jamato8 wrote:
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.
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. ...Show more →
You can see the your adapter version on your A7RII under: Suitcase Tab > Version > Lens.
Fred Miranda wrote:
'Not having great luck' with the 135L? Hunting too much or not working at all?
You can see the your adapter version on your A7RII under: Suitcase Tab > Version > Lens.
I just got a Metabones IV and the flanges are parallel to 0,0001. So big improvement in QC or I just got lucky. It's the "T" flocked version.
135L not working at all.
Who did you get your Metabones from? I got mine on Amazon and will send it back as it is the older version. Maybe B&H?
Well my version of the Metabones SW is .41 so it is up to date. I was hoping there would be some problems eliminated with the SW but mine is up to day now.
If you switch back to normal viewfinder quality, rather than high, acquisition time is faster. Must be the resources being used. i hope Sony can do a FW update to address this.
Who did you get your Metabones from? I got mine on Amazon and will send it back as it is the older version. Maybe B&H?
Well my version of the Metabones SW is .41 so it is up to date. I was hoping there would be some problems eliminated with the SW but mine is up to day now.
It's weird because my 135L works with the A7R. It just hunts a lot.
jamato8 wrote:
...If you switch back to normal viewfinder quality, rather than high, acquisition time is faster. Must be the resources being used. i hope Sony can do a FW update to address this.
That has been the case for a while according to Sony. As noted below "The time required to auto focus may also be longer" (when High display quality is selected):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Article ID: 44408 | Last Updated: 11/27/2013
The live view image is displayed with better resolution when Display Quality is set to High than when it is set to Standard.
NOTE:
Battery consumption is higher when Display Quality is set to High. The time required to auto focus may also be longer.
The default setting for Display Quality differs depending on the camera.
ILCE-7: Standard
ILCE-7R: High
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pdmphoto wrote:
That has been the case for a while according to Sony. As noted below "The time required to auto focus may also be longer" (when High display quality is selected):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Article ID: 44408 | Last Updated: 11/27/2013
The live view image is displayed with better resolution when Display Quality is set to High than when it is set to Standard.
NOTE:
Battery consumption is higher when Display Quality is set to High. The time required to auto focus may also be longer.
The default setting for Display Quality differs depending on the camera.
ILCE-7: Standard
ILCE-7R: High
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is what I am seeing.
So far, to be honest and I thought from the videos it would be different, I am not impressed with the way the II is working with legacy lenses. Sony does advertise this as a camera for other lenses and in Austria even packaged it with an adapter for EOS lenses. I hope this gets better.
So far even with the 11-24L except on easy targets, I am getting hunting. I think I may have made a blunder in this purchase if things don't get better.
Unfortunately, Sony is amongst the worst- if not the worst- when it comes to firmware updates. Certainly for an issue affecting 3rd party lenses, the chances of that being addressed are pretty damn low (if Sony follows past behavior with regard to firmware). Who knows though, maybe they will change, or Metabones will provide a fix.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Unfortunately, Sony is amongst the worst- if not the worst- when it comes to firmware updates. Certainly for an issue affecting 3rd party lenses, the chances of that being addressed are pretty damn low (if Sony follows past behavior with regard to firmware). Who knows though, maybe they will change, or Metabones will provide a fix.
The thing is, they advertise this as 3rd party compatible (exceptions yes but that is the big push), and that is the big difference vs someone trying to adapt lenses, like Nikon to Canon, which Canon does not indorse. Sony does have responsibility in all of this.
Aug 06, 2015 at 08:43 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
jamato8 wrote:
The thing is, they advertise this as 3rd party compatible (exceptions yes but that is the big push), and that is the big difference vs someone trying to adapt lenses, like Nikon to Canon, which Canon does not indorse. Sony does have responsibility in all of this.
Where has Sony advertised the camera as 3rd party compatible? Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen that anywhere, so would like to see what they have said. In practice I think we aren't going to see anything from Sony that will help 3rd party lenses, but the good news is that I think we will see a good effort from Metabones and I think they have a very good team. I think we will need patience, because we won't know for at least three months how much they can upgrade the adapter to work with Canon lenses. It is in their best interest to get as many lenses and possible working with the adapter, so let's give them some time to see what they can do.
I would say that the easy fix would be for Sony to offer a split screen type EVF mode with 12x and 1x in different parts of screen but we know that won't be coming with a firmware update.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Where has Sony advertised the camera as 3rd party compatible? Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen that anywhere, so would like to see what they have said. In practice I think we aren't going to see anything from Sony that will help 3rd party lenses, but the good news is that I think we will see a good effort from Metabones and I think they have a very good team. I think we will need patience, because we won't know for at least three months how much they can upgrade the adapter to work with Canon lenses. It is in their best interest to get as many lenses and possible working with the adapter, so let's give them some time to see what they can do....Show more →
They have bundled the an adapter for EOS in the past (Australia and a few have posted that got the adapter from Sony as a bundle). Also it is in their literature.
jamato8 wrote:
Are there any other differences besides the flocking?
From metabones website:
Enhancement on new MARK IV (MB_EF-E-BT4) vs. old MARK IV (MB_EF-E-BM4):
The inner hole is painted with flocking material coating. This can further reduce the internal reflection.
I'd say that's the only enhancement... Unless they're not disclosing other improvements for marketing reasons...
davewolfs wrote:
Lloyd has confirmed that 5x zoom is bad. 12x is good. I've asked him what his opinion on the A7II 5x is and he said he never noticed this issue.
Need to see it for myself.
I got my A7R II yesterday and coming directly from the older A7R I can admit I did not notice anything wrong with the 5x zoom. Why is this? My manual focusing method currently is as follows: 1x for composition, 5x for peaking check and max zoom for visual check. I have my Peaking set to high and peaking color to red.
So I do not use 5x (or 7.2x in the old A7R) for anything else than checking the peaking and placing focal plane with that; works very well even for macro and I often do not need max magnification. With peaking at high I also get peaking blinkies in the subjects eyes/irises in the max magnification. Softer glass apparently do not show peaking during magnification, but my APO Sonnar 135, Batis 85, FE 55/1.8 etc. work quite perfectly for my type of shooting this way. Not a huge wide angle shooter but I have not noticed issues with my 16-35 either this way.
I never trust any non-magnified MF to be very accurate so a lot of peaking blinkies in non-magnified mode due to peaking level "being set to high" does not bother me at all; I just use it to get focus to right postal code so to speak.
Just got my A7r2 tonight and yes, the focus magnification is definitely not as good as the a7r... hopefully this can be addressed with a firmware update.
Just wanted to report my findings today with adapters:
Metabones III adapter.
----------------------------
Canon 35mm f1.4L -- very good AF & IQ
Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake - never achieved AF
Sigma 85mm f1.4 -- Very good AF & IQ. With this adapter anyway, veiling flare when shooting towards light.
Voigtlander 90mm f3.5 APO -- beautiful lens on this camera. Also veiling flare toward light with this adapter.
Canon 135 f2L -- only achieved AF lock once. Very nice manual focus experience.
Canon 70-200mm f4L IS -- Poor AF in lowish light. Decent AF outdoors. Used lens' IS, turned off IBIS.
LA-EA3
---------
Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8 v1. Excellent fast, accurate, AF. Will be my go-to lens for this camera.
Sony Zeiss 85mm f1.4 -- No AF. Excellent MF lens on this adapter.
Sony 135mm f2.8/4.5 STF -- Not an AF lens. Excellent on this camera. IBIS really helps.
Sigma 150mm f2.8 OS Macro -- Decent AF. Hunts on low-contrast subjects or in low light.
LA-EA4
---------
Minolta 200mm f2.8 HS -- faster AF performance than same adapter on A7R. IBIS really helps.
Hawk's Leica M adapter
-------------------------------
Tried two lenses that were very bad on A7R -- Minolta CLE 28mm f2.8 and Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 v1.
Both lenses the vignetting & magenta corner casts were GONE.
Edge & corner smearing still present, but somewhat reduced vs. A7R.
We seem to have strayed OT here. I'm not sure what adapted AF performance has to do with EVF quality - adapted MF performance, certainly. Perhaps it's time to start a separate topic about AF with adapters since many interested in this topic will be missing some of these interesting posts because of the topic heading. That said, interesting post from ebrandon.
tn1krr wrote:
I got my A7R II yesterday and coming directly from the older A7R I can admit I did not notice anything wrong with the 5x zoom. Why is this? My manual focusing method currently is as follows: 1x for composition, 5x for peaking check and max zoom for visual check. I have my Peaking set to high and peaking color to red.
So I do not use 5x (or 7.2x in the old A7R) for anything else than checking the peaking and placing focal plane with that; works very well even for macro and I often do not need max magnification. With peaking at high I also get peaking blinkies in the subjects eyes/irises in the max magnification. Softer glass apparently do not show peaking during magnification, but my APO Sonnar 135, Batis 85, FE 55/1.8 etc. work quite perfectly for my type of shooting this way. Not a huge wide angle shooter but I have not noticed issues with my 16-35 either this way.
I never trust any non-magnified MF to be very accurate so a lot of peaking blinkies in non-magnified mode due to peaking level "being set to high" does not bother me at all; I just use it to get focus to right postal code so to speak. ...Show more →
It's not bad it's really just not that useful using 5x when one immediately jumps to focus closer in at 12.5. I don't think anyone focuses at 5x . honestly I wish the 5 x was not even there it's just a extra button push to get you to 12.5 where you want to focus anyway.
Be careful what you read.
On peaking the high setting is nice in low light but can get very busy in good light on the high setting. You really want it as low as possible as that will also be more accurate. When it's too high it goes to contrast levels that maybe not be even in focus. I think this is a issue with folks saying it's not very accurate. You really want the least amount of dancing ants as possible given the light your working in. I learned this using Phase One backs with there focus peaking, the lower the amount the more precise that focus points or areas become.
GMPhotography wrote:
It's not bad it's really just not that useful using 5x when one immediately jumps to focus closer in at 12.5. I don't think anyone focuses at 5x . honestly I wish the 5 x was not even there it's just a extra button push to get you to 12.5 where you want to focus anyway.
Be careful what you read.
On peaking the high setting is nice in low light but can get very busy in good light on the high setting. You really want it as low as possible as that will also be more accurate. When it's too high it goes to contrast levels that maybe not be even in focus. I think this is a issue with folks saying it's not very accurate. You really want the least amount of dancing ants as possible given the light your working in. I learned this using Phase One backs with there focus peaking, the lower the amount the more precise that focus points or areas become....Show more →
I agree with this from my personal experience with the A7R. For magnification, I always went with the biggest enlargement possible to make sure the subject was in focus.
Same experience with focus peaking. High is okay for landscapes, but cumbersome with more critical shallow DoF shots, for example portraits. I found another good work-around without using the magnification tool to save time to manually focus: set the EVF display to B&W. This works a lot better than color to use focus peaking - especially at a lower amount of the red peaking lines. Much more accurate this way.
