Ok so it's been confirmed pretty much that the user didn't know about the high quality setting and jumped the gun on evf quality. Now we need to figure out how well these Canon lenses work!
I agree. Someone please test the 135 F2 /200mm F2.8 latest versions. Someone mentioned it was a fail but they where older versions. I may just have to get the 70-200 F4 Sony. Did I mention I hate zooms.
GMPhotography wrote: I agree. Someone please test the 135 F2 /200mm F2.8 latest versions. Someone mentioned it was a fail but they where older versions. I may just have to get the 70-200 F4 Sony. Did I mention I hate zooms.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My 135L hunts a lot on the A7R (Metabones IV). It works but it's frustrating.
I hope it works much better on the A7RII. I will know for sure tomorrow.
Great Fred keep us posted . Is yours Version II
I just got a gig for a hundred portraits in one day on a corporate gig. A 135 would be the lens
I don't have any info about focusing the 200 f/2.8 II on the A7rII but regarding its optics it was one of the best performers of all the lenses I tested on the 5DSR - sharp across the frame @ f/4! Here's a full-sized f/4 sample from the lens on the 5DSR:
GMPhotography wrote:
Bummer such a great lens. Let's hope the 200 works
Tell me about it. I was so looking forward to using the 135L. I have the 70-200 II so I am glad to read it works well. Now to test my latest favorite and oh so sharp, 100-400II, 11-24 and then the 24-70II. I hope the 100L macro works, but I see no reason it shouldn't. On another forum I see nothing but raves now that the camera has gotten into some users hands. It seems to be exceeding many peoples expectations. Even the DO 70-300 (or whatever it is) works well.
Anyone have the Canon 400 f5.6 they could try? That lens, with the A7RII sensor, and IBIS would be to die for, even if it couldn't track birds in flight.
Notwithstanding EVF quality being set to High it is not always easy to focus manually with legacy lenses, even with focus magnification. Colour is a distraction, particularly on an EVF. I have found with the Nex 7 and the A7 that the easiest way to do MF is by setting Creative Style to Black & White and having Setting Effect ON in Live View Display (3 on Settings tab). This applies to both the LCD and EVF and allows for much easier MF. I'm sure it will be the same with the A7RII. However, if shooting in JPEG the image will also be in B&W so it is important to shoot in raw unless you want your images to be monochromatic.
jamato8 wrote:
Tell me about it. I was so looking forward to using the 135L. I have the 70-200 II so I am glad to read it works well. Now to test my latest favorite and oh so sharp, 100-400II, 11-24 and then the 24-70II. I hope the 100L macro works, but I see no reason it shouldn't. On another forum I see nothing but raves now that the camera has gotten into some users hands. It seems to be exceeding many peoples expectations. Even the DO 70-300 (or whatever it is) works well.
Did you try your 135L? I am still hoping it will be ok. If the 135L does not work, the 400 f/5.6L shouldn't be any different (older AF design).
Okay been away from canon a long long time. But let me ask a silly question and yea I'm OT. Sorry
But with the A7RII with IBIS would it make sense to buy non IS glass. I'm just looking at a bunch of options. I remember back in the day that Canon non IS glass was actually considered sharper than there IS brother. I just looked at this and went.HMMM
GMPhotography wrote:
Okay been away from canon a long long time. But let me ask a silly question and yea I'm OT. Sorry
But with the A7RII with IBIS would it make sense to buy non IS glass. I'm just looking at a bunch of options. I remember back in the day that Canon non IS glass was actually considered sharper than there IS brother. I just looked at this and went.HMMM
Guy, there is really only one lens that is sharper as a non-IS than as an IS lens and that is the 300 f/4L. In most cases the IS lenses are sharper, but not by much. In some cases in which the IS lenses are much newer (like the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II) the IS lens can be substantially better. That is probably true for the Mark II super teles as well. We will see whether lens or camera based IS works better. In most cases I expect lens based IS to work better, but I could be wrong. There will be some great deals, however, if older non-IS lenses have decent AF and they can get at least decent stabilization with the camera.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Did you try your 135L? I am still hoping it will be ok. If the 135L does not work, the 400 f/5.6L shouldn't be any different (older AF design).
Not having great luck. A big use lens, the 100-400II isn't working well at all and on 400 not at all.
With Leica lenses so far the 50 pre ASPH is fine and the DR, my 35 ASPH isn't bad at all but the corners are not great but for some work it would be fine. The 90 pre ASPH Summicron, just prior to ASPH is fine.
35L fine
70-200L II so-so
11-24L ok, still need some more time.
135L, locked twice and that was it. Doesn't work, only manual. Great balanced and feel with this camera, better than Canon but no dice. I think that Sony could do a FW update that would make it work.
In general I am finding too much hunting and if the areas doesn't have good contrast and or a decent line, fair for lock on. I am still on the learning curve as this is the first mirrorless I have ever handled.
I did the Metabones IV update but I am not sure if it went right as it just says OK and never updated. The IV I got has the grayish paint inside not the T version so I am sending it back.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Guy, there is really only one lens that is sharper as a non-IS than as an IS lens and that is the 300 f/4L. In most cases the IS lenses are sharper, but not by much. In some cases in which the IS lenses are much newer (like the 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II) the IS lens can be substantially better. That is probably true for the Mark II super teles as well. We will see whether lens or camera based IS works better. In most cases I expect lens based IS to work better, but I could be wrong. There will be some great deals, however, if older non-IS lenses have decent AF and they can get at least decent stabilization with the camera....Show more →
Thank you Steve appreciate the input as i said I have lost track of Canon glass and like all of us here just trying to figure out some of these options.
I would think and certainly can be wrong . Lenses with IS may have the faster AF motors Which would be better I would assume.
I agree. Someone please test the 135 F2 /200mm F2.8 latest versions. Someone mentioned it was a fail but they where older versions. I may just have to get the 70-200 F4 Sony. Did I mention I hate zooms. 
.
Which would be better I would assume.