It's great to see so many people happy with their purchase of the Viltrox focal reducer. I personally didn't enjoy it very much, but can appreciate the novelty it provides. I'd love to check out the Metabones Speedbooster one day.
I've used this speedbooster for several months, and I love it. If you want to make magnificent portraits and street photos, this is the way with the nifty-fifty. Of course architectural and landscape, as Christopher mentioned are not the best use cases, but Canon has the EF-S 10-18mm and the EF-M 11-22mm for that. Also the adapter has an arca-swiss style hot shoe mount with a standard thread tripod thread, which can also be removed. Also it isn't recommended to leave the speedbooster mounted on the camera for overnight, as it slightly drains the battery, even, when the camera is turned off. Another thing: Canon's EF-S line lenses also can be used with a slight modification (you need to shave off the part of the lens mount, which sticks out), but neither of the EF-S (not even the third party) lenses are recommended, as they can puncture the optics of the speedbooster.
Good point with the battery drain, that's useful information for anyone who gets that thing! All third-party lenses that I know about, even when designed for aps-c sensor, use the EF-mount specifications though (rather than the EF-S mount), so they don't protrude into the area where a regular full frame EF lens wouldn't go as well - so they should definitely not touch the optics of the speedbooster.
I can confirm this. The battery Drain killed this Adapter for me and pushed me over the edge to finally get a Canon EOS RP. The Battery Drain on my M50 was way too much for me since it literally means i would have to take the whole thing off the camera everytime i stop shooting for more than an Hour. In a Test it sucked a full Battery dry in about 24-30h.
I always detach the lens after using it, so I can store my M50 more efficiently, so battery drain isn’t a big issue for me. @Shadow81989, that’s really good news, since 4K is cropped so you can utilize the almost full circle of the third party EF-S lens in that mode.
Great to see this, I have the Canon M5 which I really like but was saving for the EOS R as I've always hankered for full frame, when I discovered this Viltrox speedbooster so ordered one back in December. I'd already been swapping my EF-S Canon lenses over to EF preparing for full frame, so this is a perfect solution for me, I get the wider field/more light advantage at a fraction of the cost and for my mostly family and hobby pics, its more than good enough quality wise - edge sharpness is a lot less of a problem when you want blurry backgrounds anyway, and I have the Canon adapter and some aftermarket ones if I want better edge sharpness, so effectively each EF lens becomes two as I have the choice of with/without 0.71 converter !! I'd still like an EOS R or one of its successors, but for my use it wouldn't be good value for money ;)
You're literally the first person to show us that speedbooster actually helps in getting faster shutter speeds! The total light recieved maybe the same between full frame and apsc cameras, but due to the smaller sensor the intensity of light has increased, resulting in faster shutter speeds. That could well be a huge plus to get this combination. Normal people would hardly notice the loss in image quality but will appreciate faster shutter speeds You're simply the best reviewer out in the photography world.
This also makes me wonder about the true nature of f/stop on crop-sensor cameras. Is a Canon-official EF f/2 lens on an APS-C camera actually f/2 anymore, and is a third-party EF-mount but APS-C lens f/stop calculated based on full-frame, or based on the crop sensor size? I've only had my 77D for a few months so it will be some time before I can justify the cost of additional cameras, but occasionally there are current-ish Canon mirrorless cameras on the used market. One of those might make for a better casual carry camera, but I would hate to essentially buy the same capabilities as my 77D only in a smaller package. A reasonably priced speed booster might be a great way to get some ultra wide angle capability if the quality is good enough since there are a lot of older EF lenses available cheap.
@@TWX1138 F-stop of Crop and FF remains the same when FF lens used on crop body using a normal adaptor. That can be proved by the shutter speeds being basically the same when FF cam + FF lens & Crop cam+FF lens combo is used. The difference is only in increased depth of field for crop bodies due to smaller sensor. The 1.8 lens when speedboosted actually becomes a 1.2 in terms of light recieved but becomes an f 2.0 in terms of equivalent depth of field of FF camera.
But you can just increase the shutter speed on a full frame camera and raise the ISO to match exposure and you'll end up with the exact same picture as an APS-C camera and a focal reducer. At the same ISO you're getting about double the noise on APS-C compared to full frame.
@@TechnoBabble Its not about Apsc being better than FF using a speedbooster. I'm merely stating that the performance gap can been reduced between the two. Not everyone can afford a FF and even if they can afford the bodies, the lens prices are in a different league compared to apsc. So having an apsc that can perform certain tasks of a FF like blurrier bokeh and slight improvement in increased shutter speeds to reduce noise is an achievement of its own!
Cool review; always wondered how well these adapters actually worked. Good thing for EOS-M users is there are excellent ultrawides anyway... the 11-22 I believe and various Samyangs.
People often see speed boosters and think of them as "making the camera full-frame." Keep in mind that the sensor is unchanged and will not behave differently. These focal reducers are not as good as native lenses with equivalent configurations. There is also a limit to aperture size with smaller sensor pixels because the microlenses for each photosite on the front of the sensor are designed to reject light that is too far off-axis. The T-stop will go up at a dropping rate as aperture opens more. That's why lenses set below f/2.0 (i.e. f/1.4) do not gain the amount of light they're supposed to on paper. The depth of field will generally work as expected but f/1.0 will not necessarily be a full T-stop better than f/1.8. These are neat tools and can be very nice for people with existing lenses, but native lenses are always going to be superior.
This is why I buy Metabones adapters, used. Because they actually make the lenses sharper LOL, the Ultra and the XL that is, their older speedboosters did not do that.
Hey Chris. Curious if you could do an updated review with this speed booster and the m6 mkii. I'm contemplating that set up vs going full frame and moving on to the R/RF series. Friendly request 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
It would be interesting to see how this adapter stacks up with the recently released metabones speedbooster for the EOSM. It's $500 in the US market so it would have to be quite a bit better to justify the additional cost.
Metabones is the company that started the current FF to APS-C (and FF or APS-C to MFT) speed booster phenomenon, and no company has yet to match their image quality. So I think the review actually gives focal reducers an underserved bad reputation. For a lens review channel that spends almost all of its time reviewing the optical performance of lenses, why save a few hundred bucks if you’re going to compromise the image quality of all the expensive FF lenses you attach? The actual “speed booster” is much higher quality optic with significantly less issues. And it is the only brand that’s taken seriously by video shooters who care about IQ. What a focal reducer allows you to achieve on a crop sensor camera is amazing when you are able to get very close to legitimate FF results-and considering it will affect all lenses attached, spending the extra “Metabones tax” is maybe the best “value for money” in optics if you want/need this sort of versatility. Also, as a crop shooter using a focal reducer you can get “two” lenses out of one-an advantage that doesn’t seem to be exploited as much as I would think. Also, the Metabones EF to E edition gives you top notch autofocus on Sony’s recent cameras (using most of Canon’s recent lenses)...so the potential here for added value is high...especially on a RU-vid channel that focuses so closely on value for money. ***I only endorse Metabones for their optical quality. Their customer service is awful and their prices are a little higher than they could be-but that’s only because no one has matched their quality yet.
Canon also has a patent for a "speed booster" for the EF-M. Would be interesting if that ever came to market. I am sure it would be right up there with the Metabones in cost.
@@jhn011100 Sometimes a patent isn't because of an intent to make the product, it's to act as a blocker so no one else can make the product. Since Canon seems to be interested in tiering their products so that one *has* to buy the more expensive product to get features, a patent on a speedbooster for the EOS M cameras might be to try to prevent the very Viltrox and Metabones products that we're seeing, so that photographers interested in full-frame quality actually have to buy full-frame cameras instead of using EF lenses to achieve basically the same result. It'll be interesting to see if these products have managed to avoid Canon's patent, or if lawsuits are forthcoming.
@@TWX1138 Metabones has been the pioneer in the speedbooster game and even a company as small as Viltrox has been pumping out speedboosters long before Canon came out with their patents. If Canon had a beef with anyone, a lawsuit would have already been in the works but, from the look of things, it's more likely that Canon is trying to just get a piece of the pie and cash in on the loyalty of their fan base who would pay top dollar for an OEM product over a 3rd party product of similar quality. FWIW Canon has an advantage in the AF connection and should be able to capitalize on that. They should also be optically superior, given that they have the optical formulas of all their lenses already in their data banks. I use EF mount lenses on Sony but, if I was shooting Canon, I'd probably just go get an RP. If I did have an M50 though, I'd probably hold out for the Canon speedbooster than get an optically inferior Viltrox or overpriced Metabones. p.s. I do use or have used Viltrox and Metabones adapters with my Sony a6000, a6500 and Olympus E-M1 and find them a good way of maximizing use of my EF mount lenses. I especially like the fact that I can mount 3rd party APS-C lenses like the Sigma 17-50/2.8, Sigma 18-35/1.8 and Tokina 11-16/2.8 on my E-M1 without vignetting while getting an APS-C FOV on an M43 sensor.
I use it combined with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM macro. I like the focal length of 71mm on crop much more for portraits than 100mm on crop. This lens has very good IQ to begin with, so the results with a speedbooster is still fine. The negative impact only occurs where it doesn't matter: the borders. 71mm f/2.0 with image stabilization is very nice.
Thank you for your review. I was looking for a long time for this review. I think this review could be litttle longer & detailed with popular & cheap 50mm f1.8 lens. 70-200mm lens, 105mm macro lens etc.
A nice review I have waited! Aside from all the hypes about a speed booster, people often ignore the fact that the sensor size isn’t changed, which means, even though you get faster shutter speed, wider FOV and shallower DOF, the worse noise performance of crop sensors won’t be changed. Thus, we can’t say that using a speed booster will match a full frame camera when it comes to the low-light performance, which I think that many people expect it to. So for the cheaper Viltrox, as you concluded, the performance can’t match full frame cameras in every aspect, and for the more expensive Metabones, the performance could challenge a full-frame in some aspects, but for that price, it would be better to upgrade to an affordable entry-level full frame camera. This is my conclusion after having used a variety of speed boosters. I strongly think that for the crop sensor bodies, it would be much better to make the most of its sensor size, such as longer zoom range, more compression, cheaper lens selction and easier to carry. :) Thanks again for the review!
The additional light might just be enough to compensate for the weaker ISO performance - either way it doesn't help the image quality, so I totally agree that one should just embrace the different sensor sizes for their different qualities - for example smaller sensors for carrying the equipment around more easily, bigger sensors for generally fewer compromises in image quality. Easy as that. :-)
The smaller sensor will actually have to work at lower iso due to increased shutter speeds, giving back the advantage to speedboosted camera. Although its impossible to beat the FF but this combination does punch way above its weight, for the price. Corner sharpness will not matter much for portraits or candid wedding photography, but if used for architecture it can be a problem as it is cropped 1.1x. but since architecture shots are better taken at higher apertures, the viltrox gets better in that aperture range.
@@lindenbaum9448 I guess for video it is useful to remove the additional (!) crop factor that many cameras introduce in 4K, in order to get wide angle shots. The loss in image quality doesn't matter that much, due to the much lower resolution (about 8MP, compared to over 20 for stills...)
I got one on Alliexpress when Viltrox just launched and I´m very happy with results , I use with a m50 , the canon 50 mm 1.4 lenses "become" a 1.0 , its amazing!!
As of your previous test.. u have notice the image quality of a full frame camera ie 6d is always better than your m3 with the same lens.. so it makes this test rather innacurate to blame it on the viltrox adaptor for lack of sharpness. U should test it with m3 with and without adaptor
@@andrewm8450 Haven't had a chance to use it much yet. So much gear, so little time :-) I can say the auto focus is as good or nearly as good as the native lenses so far, which is a huge plus. Haven't taken enough photos to yet to determine it's overall image quality. I trust Chris's review here, as there's really none better for independent lens reviews on Ytube.
Definitely a dream come true, as fringing, edges softening and warping is never my issue, since as you said, it works better for video makers, than still photographers who may want all of the image perfect. With the other Macro+Wide attachment, you get a crazy composition and that's what Id like to do. Lately, I had been searching M1, M2, M3 cameras so I could use 25mm F1.4 CCTV lens, but now I have another good reason to use the small camera. Thanks for the review.
Chris, thanks for the review. I have been using it on my EOS M for the past 6 months. Image quality is acceptable for me. The only problem is battery drain even when the camera is turned-off. The adapter continues to communicate with the lens. There is no drain with manual (vintage) lenses or when lens are not mounted with the adapter. Viltrox has refused to come up with a fix so far.
Best review of a speedbooster I found. It explains clearly why a Canon 24-70mm f2.8 mounted on my GH5ii resolves as a 17-47mm f2. Some lenses don't work though... (stuck with a tamron 70-200mm f2.8)
Definitely amazing for video. If you're publishing in 1080p on youtube where it gets compressed anyway, the quality difference is basically zero. The extra light + better lens options makes a big difference.
Well if you want a blurred background the best advice is to get further away from your subject! Using the Canon 70 to 200mm f4 with an ordinary adaptor on an EOS M series will get you very blurred backgrounds from 150 to 200mm at f4! But I suppose this speedbooster could be useful for the kind of street photographer who likes to get in close...
Thanks for the review! It's also worth noting that the loss of sharpness through the speedbooster isn't actually a loss - because the camera uses wider area of the lens, the image is sharper than if you used the same fullframe lens on the apsc camera.
wrong the optics take the larger image circle of the full frame camera and squeeze it down into aps size. your comment aonly applies to putting a full frame lens on a crop body using an adapter that does nto have any optical glass elements.
Damn good stuff. Real testing to show full frame vs speedboost. The only thing I wish I could see is a viltrox+85mm vs something like a 56mm+adapter+1.61 crop factor at the same f-stop. The price comes out to around the same for both.
One note about the "brighter Image" thing. You indeed get more light in the camera than with a normal adapter, as you are getting the same amount of Energy onto the sensor as you would with a FF camera. At equivalent ISOs (e.g. 400 on both FF and an APS-C Camera) you will indeed end up with a faster shutter speed. However ISO 400 on a FF camera will be about as noisy as ISO 200 on an APS-C Sensor. So when you use the speedbooster and you want to compare the resulting IQ with Full Frame, you should reduce the ISO of the APS-C Camera instead of increasing it's shutter speed. That gives a more "apple-to-apple" comparison, rather than showing how this setup has the fastest shutter speed. When matching ISOs like that an APS-C Camera with the speedbooster will perform pretty much precisely like a Full Frame Camera in Noise performance, Shutter Speeds and DoF. Also you wouldn't want faster shutter speeds for video. You typically want to retain a reasonable amount of motion blur at about a 180° shutter. That would mean 1/48th for 24fps and 1/120th for 60fps recordings. Nonetheless very informative coverage about this speedbooster, just as we are used to here at the channel.
I think you need to test this further - you should be finding sharper results as a good speed booster tends improve IQ rather than degrade it. It's the opposite of a teleconverter in almost every way, and as others have pointed out you'd see this side by side on the mirrorless apsc camera where that compressed image circle that crams more photons into a given area equates into compressed lines equating to an increase in sharpness and a decrease in chromatic aberrations. I've even found to remove that glow from lenses that would otherwise be unusable due to the built in optical corrections due to the focal reducers mode of action. If you still have them you should try out some of the lenses with poor IQ on apsc - like the Tamron 28-105mm f2.8 or 35-105mm f2.8...
I wonder how the Viltrox speedbooster compares to the Metabones speedbooster! Especially in image quality. That would have been the kind of comparative review I would have wanted to see a year ago... 😁
with your test page, you should do a comparison of the m3 with and without the viltrox... i bet the m3 has the same problems natively with the corners...
Please do this same analysis on Sony cameras with a Metabones Speed Booster Ultra adapter and maybe a Mitakon Zhongyi Lens Turbo II. Such analysis would be very helpful.
I would love to throttle whoever coined the term "speed booster". I guess now we have to start calling extenders/ tele-converters "speed reducers". This is a wide angle adapter.
You forgot to mention...l vintage lenses with adaptors work.... however sometimes are a little problematic..... the other thing is you need to take both adaptor and lens off the camera while changing the lens the adaptor behaves strangely at times.....
Excellent video, just a question: when you compare sharpness, the lens aperture of the camera with viltrox takes in account that the adapter brings down the aperture of the lens? For what I know for example the 50mm 1.8 when it is fully open becomes a 1.2 so you need to close the diaphragm to compare it with the 1.8 without adapter, you can see the effect also on your video when 50mm 1.4 becomes 1.0. Thanks
I have bought a Pixco focal reducer Nikon F to EOS M mount. I nearly lost my marbles when I heard something ratteling inside the camera and found a tiny screw that came of the focal reducer. It damaged the shutter mechanism. Since Pixco is in China there was no warrenty.
Now I really want to see the Metabones Speedbooster for the EF to EF-M. 3 times the price of the Viltrox??? Can it be that much better (especially in the corners)?
@@leboch65 the result are the same at smaller aperture f2.8 beyond (iirc). At bigger aperture though the metabones performed better, which is the point of speedbooster: to unlock bigger aperture so you get to use faster shutter speed.
Lok at your blades of aperature. My camera a6000 when u go down to 1.8 closes aperatures to 2.8. If you wanna fix it you have to go to f22 then come down to f 1.3 on lens 50mm f1.8
Thanks for the review! I've been using this adaptor for about 6 months on my M50 and it's ok, but the images are pretty soft and the abortions are really bad
Very informative video, thank you. Metabones has released a similar speed booster for a much greater price. Does the higher priced speed booster over come some of the Viltrox short comings?
@@christopherfrost I watched the video. I got confused cuz I was mistaken. I thought the L lenses were for full frame, but I now know that is incorrect, it means luxury
Canon web site claims EF-S lens used Via Mount Adapter EF-EOS M there is No cropping effect. Does this mean a Viltrox adapter will show no cropping effect when EF-S lens is used?
Thanks to "The world's crudest, but also easy-to-understand diagram of the path of light". Also I wonder why isn't a Canon's original speed booster exists out there. It could be quite popular I think. Canon could go through problems with their glass mould and some fancy techs to deal with some optical adjustments. Or maybe it isn't that easy to handle than just saying? Maybe manufacturing difference depends each lens' refractive porperties? But there must be something I'm missing cause I don't know much about complicated optics and physics.
