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.
2 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!
3 Likes
