I thought of comparing the results of using some of my older lenses with the Fotodiox focal reducer which has a magnification factor of 0.72 and also comparing the tresults of using the brilliant Canon 2x extender just to see if there is a real-world difference in the results of the photographs I take.
The photographs will be taken using just the normal lens, then with the addition of the FR (Focal Reducer), and another one with the Canon 2x Extender and with the 2-3x TC I've just recently acquired. The photographs won't be the same subject, they won't be taken within minutes of each other unless they were taken just to show the results of using the different adapters as in the FR and 2x Extender, I may, just for fun include the odd photograph taken with the FR and the 2x TC attached as well. The comparisons would be simple, with no fancy lines per millimetre or contrast charts. Most of the photographs will probably be taken out of my front door, but with the weather permitting, even down the road.
I wanted to see if it mattered that using various adapters made a difference to the images we took and the results we ended up with and whether anyone even cared about how we got the photograph in the first place. The differences are quite obvious though when comparing the results on paper, for instance using one of my favourite prime lenses, the Canon 50mm f1.8 FL with the FR attached gives a result similar to a 36mm f1.2 in 35mm film speak, but on the micro four-thirds format it behaves like a 72mm f1.2 lens, and just for fun adding the 2x TC turns it into a 144mm f2.4 lens.
I was rather disappointed when I found that the two Canon 50mm lenses won't mount onto the FotoDiox. If the baffle is removed, the FL version can be mounted, but the FD version will not mount at all, I may try using them on my Macro tubes.