I received my copy the other day. AF-wise, I would say that both the MC-11 and Metabones are about on par with each other. Of course, there is more AF features on the Sigma MC-11 since my lens acts like a native FE lens but that's not this thread is about. As I mentioned it in the genera MC-11l thread before, it seems that the corner/edge performance using the MC-11 is better than that on the MB, at least at close focusing distances of up to 5 feet or so. How could that be? I even thought that I am just imagining it.
So, this morning, I took both out and put both of them in the front of my light box and took a picture of them separately. I tried not to move my left hand used to hold the adapter and used my right hand to do the replacement. But still I am not vouching for the scale but right away, just with the naked eyes I could tell the difference in the shape of the throat opening between the two. The Sigma has a wider opening on the top and bottom and as such, it appears that the MB has a more elongated rectangular. Could that be that the different shape of throat effect the image quality? I could envision that a wider/larger throat opening to interfere less of the light path, especially towards the corner/edges. Maybe the difference will be less prevalent at larger distances than just up to 5 feet. Who knows?
Well a lens projects a image circle so keep that in mind. Its not coming in square or rectangle but a circle. I think one thing to keep in mind the adapter is built for Sigma lenses PERIOD. So whatever the back end of the Sigma lenses is what counts but given looking at the adapter its more square and the Sony sensor is so close to the mount one has to wonder. Im glad i backed out of all this as it seems its another half baked solution when it looked like it was fully cooked in their marketing. Now you have to wait for firmware. Im sticking with native as much as I can. The only other adapter set I like is Leica m to sony as it involves very little to the setup. But i do not like the square opening as it maybe just too darn close to the sensor to hit a 3:2 format
FYI, Guy, the MC-11 comes with the current FW and it doesn't have to be updated again, at least for now. It is the lenses that will have to be updated to perform optimally on the MC-11.
I am sure they will tweak the performance of the MC-11 further down the road in the form of FW updates, just like MB did and still does. The FW updates may include lenses that will be added to the lineup of compatible ones.
I cannot comprehend how a slightly different opening would affect IQ in any way. For sure, no rays are blocked, or else you would observe massive vignetting.
I own both adapters and I can see no real difference between them other than things having to do with AF and operations. MC-11 is on one of the first FW versions while MB has been around for quite some time and fixed most of the issues with their latest FW. So far, I have more confidence in the MB, and certainly so for my non Sigma lenses.
My metabones IV gets it done with Canon lenses to my A7R v1, even at f/2.8.
Guess you could put some calipers in there to measure and test some of your favorite lenses wide open.
Eyvind Ness wrote:
I cannot comprehend how a slightly different opening would affect IQ in any way. For sure, no rays are blocked, or else you would observe massive vignetting.
I own both adapters and I can see no real difference between them other than things having to do with AF and operations. MC-11 is on one of the first FW versions while MB has been around for quite some time and fixed most of the issues with their latest FW. So far, I have more confidence in the MB, and certainly so for my non Sigma lenses.
Like I said, I am not referring to the AF performance. They are both excellent. Still, I am not convinced that it would make that much of a difference either. I just noticed the MC-11 throat opening's shape is different than that of the MB. If the light traveling in the path within the opening and there is physical boundaries in the form of the edges of the opening although not enough to manifest itself as massive vignetting but somehow gets deflected by the edge enough to cause a slight interference, Again, you don't have to believe me as I am not 100% convinced myself but you have both adapters and you can form your own opinion.
Again, I didn't do any A & B comparison either, just comparing images I took under different conditions.
dgdg wrote:
My metabones IV gets it done with Canon lenses to my A7R v1, even at f/2.8.
Guess you could put some calipers in there to measure and test some of your favorite lenses wide open.
David
Oh, yes, the MB adapter works just fine and probably it is is the best out there for right now.
And too bad, I don't have any caliper to do the measurement... .
But the shape of the opening is different from each other; all sides of the MB are "notched" in the middle while that of the MC-11 appears straight or notched in a different way that they appear straight. I am sure each company did quite a bit of modeling to minimize the interference of the light path before bringing their respective adapter into production. And yet there is a difference.....
AGeoJO wrote:
I received my copy the other day. AF-wise, I would say that both the MC-11 and Metabones are about on par with each other. Of course, there is more AF features on the Sigma MC-11 since my lens acts like a native FE lens but that's not this thread is about. As I mentioned it in the genera MC-11l thread before, it seems that the corner/edge performance using the MC-11 is better than that on the MB, at least at close focusing distances of up to 5 feet or so. How could that be? I even thought that I am just imagining it.
So, this morning, I took both out and put both of them in the front of my light box and took a picture of them separately. I tried not to move my left hand used to hold the adapter and used my right hand to do the replacement. But still I am not vouching for the scale but right away, just with the naked eyes I could tell the difference in the shape of the throat opening between the two. The Sigma has a wider opening on the top and bottom and as such, it appears that the MB has a more elongated rectangular. Could that be that the different shape of throat effect the image quality? I could envision that a wider/larger throat opening to interfere less of the light path, especially towards the corner/edges. Maybe the difference will be less prevalent at larger distances than just up to 5 feet. Who knows?
Can you post some images to compare corner sharpness of both adapters? According to Tony Northrup in the video bellow, the MC-11 has more corner smearing issue than the Metabones IV with the Canon 16-35 f4 IS:
ThanhHa wrote:
Can you post some images to compare corner sharpness of both adapters? According to Tony Northrup in the video bellow, the MC-11 has more corner smearing issue than the Metabones IV with the Canon 16-35 f4 IS:
This is a part of my earlier post above:
Like I said, I am not referring to the AF performance. They are both excellent. Still, I am not convinced that it would make that much of a difference either. I just noticed the MC-11 throat opening's shape is different than that of the MB. If the light traveling in the path within the opening and there is physical boundaries in the form of the edges of the opening although not enough to manifest itself as massive vignetting but somehow gets deflected by the edge enough to cause a slight interference, Again, you don't have to believe me as I am not 100% convinced myself but you have both adapters and you can form your own opinion.
Again, I didn't do any A & B comparison either, just comparing images I took under different conditions.
BTW, I saw that post from Tony Northrup but I didn't actually watch it. He was referring to corner smearing of a Canon lens on the Sigma MC-11 while Sigma clearly put a note on the MC-11 "DESIGNATED SIGMA LENSES ONLY". FYI, I do not work for Sigma and I am not a Sigma fan.
That's interesting. From measurement, MC-11 has a smaller opening compared to Metabones Mark IV. In another review, I also read that when using ultrawide (16mm or wider, tested using Canon 11-24mm), Metabones has better corner performance compared to MC-11.
Does either one overshoot infinity? I hate how the cheap adapters are made thinner to way overshoot infinity. Also. How square are the two sides? If they're not, you'd get decentering effects
ctmfoobar wrote:
That's interesting. From measurement, MC-11 has a smaller opening compared to Metabones Mark IV. In another review, I also read that when using ultrawide (16mm or wider, tested using Canon 11-24mm), Metabones has better corner performance compared to MC-11.
From measurement? What measurement are you referring to, please? I used the Canon 11-24 with excellent results on my Metabones IV and i am not considering using that lens on the Sigma MC-11. I fully intend to use the MC-11 solely with my Sigma lens or lenses.
roofdweller49 wrote:
Does either one overshoot infinity? I hate how the cheap adapters are made thinner to way overshoot infinity. Also. How square are the two sides? If they're not, you'd get decentering effects
It depends on the lens used, I would say. Frankly, regardless of the FL, even using ultra wide angle lenses, I focus on the target and calculate in or guesstimate the resulting DOF based on the aperture and on what effect I have in mind. I don't just set the lens to infinity and start shooting in wide vista landscape photography. That's my way of doing it and I fully understand that some folks may do it differently.
I believe you are misinformed. Decentering is caused by the axis of the adapter (in case, a lens is mounted on it, it will translate into the axis of the lens although the lens itself could be perfectly centered, for example) NOT being perfectly perpendicular to the sensor. If the opening's center of the adapter is NOT perfectly aligned with the center of the sensor you get some shift but the corner performance should still be a direct translation of the corner performance of the lens itself. However, there could be some vignetting at one side/edge/corner.
But I didn't do any measurement of the throat opening nor centering evaluation. I do not have the means to do that. I just noticed that the shape of the throat opening of the two is different and that got me wondering. I am expecting my Zeiss Batis 18mm tomorrow. Maybe I can do a comparison between the MC-11 and Metabones using solely my Sigma lens at the same time I am checking the Batis in the weekend. We will see.
I just received my MC-11 and tested it with my Sigma 50 1.4 art EF mount + A7r2.
I had high hopes in the video AF function; after updating the lens with the dock in almost appears the MC-11 only does CDAF (slow) AF in video mode; it's nothing like my FE 2.8 F/2 for AF speed.
Also, with Canon glass + continuous shooting, the MC-11 locks up after the first shot with ALL Canon glass.
Set it to single shot and keep hitting the shutter it's fine, but as soon as you try C-AF with MC-11 + Canon lenses the 2nd shot = locks up the camera.
.