# What if Canon made a speed booster adapter for EOS to M mount?



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 23, 2016)

Would you buy it? 

Particularly for M5. Pick up a stop in exposure, perhaps they could correct for CA a bit. 

Would be kind of interesting to have all my Sigma Arts 1 stop faster, etc. on the crop body.

Thoughts?


----------



## nvsravank (Oct 23, 2016)

Do the speed boosters also give wider angle of view as well? If so would love it. That might make me finally buy into APS-c. 

I moved from film to 5d since I wanted to stick with full frame. I love the low depth of field look.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 23, 2016)

Will be looking at getting an M5. No interest at all in a speed booster.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 23, 2016)

I'd certainly get one if the optics were good enough


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 23, 2016)

be kind of hard to without the patents.


----------



## rs (Oct 23, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> be kind of hard to without the patents.


How can the concept of a telecompressor be patented? Like teleconverters, they've been around for years and have been made by numerous manufacturers. Patenting specific optical formulas and implementations makes sense, not the concept.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 23, 2016)

nvsravank said:


> Do the speed boosters also give wider angle of view as well? If so would love it. That might make me finally buy into APS-c.
> 
> I moved from film to 5d since I wanted to stick with full frame. I love the low depth of field look.



Speed boosters work by shortening the focal length. They, accordingly, widen the angle of view.


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 23, 2016)

AlanF said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > Do the speed boosters also give wider angle of view as well? If so would love it. That might make me finally buy into APS-c.
> ...



Good for wide angle shots.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 24, 2016)

Speed boosters are a nice idea, it would be really neat to play with, but as far as where the system should be headed it would make more sense for Canon to invest in the wide aperture, wide angle lenses that the system should have.

The whole reason these flappy-box-less short flange distance systems exist is supposedly to make the entire system smaller and less expensive while maintaining equal (or at least similar) image quality, specifically in focal lengths under 25mm (where the crop factor equates to the same focal length as the flange distance of a full frame SLR).
Using a speed booster to get wider angles is just adding more complexity to already needlessly complex lenses, we're supposed to be getting wide angle lenses with far fewer elements than the Full Frame equivalents of the same FOV.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 24, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Using a speed booster to get wider angles is just adding more complexity to already needlessly complex lenses, we're supposed to be getting wide angle lenses with far fewer elements than the Full Frame equivalents of the same FOV.



One of the significant advantages of the speedbooster is that is also gives you an effective wider aperture


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 24, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Using a speed booster to get wider angles is just adding more complexity to already needlessly complex lenses, we're supposed to be getting wide angle lenses with far fewer elements than the Full Frame equivalents of the same FOV.
> ...



Which just makes it equal to using a shorter lens with a 1 stop wider aperture... except the booster adds 200 grams to the weight of your camera, and 22mm to the length of your lens, and it degrades image quality, and it probably hurts AF accuracy, all while costing you an extra $500.
If you have a lot of Full Frame glass already, it could be worthwhile, but it should never be suggested as the best option for any situation outside of re-using old gear.


----------



## Mikehit (Oct 24, 2016)

I don't see anyone complaining too much about the Metabones on the MFT and Sony cameras and on the A7RII reports are very complimentary about the AF. And $500 is cheaper (and smaller, and lighter) than carrying another lens. 



> Which just makes it equal to using a shorter lens with a 1 stop wider aperture


In some cases the M lenses don't even exist. Take a 50mm f1.4 and put it on a speedbooster and there is no M lens that has anywhere near that aperture. Or use the 100mm f2.8 with a speedbooster.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Oct 24, 2016)

If a "EF to EFM" or "EF to EF (crop)" speedbooster existed, I would buy it and an APS-C body happily. (!) 

Today, without a "Canon to Canon-crop" speedbooster existing, I would never consider buying Canon crop-anything (EFS, EFM, XXD, MX, etc.). I love my Canon FF perspectives and I hate (and regret) that I shot them at 1.6 crop factor for a few years when it was financially convenient for me,-it was and still is a bad decision in almost every way. You can scale this up too, it would be like taking the 4x5 camera and only using it with cropped negative carriers or these stupid medium format cropped backs!?! That is my opinion.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 24, 2016)

On the day the M5 was introduced, I e-mailed Metabones and asked them to make a Speed Booster. I never got a reply but I'm assuming that they were already examining an EF-to-M booster but hadn't seen a market for one.

Given the size of Canon's APS-C sensor, the booster could be 0.64x, resulting in a 1-1/3 stop improvement in lens speed. I would certainly buy a booster if I bought an M5 and if the optical quality was good enough, but I'm not sure how much I would use it. My primary goal in buying an M5 would be to reduce weight and I would probably buy the 18-150 lens with it. Using the M5 with a Speed Booster and a 28-300 Tamron lens or a 24-70 f/2.8 Canon lens would defeat that purpose. My 5D3 without the battery pack and with the Tamron lens probably makes a batter, if somewhat heavier, all-around package.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 24, 2016)

If I got an m5. I'd definitely get one in a heartbeat- if it was made by canon. If made by metabones... Not so sure.

But that must come with a penalty to iq, so I'd have to see what that like before purchasing. Besides, my issues with mirrorless still hold, so I'm not getting one.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 24, 2016)

i think it would be worthwhile for Canon to offer a native, good and affordable EF/EF-M speedboost adapter. Would strengthen the entire EOS M ecosystem and make it more attractive to their many EF lens owners. 

Personally I would not buy one, since I am more than happy with EF-M lenses and using my EF and EF-S glass with regular "extension tube adapter". Don't need lenses wider than the 11-22. And 22/2.0 is fast enough for what I normally do. Also, I do not believe there is a "free lunch". IQ and probably AF performance will likely suffer.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 24, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> I don't see anyone complaining too much about the Metabones on the MFT and Sony cameras and on the A7RII reports are very complimentary about the AF. And $500 is cheaper (and smaller, and lighter) than carrying another lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, the lenses don't exist.
So we need a set of f1.0 Prime lenses (Ideally at 15mm, 22mm and 32mm), and maybe a 10mm f2.0 to try to at least equate to those 16mm f2.8 lenses.
But half the people using the system almost seem to be personally insulted by the idea of actually using something with real Full Frame equivalence, "that's not the point of Mirrorless" they say, unless you're one of the other half of people who seem to take interest in the system for its ability to use new, cheaper bodies to take advantage of old lenses.

And so we end up in this weird limbo with just about everyone universally being unsettled by the suggestion of native fast primes being made for the system, since half the people just want to use their old glass and the other half object to the premise itself.
It's almost like half of Mirrorless users would be better off with a high end Point and Shoot and the other half really just want a Full Frame Mirrorless, and the system as it exists right now actually isn't made for anyone, it's the biggest compromise that just manages to awkwardly fit within "acceptable" standards for the most people.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 25, 2016)

in promciple yes, but much lower percentages ... 

if "old glass" means current Canon mirrorslapper EF lenses ... yes.
if by you mean old manual clunkers, then no. tiny minority of less than 1% fools, who seriously want to use their optically subpar old glass bottle bottoms designed for film on today's hi-rez image sensors. typically those folks also love "retro" cameras with lots of mono-functional wheels, knobs and buttons. and aperture rings on lenses ... la la Fuji-land denizens!

99% are people in their right mind who smartly avoid spending tons of money on freaking expensive f/1.2 crop lenses for use on crop sensors only. they buy FF sensor cameras and FF-capable lenses - either Sony or for lack of FF mirrorless FF systems by Canon or Nikon ... mirrorslapper cameras and EF or F-mount lenses.

in terms of Crop sensor MILC systems, Canon is abolutely on the right track: use a large enough sensor (APS-C, not puny m43 or punier Nikon CX), and keep it small, keep it simple, keep it affordable!

no need whatsoever for expensive, big, fat *fast crop prime lenses*. leave that tiny 55mm f/1.2 niche to Fuji-nerds. 

good quality, small, convenient zooms like EF-M 11-22, 18-55, 55-200 plus a few moderately fast, very high optical quality, very small and excelkent value primes like 22/2, 28/2.8 macro are right on track. plus hopefully some day EF-M 85/2.4 STM IS plus maybe a EF-M 50/1.8. bring it on, Canon! forget about 10/2.0, 35/1.4, 55/1.2, 85/1.4 lenses for CROP sensored camera systems, not needed. buy an FF sensored camera and highly affordable f/1.8 to f/2.8 lenses ... much more sensible and way more useful!

a Canon EF/EF-M speedbooster adapter for "old" EF glass and those few, who believe in free optical lunch might sell in reasonable numbers, but not at 500 but rather at 199.


----------

