter lens” behind to gain a superdream 25/F0.7(!) native MFT lens for <1000 EUR?!

    • Vivek

      2 issues:

      1. AF at those shallow apertures will be a nightmare. Even 50/1.2 and the like on Canon bodies(even with PDAF) is still an issue. There is a reason why most m4/3rds native lenses are only f/1.8.

      2. Lack of progressive thinking.

      • I don’t think so, as far as I know the CDAF is even better then PDAF for large apertures (i.e. is more precise).

        • CDAF is more precise. But the problem with AF at large apertures/shallow DOF, is that there is very little of the subject in focus and the AF heuristics of subject detection simply do not work.

          IOW, where PDAF fails to focus, CDAF might focus, but at something seemingly random.

          Made the personal experience with E-620 + 50mm when shooting macro.

      • hsalonen

        AF is not the problem. Size is. Any 1.2 lens would have to have a big front element for light gathering. Even Olympus 75mm / 1.8 is quite small in size compared to most of the Nikon/Canon lenses I have.

    • Jim39

      You’re right. If I remember correctly the tele Zuiko SHG are built like this – actually f2.8, with this type of comverter in the back that makes them f2. And they produce great image quality.

      My take is that this works for long focal lenths, but not for wide angles. putting a converter in the back of a 8mm and hoping to get a 6mm that produces good images is just plain ridiculous.

      And yes, if it were that easy, Olympus would have done it already.

  • rrr_hhh

    It is weighting as much as a native MFT lens and cost as much if not more : I don’t see much interest in that adapter for still shooters, once you add the weight of an EOS lens. Plus it is made primarily for APSC mirrorless : they would get the original focal back. But it is even less interesting for MFT photographers.

    • I think you might be in for a surprise :-)

  • BTW, @admin, the adapter DOES SUPPORT AF CONTROL.
    Of course, facing the well-known limitations : ultra-slow AF, no object tracking, no continuous AF, works just with the latest lenses, etc.

    • admin

      for E-mount. But also for MFT?

      • wont fit 43rds, only m43rds
        isnt available yet, but soon
        it will autofocus on mFT
        incidentally it has been known for some time the autofocus algorithm from canon EF is compatible with m43rds. Which also means Sigma’s SA mount and Contax N mount are too

  • kasteel

    Hmmm, I scrolled down to comments and somebody else’s name and email address already are filled in… oh, well, I guess I’ll be kasteel from Estonia today!

    Anyway… I join the chorus of skepticism that adding a couple of one-size-fits-all elements to the back will somehow improve the optical design of every lens… if that can be done, then lens design must be easier than I thought!

    Sharp enough for HD video? Sure, why not?… image size will reduced so fine details will be resolved smaller. Sharp enough for still photography? Hmmm… I wouldn’t bet the rent money…

  • Elf

    And now I am Elf with an email address on Hotmail! This could be an interesting way of harvesting other users’ email addresses. Admin, are you sure the site is supposed to work this way?

    • Elf

      Interesting I am Elf Whats up admin

      • admin


        • admin

          damn, there must be some sort of issue. Are you writing as member or not?

          • Miroslav

            In the fields above, there was Dr. Greenthumb instead of my name, and the guy’s e-mail. I’m not a member…

          • spam

            Tried to warn you about this problem earlier today when the name “Arnold van de Worp” and his email was filled out in the comment fields, seems like that post have been deleted now.

  • Bob B.

    So let’s see…I get to spend $600 to put one of my big, honkin FF EF lenses onto my MFT camera and use it with no autufocus…and you are also telling me that there is a piece of glass in the adapter and that there will be an increase in optical quality of the original lens. LOL.
    Can you say “grifter”?

  • Tron

    So this means a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 would become an 8-11mm f2.0?? WTF!!

  • I wonder if/how the adapter would work with the TS lenses.

  • I just imagine this adapter on a panasonic GH3 and all my L lenses ! Certainly a great way to film, and cheaper than with a 5d mark III that i’ve planning to buy for few weeks now.. (i have a t4i)

  • Nathan

    It looks like the glass is made of solid crap. No antireflective coating? Is that just a prototype? For that price, it better have fully coated optics. There’s no reason to purchase it at that price if they aren’t making an optical device. I will wait for the reviews. Sometimes, the wrong guy has the right idea- and he’ll screw up on the execution. Being aware of that, I have to wait.

  • pdc

    According to the Metabones website there are 5 products:
    ALPA to Fuji X
    ALPA to NEX
    Canon EF to NEX
    Leica R to Fuji X
    Leica R to NEX
    So, nothing for MFT, no Nikon F support, no Leica M.

    For $600 the optics would have to be stellar to even consider it should I move to Fuji X or Sony NEX.

    • Ulli

      “So, nothing for MFT, no Nikon F support, no Leica M.”
      I have a Metabones Leica M to M43 adapter, crap quality though.

    • Miroslav

      “no Leica M”

      Leica M version of this converter is not possible because rear lens elements would collide with glass in the converter. Leica M flange distance is short, while rear part of the lens goes deeper into the mount compared to DSLR lenses.

  • BdV

    This adapter might boost more than just speed, this could also be a big mirrorless camera booster. Sounds like worth the money, although it’s just some metal and a little bit of glass… wait for a made in China copy? I bet they’re already working on it ;-)

  • ED

    Why do they keep saying “real” f0.95 ???? Is that aperature on MFT not really a real f0.95? Im confused. I thought the crop factor only influenced the focal lengt h not the aperature.

  • Rob-L

    $599!! PT Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute. It’s about VALUE not expense. There is no way this thing is worth that much, but I’m sure a lot of dopes that don’t consider what they’re actually purchasing will buy it anyway. Go ahead, keep spending money without thinking about the true value.

    • ‘Value’ is a marketing term for charging as much as we dare. That’s why ‘value’ is not often used when there is real competition. It is also used when useless junk is added to the real sale item to hide the true cost.

  • Dr. Greenthumb

    Yup I’m writting as Dr.Greenthumb, email showing.
    I’m not a member.

  • MildlyReactive

    This shit just blew my mind.

  • The reason of high price should be its EF-compatibility (electronics).
    I think Metabones is fool. Why for NEX? why doesn’t MB makes it for m4/3. m4/3 has very large market share than NEX.
    I realy realy feel funny that why so many 3rd parties make something for NEX always.


    Metabones should make simple mount-adapter (no AF electronics) for the old lenses for m4/3. Then it will be reasonable priced. This adapter makes 50mm lens as 50mm view angle on m4/3 sensor, so very useful for the old lenses to use on m4/3.

    and if possible, have electrodes for answearing lens make or some information for EXIF (I think just “CANON FN lens” is recorded in EXIF is very useful)

  • KI

    According to Metabones – they will make a cheaper adapter for OM -> m43. It’s in their pipeline. With no electric contacts, it will be much cheaper and easier to produce. … Still I guess $300+.

    However. It would be AWESOME.. :-)

  • So using this adapter, my Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 lens will become like a 50mm F0.85 lens on my m43 camera?

    That’s Fast!

  • Bob

    I am not trying to be negative, truly…people are free to do whatever they want…but I like to put my MFT lenses on my MFT camera. Let’s see…they are nice and small, they autofocus (extremely quickly), the primes and a few of the zooms are tack sharp. They are wonderful.
    Why would I want to put the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II on my GX1 or my OMD? The lens is gargantuan in size relative to the MFT camera (yes, all of them). There will be an “unknown piece of glass between my $2000 lens and my MFT sensor, which the “manufacturer of the adapter” says will make the lenses better, (LOL). I would have no autofocus and the lens and the camera body would be totally unbalanced and extremely awkward to use …AND it will cost me $600 to do this? …
    I just do not see what all of the excitement is about this adapter. I must be missing something.
    I find the MFT system and the cameras and lenses to be great, just the way they are. I will keep my FF lenses on my FF camera…where they preform and autofocus nicely.
    I guess you could get a little creative with low DOF video…maybe that is what all of the excitement is about, don’t know…I am a stills guy.

    • Shea

      How should someone reply to this? Some people look for lenses based on a look they’re going after, something they can use in special cases, something that has specs they need for a particular situation. Is it so hard to understand, really?

      I have many native and many legacy lenses and I’ll give up my 85mm f/1.2L when I’m dead. I’m primarily a stills person, too. I usually go out with the 12mm f/2 or 45mm f/1.8 on my camera but there are plenty of situations where I’ll choose non-native lenses, relatively cumbersome or not.

      • Bob

        “I’ll give up my 85mm f/1.2L when I’m dead.” Quite humorous.
        OK…in the case of the above lens…why not just use it on my FF Canon Camera. I just do not see why I would want to go thru the expense and the trouble to mount it on my MFT camera. What is the point? I do no understand what that buys me?

        • Shea

          Well, if I had an FF camera, I’d definitely put it on that instead. So, if I were you, I would probably not use it on my u43 camera, unless there were some very specific reason. Maybe it’s easier to throw that lens + a small adapter into a bag before a trip, just in case you want to use it, than it is to take another larger camera. Who knows :-)

    • Ulli

      “Why would I want to put the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II on my GX1 or my OMD?”
      you answered that question yourself by saying you own the “ff” camera.
      but i assume you are keeping in mind that other people do not own more then one system.

      • digifan

        Well sorry Ulli, but does anybody buy an 85mm F.2 L II for (m)43?
        Wouldn’t that person own at least a very high quality APS-C to put it on? And wouldn’t that be a Canon then?
        To me it seems totally of the mark an illogical that anybody would buy that lens just for mirrorless and more so if it wouldn’t be a Canon.

        • its true the newer eos versiosn are not first choice for putting on a mirrorless, but i would love to get the FD version from Canon…but with the right adapter, with aperture control, the EOS 85 1.2 surely is interesting too for mirrorless, so i dont see your point here.

  • Sam Waldron

    Very interesting.

    Seems to make a bit more sense to NEX users, which is already a popular alt platform, and allow them to use full frame lenses with the intended FOV.

    DOF would remain same as aperture ‘boost’ would be offset by the ‘drop’ in focal length.

    I don’t believe this would not advisedly impact image quality however for full resolution stills…

  • Spend only (relatively) $ 600, and engage on m4 / 3 all the old FF lenses economic, making them lighter and absorb the factor of focal length, I would say it is much cheaper to buy all the lenses equivalent would be created. ..
    One explanation, after all think it is right that those who thought the patent derives some profit …

    Hearing the news, i must admit that I tried to build one with an old teleconverter, but no good results :)

    maybe after this attempt others will try…

  • Barry Lyndon

    It’s the same trick Zeiss used on their legendary f/0.7 lens. Trade part of the image circle for more light in the center. Now, I wonder what happens if – and when – someone attaches this adapter to an already fast f/0.95 full frame lens? :)

    • I think Kubrick used a combination of a focal reducer and wide converter. And I read somewhwere that there is limit for this adapter regarding to max speed opening somthing like max f/1.26?

      • Miroslav

        The limit of the lens + MB adapter combo is f/0.9.

  • ruy

    Interested that OM or Sony or Fuji not the first one to develop this. it is great but a bit expensive. I wonder if it works with RF lens.

  • camaman

    SO I guess no aperture control for new lenses that have no aperture ring?

    They could make the m43 version with a step less ring that controls the aperture tab on Nikon G and other lenses.

    I have a cheap Nikon G to m43 adapter and it works okay. But you don’t know to with aperture you’ve stooped down.

    They should also offer the m43 adapter as a “dumb” adapter with interchangeable upper mounts. So that we san easily upgrade and use Nikon, Canon, OM, R and what not on it.
    But I guess that would be money out of their pocket…

  • Bob

    I think it’s a few years too late. Except for fast teles, m43 has a very good lineup of quality primes and zooms. And if you’re adapting a tele, you probably don’t want to make it wider. I think it makes a lot more sense to buy a native m43 lens than to buy this adapter and put up with manual focus. It’s also not clear whether it will provide aperture control for all lenses.

    For someone with a large collection of legacy lenses who shoot mostly static subjects, this might be worth the price. For most of us, I think, it’s an interesting curiosity. And $600 is lot for “interesting.”

    • Rasmus

      Well, I can see a case for making a tele wider, because it also becomes faster. Consider the “Bigma” 150-500 f5.0-6.3. On M43 it becomes a 105-355 f3.5-4.5, equivalent to 210-710 onn FF. And yes, you probably won’t want to use this combo handheld, but AFAIK you don’t really want to hand-hold this with a FF camera either.

      And of course, a 300/4.0 becomes a 213/2.8, 35mm equivalent to 426.. A 2.8 will become a 2.0…

      It could really mean we FINALLY get decent wildlife/birding lenses for MFT.

      • BdV

        No, 300mm FF becomes 210mm on MFT. The 210mm is already the FF equivalent. That’s what they’re saying. In the example a 50mm 1.8 becomes a 35mm 1.2, which is damn cool.

    • mooboy

      It really depends on yoru collection I guess. I’ve recently agreed to sell of my entire Nikon FF set for a bargain family price (starting to regret). But, if I had a NEX, the idea of me being able to use all of my lenses on either Nikon or a NEX via adaptor (with same effective DOF, focal length etc) would have a HUGE appeal.

      Enough that if I hadn’t already invested in m43 (and agreed to sell my Nikon kit) that I’d probably look at NEX or Fuji X with this adaptor.

      Of course, the question is what is the quality really like for still images?

  • OldAlaskan

    This adapter would make my old Tokina 100-300mm f/4.0 into a 170-420mm f/2.8 monster. How much do (even single focal length manual focus) 400mm f/2.8 lenses cost used? $7,000 and up? $600 seems like an incredible deal.
    Alternatively, I could buy an old 300mm f/4 prime lens for what, $300? That would create a 420mm f/2.8 for $900. Not bad.

    • The factor is 0.71. The 100 – 300 will become a 71 – 213 mm lens.

    • W. C.

      You have your conversions wrong. This adapter reduces the effective focal length, hence, why it is called a focal length reducer. You’ve got to get the 2x crop factor for m43 out of your thinking with regards to this adapter. This is the inverse of that. Effective focal length and aperture is reduced by the magnification factor of 0.71x.

      Their illustrated whitepaper explain it.

      Admin, maybe you should add the whitepaper link to the article post.

      • W. C.

        “Effective focal length and aperture is reduced by the magnification factor of 0.71x.”

        The aperture is of course reduced numerically but increased in technical terms.

      • OldAlaskan

        Wait, I start with a Nikon 300mm lens (which looks like 600 mm on the 4/3ds sensor), the converter changes it to a 213mm lens which looks like 426mm on the 4/3ds sensor. Isn’t that what the whitepaper indicates?
        The converter reduces the focal length alright from 300mm to 213mm but due to the 2x crop factor the net result is a 1.4x effect focal length increase compared to the lenses use on a full frame sensor (rather than a 2x increase).

        • W. C.

          That sounds about right. I didn’t take into account the conversion by the sensor.

          So for long tele, you lose a considerable amount of effective range but gain an additional stop or so in speed. Is that a compromise that tele users are willing to make? I don’t shoot telephoto at all, so I don’t know what would be favoured. Is the extra speed really that important?

          • Rasmus

            Speed is very important for long teles, since you in general need shorter shutter times to eliminate camera shake when using a tele compared to a normal lens. Yes, IS helps somewhat, but long teles are also often used to shoot birds, athletes and other motives that make a lot of quick and sudden movements. I rarely shoot with longer shutter times than 1/500s with my 300. This means you need very good light, very high ISO or a very fast lens. Good light can be achieved by only using the tele during summer or in tropical countries, otherwise the options are high ISO or a fast lens. I profer the latter.

    • OldAlaskan

      I contacted Metabones to clarify the effect on the speed booster on a 4/3 system.

      “If I put a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (FF) lens with the speed booster on my micro 4/3 camera the result (on my micro 4/3 system) will be the equivalent of a 71mm f/1.0 lens on a FF system. Right or wrong?”

      Their response: “Right.”

  • shep

    How refreshing to see such a clever and creative idea. This is one of those “why didn’t I think of that?” ideas.
    Over time the price will come down and the number of lens mounts (OM, anyone?) will increase.
    Great fun.

  • Jason

    I was thinking I would have to buy the 75mm 1.8 just cause it is so awesome, though not something I would not use often on a 4/3 sensor.The problem is I already have to Nikkor 85mm 1.4 G. Now not only do I possibly not have to own duplicate lenses. But I will have a G adapter so I can use any other Nikon glass I don’t mind manually focusing.
    All for less than I would buy a 75mm 1.8 for.

  • The cost in this item is the adapter+the lens+the electronics. It is designed for APSC and then m43 as an “also works on” with a different mount.
    For m43 I believe that no compatibility between the body and a non m43 lens has been made that works. That takes out 1/3 of the “value” for m43. It can only handle one brand of lens, unless its made like an adaptall at the front. That takes out another 1/3 of the “value” for m43.
    That then begs the question. Why not just put the reducing lens in the m43 adapter and charge 1/3 of the suggested price (less in reality).

    This mooted adapter needs to be thinner and have adaptall front mount style and the ability to mount most lenses. Or it is a good idea that will not gain a market place other than its initial sales.

    I would love a m43 reducer adapter (maybe 0.6 not 0.71) for my M mount, R, OM and tamron adaptall manual lenses, I could use my elmarit 28mm as a wide lens not just as a standard lens. As for the proposed adapter, no, I don’t want to use AF lenses from canon in MF mode on a m43 thank you.

  • Anonytrackball

    Hey admin: I thought I sent a response but I didn’t see it posted. When I scrolled down to “Leave a reply” I found someone else’s name (the one this is posted under) and their “unpublished” email. If you can’t keep secret emails secret, that makes me not want to post here.

    • admin

      Can you tell me if you are writing as a member or not? And when exactly does the mail show up?

    • Anonytrackball

      Are you trying to be me? I have been anonytrackball for years. I do not send secret messages. The CIA won’t let me. They are going to expose me. Just who are you?

  • camaman

    Well I managed to get confused now… :-/

    So as far as reach and light gathering goes:

    A FF lens “becomes” on APS-C “becomes” on m43
    50mm f1.8 35mm f1.2 70mm 1.2

    Is that right?

    • Anonymous

      that would be about 1.17 stops according to the stopcalculator at

    • OldAlaskan

      A FF 50mm f/1.8 lens with the speed adapter BECOMES a 35mm f/1.27 lens.
      On a FF system it will be 35mm f/1.27 (but less than full coverage)
      On an APS-C system it will be 54mm f/1.27
      On a 43rds system it will be 70mm f/1.27

      (54mm because of the 1.52x crop factor, 70mm because of the 2x crop factor.)

  • camaman

    That comment above and question was mine.
    The comment section is broken. It often shows a name and email of some random previous poster.

  • test


  • OMega

    So far everyone seems to have ignored the fact that this device is for the NEX system and that as for now there is no device for the u43. So until Metabones come up with a u43 version all this hypothesis is purely an excersize.

    • Anonytrackball

      You are not reading the comments. I noted that, just above this comment of yours. I also noted that as no one has made a M43 electronics conversion package that works. Then a converted apsc adapter as this one is useless on m43. The usual standard adapters with an 0.6 lens would be better.

  • I don’t understand why some here feel entitled to play killjoy over and over, if a piece of equipment doesn’t fit exactly their unimaginative needs.

    Live and let live for God’s sake, or else seek mental treatment and antidepressants. The beauty of m4/3 is that it is developing in a vast system, where even a telecompressor might have its role.

    Metabones has produced all sort of adapters, so they definitely know their trade. If a cheaper version for m4/3 will be introduced, why should anybody protest at all, as if the Holy Sepulcre had been desecrated?

    If you cannot take the creativity of mirrorless, go back to your old mirrors and you’ll see a wrinkled face :)

  • I don’t understand why some here feel entitled to play killjoy over and over, if a piece of equipment doesn’t fit exactly their unimaginative needs.

    Live and let live for God’s sake, or else seek mental treatment and antidepressants. The beauty of m4/3 is that it is developing in a vast system, where even a telecompressor might have its role.

    Metabones has produced all sort of adapters, so they definitely know their trade. If a cheaper version for m4/3 will be introduced, why should anybody protest at all, as if the Holy Sepulcre had been desecrated?

    If you cannot take the creativity of mirrorless, go back to your old mirrors and you’ll see a wrinkled face :)

    • OMega

      Nice comment Amalric, however as regards “so they definitely know their trade”, you might want to note Ullis’ comment earlier in thread

      “Ulli14 hours ago | Reply “So, nothing for MFT, no Nikon F support, no Leica M.”
      I have a Metabones Leica M to M43 adapter, crap quality though.”

      I have noted from other sites other comments in the same vein, where Metabones quality is lacking in some cases where lens mouns are hardly well fitted leaving lenses loosely mounted.

      Also as I have already mentioned this product is for the NEX format, while they are looking into producing a u34 version. I’m afraid Admin has been a little forward stating it is a u43 adapter.

      • well thats just my opinion as i have an ass too…..I am not saying all Metabones are bad,because when i talked about the problem I had on the forums, other people with the same adapter said they were perfectly happy with it. Maybe its just the LM mount part which was not good(very weak steel blades to keep the lens tight to mount surface). After that i choose a noname which did not use springblades, and that one was even worse. Support was very friendly though, they sent me a new set of steel springblades, but still not good enough :-(
        Let’s hope they improved on this now, i still believe in them, especially now with this FR adapter.

      • Indeed I never had a Metabones adapter, OMega, I am a cheapskate, only Chinese stuff and I was lucky. But I noticed people who swore by Metabones.

        What I find interesting is the concept. Focal reducers, v. cheap, exist for telescopes, but there was never the room to make a camera one, unless it dropped the mirror.

        I don’t have much patience for those who diss legacy lenses. To me, thank you to IBIS, it is one of the nicest features of the system – environmentally friendly if you wish.

        So this focal reducer makes possible what wasn’t before, easy wides and UWA, at least if the optics are good, which it seems they are. Wides don’t really need AF, but Focus Peaking would be welcome, although as we know there are workarounds.

        • OMega

          Hi again Amalric and Ulli, I have read both your replies with interest.

          Ulli, I appreciate your comment regarding Metabones service, though must add, I have read of others who have complained about their quality concerning loose fitting mounts and their lack of support in dealing with matters.

          Amalric, like yourself I am happy with Chinese copies, using Chinese OM, 4/3rd and u43 adapters with no complaints. Being very happy using a 50 1.4, 135 2.8 or 200 4.0 Zuiko’s with either of my E’s (before purchase of the 50-200 E Zuiko), and still with my E-P2 with very good results, sometime in conjunction with the 2XA convertor.
          What realy interested me was your comment “what wasn’t before, easy wides and UWA”, that would be wonderfull, yes I rather fancied the idea of it’s possibilities with a 2.8 24mm (about an f2.0 18mm, according to the way it has been reported and read). However have you read Old Alaskans entry after making contact with Metabones, it would appear that on a u43 body it acts as a 0.4x multiplier, so no benefit other than the promised extra stop. It seems a lot of money to me for that gain.

          There appears to be a lot of missinformation about this ‘mythical item’ as I still don’t see it in a u43 mount.

          • I think there is a lot of confusion since the device is so new.

            The way I see is: convert your lens to 135 eq., according to the crop factor of your system camera.

            Then multiply the figure by 70%.

            I.e. in m4/3 a 50mm becomes a 100 mm. eq.

            With the adapter, you multiply this by 70% and so you obtain a 70mm lens.

            As the name says it’s a focal REDUCER.

            • OMega

              I agree with you entirely, what you say is correct, eg a 50mm lens used on a u43 body equals 100mm on a 135 body, there is no disputing that, it is fact. However when you read the header of this thread and I quote

              ““The Metabones ‘Speed Booster’ is a 0.71 x focal reducer, that will effectively turn your full frame 50mm f/1.8 lens into a 35mm f/1.2 lens.”.

              The problem here is that the vast majority of readers see this as that same 50mm lens as a 50mm lens and not the 100mm lens as it becomes on a u43 body, thereby expecting that 50mm to become a 35mm as opposed to the 70mm it actualy becomes.

              Confusion reigns supreme and like you I like the idea of being able to ‘create’ a UWA from a wide angle, however that lovely 24mm Zuiko, which is in reality a 48mm becomes no more than a pretty fast 35mm, even Olys reknowned 21mm becomes little more than a 30mm lens.

              What I’d like is a shift adapter that would work with a 24mm Zuiko.

  • cloudscapes

    It would be nice to see a passive version of this. I’d buy it even if it was “only” $100 less than the electronic adapter.

    I’ve got a lot of quality Minolta glass (50mm f1.2, kiron 24mm f2, kiron 105mm macro). It would be nice to use it to greater potential!

    • Miroslav

      Passive versions are available for NEX for 400-450 USD. See the website.

  • OldAlaskan

    I contacted Metabones to clarify the effect on the speed booster on a 4/3 system.

    “If I put a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (FF) lens with the speed booster on my micro 4/3 camera the result (on my micro 4/3 system) will be the equivalent of a 71mm f/1.0 lens on a FF system. Right or wrong?”

    Their response: “Right.”

    • a 71mm at f/1.0 has razorthin dof in 24×36 format….similar to canon’s 85mm L f/1.2 (think fullbody shot with fully blurred background)
      The dof rendering of my shg 35-100 came very very close to that of an equiv 70-200 2.8
      I am very curious to see examples how well this works out….

  • jim

    The most awsome thing about this is that there might be a 0.5x on its way!

    This is nice but a 0.5x would make m43 the most sort after system ever!

    50mm F1.4 FF lens becomes 50mm F0.65!!!!
    And my 35mm F2 would be a 35mm F1!!!
    and the 85mm F2 = 85mm F1!!!
    135mm F2.8 = 135mm F1.4!!!

    These are crazy speeds – with the OMDs sensor and IS these lenses would give proper fast action photography in the dark!! Amazing – would make the OMD possibly better in the dark than a D800 – all be it with MF!

    • Well I wonder if there are no intrinsic limits. For instance the more you reduce the focal, the more you introduce distortion, and thus loss of resolution at the edges. If you rectify it.

    • JHCCAZ

      “…Amazing – would make the OMD possibly better in the dark than a D800…”

      Let’s be careful here. Yes the f-numbers become very low for the focal length, but the light-gathering ability of the adapted lens is the same as what is was before, e.g. a 100mm f/2 lens would become roughly a 71mm f/1.4, and those both have the same physical lens diameter and light-gathering area (naturally since it is the same lens in front). With the Speed Booster, the total light is concentrated onto a smaller image circle, so you get the same number of photons onto an 0.7x diameter sensor as the non-adapted lens would have put onto its native camera sensor.

      So let’s assume for the moment that Nikon FF (D800), Sony APS-C (NEX-whatever) and Olympus OMD all have the same noise per square mm of sensor. With that assumption, the 0.7x Speed Booster would make the Sony NEX sensor perform on par with the Nikon D800 sensor (because the total number of gathered photons is compressed to the APS-C diameter, thus making up for the inherent disadvantage of the smaller sensor). On the OMD, the 0.7x would still produce wasted photons because the light concentration is not enough to overcome the even smaller MFT sensor. If they were to make a 0.5x Speed Booster, then you could get the OMD sensor performance to be on par with the full-frame sensor.

      In neither case would the adapted camera be _better_ than the Nikon FF D800 _unless_ you want to contradict the assumption above, and argue that the OMD or the NEX sensor is better (per square mm) than the D800 sensor. I don’t have a specific comment on that, but I believe all of these sensors are using similar-generation technology.

      What this Speed Booster (sub-1x focal length converter) does is to address the issues behind the infamous “DOF equivalency” and “noise equivalency” arguments that are used against smaller-format sensor systems like M4/3 (but in the process, negate the lens size & weight advantages of smaller formats). I have never worried too much abut the equivalency thing; I note that most people who drag out these arguments also ignore the fact that “Full-Frame” cameras are sadly disadvantaged compared to medium and large format cameras.

      If the optical quality proves to be high when coupled with excellent lenses, I would buy this adapter – but for special purposes and fun, not so that I could normally carry around the same collection of lenses as a Nikon D800 user.

  • camaman

    I contacted them also with the same issue but their response was very criptic and to short.

    I asked about 50mm f1.8 on m43 in regard to APSC, and their answer was this:

    “50mm 1.8 with Normal adapter to APSC around 75mm 1.8
    50mm 1.8 with Speed Booster to APSC around 52mm 1.2”

    What ever the hell that means.

    I asked for further explanation, since Englidh is not my main language and I think there might be a mistake in their ansver in the usage of the word “APSC”

  • Matt

    So, this would give a camera like the GH3 a 1.4x crop factor instead of the normal 2x crop factor? Not too shabby. Wished they could have squeezed the whole full frame image on the M/43 sensor, but 1.4x is still nice. A 35mm 1.4 becomes a 50mm 1.0 with this adapter.

  • Philip Broom

    Could such an adapter be made to allow APS-C cameras FULL FRAME???

    • Substantially yes. I just purchased the R-Fuji speed booster . And my 80mm summilux is just like a…80mm on my xe1. A great idea.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website,, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps:
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: Addthis cookies:
Disqus cookies:
Vimeo cookies:
Youtube cookies:

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.