Hello. Has anyone experience adapting an EF telephoto zoom lens to Fuji x-mount using a speedbooster? I think there is at least one from viltrox and perhaps another one from metabones.
Intention: native Fuji zoom lenses are very expensive but canon ef are crazy cheap 2nd hand.
Why does it need to be a speesbooster? Why not a regular EF to x adapter?
1 Like
Fringer do an adapter that allows you to use autofocus on a Canon EF lens mounted to a Fujifilm body. I own the Pro I adapter and it works well.
2 Likes
Here’s an alternative (you didn’t say what focal length you were considering, so this may or may not suit your plans:
Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS | Contemporary
It’s about half the price of the Fujinon 100-400 and doesn’t need an adapter. Reviews I’ve read indicate that it’s optically way better than Fuji’s lens.
I barely kept myself from buying one of these on Black Friday.
1 Like
Thanks everyone. My basic idea was to get a FF 70-200 f2.8 lens. If my understanding is correct I would get exactly this on my apsc camera when I use a speedbooster. Such a lens would certainly be more versatile to me then a f5.6 apsc lens albeit much shorter.
I am not a wildlife guy.
Puh. Just made a very important comparison:
When put side by side the 3 different solutions are very different. The camera is always a Fuji X-S10, the lenses are from left to right Fuji 70-300, Canon 70-200 F2.8 with adapter, Fuji 100-400 (camerasize.com does not have the sigma). The left solution weighs around 1 kg, the other 2 almost 2 kg. For travel purposes only the small version is useable for me. And that would be (realistically) my main use case. But maybe there is smaller 200 mm prime? I need to keep looking.
1 Like
Back when there was no 70-300, I adapted a Canon 70-300 and Tamron 100-400 using the Fringer adapter. (As well as a 11-18 and 60mm macro)
The Tamron worked well, the Canon did not. It focused incredibly poorly and slowly. It had a visible color cast. Its focus ring had a very strange acceleration to it that I couldn’t get used to. And of course, being a Canon, the zoom ring turned the wrong way. Still better than not having a long tele lens, but it was not a good experience.
The Tamron 100-400 worked much better, zoomed the right way, and focused reliably. It even worked well with Fuji’s tele converters. It had a built-in focus override that worked almost as well as Fuji’s. Thus, the performance of the Fringer adapter very much depends on the lens. I have not found a good resource for this, you just have to try it out.
Still, when the Fuji 70-300 came out, I bought it on day one. I made a list of things it would need to have for me to buy one, foremost centered on weight and size. Then it was announced, it was a good bit lighter and smaller than I had hoped. So I bought one.
The adapter does work well (for sone lenses). But if there are native options, I’d aoways prefer them. I would only recommend it if you already have a bunch of Canon or Nikon glass that you want to keep using.
3 Likes
Yeah. I assume your approach is very valid. I was driven by the hope to get my hands on something that would look like FF 70-200 F2.8 for portrait, still-life and travel stuff for little money. Given that the 70-300 has very decent close focus capabilities this seems a very useful solution for my use case.
I love the 70-300 for close-up photography. If you want more, add a good macro filter and you can get seriously close to things.
3 Likes
This is the 70-300 with the 1.4x tele converter (for increased working distance):
And here one without. The blue tit is perhaps 5 cm long:
It’s a great lens for closeups!
5 Likes
+1 on the 70-300. It’s a fantastic lens, very light, great close up capabilities, and it also manages great bokeh for portraits due to its close focus.
4 Likes
hi guys, love your photos. i struggle very heavily to create good photos with such long focal length. i feel that all i get are the super obvious compositions. any good tips on how to get better with long lenses?
i also thought that this would be good for portrait but honestly faces look super 2-dimensional, boring and rather “fat” for lack of a better word. my 56mm*1.5 looks much more pleasing.
2 Likes
Yeah, I find that it only works in some situations. I’d say it’s just the compression caused by the focal length.
I don’t have any advice besides practice… Continuous shutter is your friend and be trigger happy to see what works and what doesn’t.
2 Likes
Bit late to the party but I can also vouch for the Fuji 70-300 for close-ups.
I am not a macro photographer, but I have had some successes with this lens.
This robber fly is only about 2cm:
3 Likes
I am slowly getting some some understanding of how to use these long focal ranges. For me it is not so much about filling small things in the frame but more about how the size of subjects in the distance seem to be similar in size and becoming more 2-dimensional. In this case the fog helps to still give a sense of distance.
4 Likes
Awesome shots, especially the building.
1 Like