That's because you live in Germany :) If I'd say the same to the import tax office here in Italy, they would make me a tax inspection, and probably a fine of three times the amount (as penalty) in the year 2018

could you post your results? it would be very interesting to see

I know this is just the first test we've seen but come on guys, did you really think they would provide a quality product after intentionally selling a faulty one in the first place? It seems my critical views that were scoffed at are valid yet again.

But to play devils advocate, that Tokina lens is not great wide open, so there's that too.

Glad I didn't take the bait and got my money back from the start.

True. Put it on a better lens.

@Eimulis It's not a sharp lens. We've already proven this. It was a good choice for a long time because it was the only wide angle zoom that was fast for awhile. Things have changed. The SLR Magic 12mm is sharper edge to edge so is the new Rokinon 16mm.

But it's you're opinion so have to it :)

For me its only of interest, what is possible within my budget. So...

1) Is there another option to get 8mm at F2.0 (or better) and RECTILINEAR images? ($5.000+ lenses don't count.)

2) How good would the Tokina 11-16 perform on the best adapter, e.g. the Speedbooster?

3) How big is the difference to the Light Cannon?

For 1) I think there is none. So, I would really love to see some example pics from the Tokina 11-16 at F2.8 with the Speedbooster. And from there we could start about the quallity of the Light Cannon.

@Psyco sorry to hear of your troubles with the new Visilex II in your quest for an inexpensive focal reducer. I just found your old thread here: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/577/using-focal-reducers-with-gh12-and-old-lenses/p1

I spoke with Fotodiox when returning my Visilex I and was told on the phone that the boss has an engineering degree, he does all the engineering on all their products and did he did all the math so that the Visilex I shouldn't have any problems and the next ver. II will be perfect.

I looked at my visilex I and a std. Nikon F to MFT dumb adapter and by eye they had the same thickness aka FFD. I is clear to me after looking at the speed booster (which is thinner) that Fotodiox's design had not accounted for the glass element shortening the effective FFD. That's why the speed booster is thinner than a standard dumb adapter.

Forgive me if I am slightly off in my numbers, but, I remember in a technical book "Motion Picture Camera Data" or 'The Panaflex System' by David Samuelson reading that any optical element behind a lens (where light rays converge) will alter the path of that light, shortening the effective FFD by a certain percentage of the thickness of that element. He was referring to flat gels (Kodak Wratten gels) used behind the lens in a Panaflex or a Bolex. While I know that a curved optical element could compensate for that, I still believe the effective FFD needs to be shorter, an aspect of Physics that was ignored in the Visilex I.

My point is that the engineering going on at Fotodiox may not include much experience with optics and the Visilex is their 1st product with optics. Now, their actually selling a bad product and then continuing to sell it, marketed as a "soft focus" adapter are pointing to much different problems with the company, and that's another reason for me to not trust any of their products again.

Ok so I unexpectedly got the Excel as well. I didn't ask for it, and I made my bet on the Vizelex Mark II only because of the promise of a 0.5 focal reducer, not another 0.7 or 0.74 (I have my SpeedBooster for that). So I will heavily complain with Fotodiox about this unwanted gift. Anyway, very briefly I'm posting a couple of image grabs comparing the Vizelx and the Speedbooster. Same lens (Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f2.8), same everything. Sorry for shitty images, really made on the fly, I'll post some other (better) comparison picture later, but as by now I'm a hurry to get some jobs done.

@lolo sorry but I already have too many unwanted focal reducers at the moment :)

2 other images. Sorry for unimaginative subject. Same exact settings.800 ISO mov All-I. Tokina 11-16. Full open. Here the differences are visible. Biggest problem I see with Fotodiox is color. In terms of softness it's worst than the SB but not too bad IMHO.

@fablo

actually that's alot better than I was expecting. I sharpened up the fotodiox image and there wasn't that much difference. If this was $100 I'd probably buy it ! On your next set, have more detail in the center - thanx

Thanks @flablo. I'm thinking the same @kurth - the Vizelex is not perfect, but for its low price its quite ok.

There is still some coma with the Vizelex (that causes the colour shift and make the blacks dark blue) which is a bit of a problem as it reduced contrast and sometime sharpness. But this can be made much better in post (e.g. sharpening, contrast correction).

There is vigneting at 11mm - but when croping to 1:2.35 you wouldn't see it any more - and its because of the Tokina+GH2 (larger sensor!), not the focal reducers.

The Tokina is a very good lens....in the centre, but the corners have quite some CA, softness, distorsion,... we start to see all this now, because before no one used such a big portion of the image circle.

Would Photodiox have released this version of the light cannon first, everything would have been ok.

But I think for its price the performance is ok - I will stick to it and only upgrade to a real speedbooster when I see myselfe using the adapter very often (which is not going to happen, as I have very good Olympus 4/3 glas;-)

I didn't ask for this Excel, as I accepted to bet on the Vizelex Mark II only because they promised a 0.5x version. They sent it to me out of the blue, but I already have the SB and don't need it (I'd prefer to save money for the Canon FD or BMPCC version, in case). They also sent it to me without specifying it was a replacement (as they guaranteed me they would have done) so I had to pay import taxes AGAIN (32 euros). I wrote an email to Fotodiox complaining about all this (not wanted/needed item + additional expenses) and asking what they are going to do about it. Let's see what they come back with....

@kurth on my package the declared value was $159