Here's a couple of lenses I didn't see on Fred's list:
With latest Metabones IV T (0.41):
Canon EF 24 f/1.4L MK2 - AF Works
Canon EF 85 f/1.2L MK2 - AF Works
Canon EF 8-15 f/1.4L Fisheye - AF Works
Canon EF 180 f/3.5L Macro - AF don't work / Hunts
rick5 wrote:
Here's a couple of lenses I didn't see on Fred's list:
With latest Metabones IV T (0.41):
Canon EF 24 f/1.4L MK2 - AF Works
Canon EF 85 f/1.2L MK2 - AF Works
Canon EF 8-15 f/1.4L Fisheye - AF Works
Canon EF 180 f/3.5L Macro - AF don't work / Hunts
I have a Metabones IV with current firmware and tried out my Canon 100-400 L MkII lens on the A7RII.
When I first set the 100-400 up on the A7RII I was disappointed with auto-focusing at distance with the mm set much beyond 300. While lock on was reliable at 100-200 - it started to hunt more as I moved from 200-300 and by 400 was hard to get a lock on contrasty subjects in daylight. If I first achieved near focus at 200mm, then zooming in somewhat worked - but was not reliable.
Just playing around with the camera, I noted that the Steadyshot was On but selecting it said "Invalid with this lens. If the lens has a Steady Shot switch, perform the operation from the lens". I thought this was curious as I expected the Integrated stabilization to work with non-Sony lenses.
In any case - selecting Steady Shot Setting and setting Steady Shot Adjust to Manual and the SS Focal length to 400mm seems to change the behavior of the autofocus at 400mm to the point where it will always focus - and do so quickly if the range is similar. Larger differences in range - such as 3 m to infinity will cause a slowish crawl to focus - but it always achieves focus.
I have no idea why this works, but I've played around with it a bit to check if it was not a happy illusion because I so dearly wanted the 100-400 to work on the A7RII.
I'd like to see if others with this combo experience the same. I note that handheld images of distant aircraft shot with this combo show amazing detail.
(note I posted this in another dpreview thread in similar form)
GABarber wrote:
I have a Metabones IV with current firmware and tried out my Canon 100-400 L MkII lens on the A7RII.
When I first set the 100-400 up on the A7RII I was disappointed with auto-focusing at distance with the mm set much beyond 300. While lock on was reliable at 100-200 - it started to hunt more as I moved from 200-300 and by 400 was hard to get a lock on contrasty subjects in daylight. If I first achieved near focus at 200mm, then zooming in somewhat worked - but was not reliable.
Just playing around with the camera, I noted that the Steadyshot was On but selecting it said "Invalid with this lens. If the lens has a Steady Shot switch, perform the operation from the lens". I thought this was curious as I expected the Integrated stabilization to work with non-Sony lenses.
In any case - selecting Steady Shot Setting and setting Steady Shot Adjust to Manual and the SS Focal length to 400mm seems to change the behavior of the autofocus at 400mm to the point where it will always focus - and do so quickly if the range is similar. Larger differences in range - such as 3 m to infinity will cause a slowish crawl to focus - but it always achieves focus.
I have no idea why this works, but I've played around with it a bit to check if it was not a happy illusion because I so dearly wanted the 100-400 to work on the A7RII.
I'd like to see if others with this combo experience the same. I note that handheld images of distant aircraft shot with this combo show amazing detail.
(note I posted this in another dpreview thread in similar form)...Show more →
That's actually great news-- because it suggest there's a way to get this lens (and perhaps others) working well with the adapter.
rji2goleez wrote:
Probably. But more recently it will be interesting to see if anyone tried the EA3 adapter on the A7rII which relies on the camera's 399 PDAF points rather than the more limited EA4. Similarly, I wonder which works better . . . Tamron A-mount with EA3 vs Tamron EOS with Metabones IV.
That's what I'd like to see as well. the 399 PDAF points would be welcome. The Metabones IV seems to not be playing too well with non-Canon lenses.
I have a Metabones IV for my Canon glass, but given the problems I think the better option is to sell them off and see about an A mount long lens option that will work with the EA3.
I was just participating in a Facebook group. Two individuals report that the Tamron 150-600/EF does not play well with Metabones IV or Commlite. Another individual claims the Sony A-mount version with EA3 adapter works well but not 100%. Not sure what that last part means but it's information for us all.
I just ran through my Canon lenses again with Metabones IV (0.41) and reconfirmed that none of them do AF except the 35mm F1.4 L which works like a champ in PDAF, probably as well as it did on 5DIII.
When testing the 100mm F2.8 L macro I found that it will snap to focus at longer focus distances if I rack the focus to infinity stop. Lens then pops from infinity OF to in focus.
Not sure, but it seems that this is probably a Metabones firmware issue.
I think all my Canon glass will go onto the B&S forum soon.
rji2goleez wrote:
I was just participating in a Facebook group. Two individuals report that the Tamron 150-600/EF does not play well with Metabones IV or Commlite. Another individual claims the Sony A-mount version with EA3 adapter works well but not 100%. Not sure what that last part means but it's information for us all.
Thanks.
I think the LL guys will be the definitive source for this lens/adapter combination. Hopefully they will also have an EA3. My recollection is that Michael was using the 4 for his early review.
dmward wrote:
When testing the 100mm F2.8 L macro I found that it will snap to focus at longer focus distances if I rack the focus to infinity stop. Lens then pops from infinity OF to in focus.
Does the trick reported by GABarber above for the 100-400II work on the 100L? I can imagine in both cases the interplay of steadyshot and Canon IS causes trouble.
p.12 #12 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
SOme of the issues with the macro and "not above 250mm" and so on sound like defocusing issues. Those scenarios maybe stretch the defocus so far the on sensor chip phase can't tell which way to go.
Then again, hmm, if stuff like 300 2.8 IS II works fine in all scenarios, that doesn't add up since that certainly can create a lot more defocus than a 70-300L at 300mm can. This might be good news though as it might hint that the issue is potentially more amenable to firmware fixes.
Hmm then again, the 300 2.8 is also a lot faster and the extra light might might be the key. The macros can lose lots of light during any close focusing and the tele-zooms become dark near the long end. So it might have trouble reading way defocused stuff with poor light or light only from smaller angles or something and that might be hard to fix with firmware. hmm.
p.12 #13 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
skibum5 wrote:
In a great many ways, I'd still say it is.
Can you elaborate on that?
It is not the first A7 camera with IBIS, the sensor does not improve over existing sensors in any substantial way, It does not solve the problem with small lenses and steep ray angles, and the AF with Canon lenses has severe limitations. Not saying that the A7rII is a bad camera, and not that it is a useful improvement in many ways, but I don't see it changing use patterns to any noticeable extent.
p.12 #14 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
'I had similar flakiness as secondclaw did with a Sigma 85mm f1.4, EF mount, on a Metabones III v30.
AF turns off mysteriously and you have to remount the lens or adapter. Camera crashed a couple of times.'
I had the exact same issue with a Sigma 35mm ART. This with the Rii + MBiv.
Ironically this morning in crap light I enjoyed AF-C, AF-S; S,M,or L focus area with a $329 Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD (Digitalrev). Go figure. IQ is of course not up to the Ls and here is one from this morning- R2 and Tamron 70-300 by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr
p.12 #15 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
alundeb wrote:
Can you elaborate on that?
It is not the first A7 camera with IBIS, the sensor does not improve over existing sensors in any substantial way, It does not solve the problem with small lenses and steep ray angles, and the AF with Canon lenses has severe limitations. Not saying that the A7rII is a bad camera, and not that it is a useful improvement in many ways, but I don't see it changing use patterns to any noticeable extent.
I wouldn't call the A7rII's sensor a game changer either but it does have a modest list of benefits over the 5DS/R sensor:
* Better DR, both for low and high ISO
* Better large-aperture light transmission (BSI sensor)
* Fully-electronic shutter mode provides vibration-free continuous shooting for bracketing (12-bit mode not an issue for bracketing)
* Faster readout to support 4K video
* Compression artifacts for those who like a little spice in their sauce
p.12 #17 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
snapsy wrote:
I wouldn't call the A7rII's sensor a game changer either but it does have a modest list of benefits over the 5DS/R sensor:
* Better DR, both for low and high ISO
* Better large-aperture light transmission (BSI sensor)
* Fully-electronic shutter mode provides vibration-free continuous shooting for bracketing (12-bit mode not an issue for bracketing)
* Faster readout to support 4K video
* Compression artifacts for those who like a little spice in their sauce
That's a cute list, but it misses one point that I would have appreciated most, ISO 64 like the D810.
p.12 #18 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
alundeb wrote:
That's a cute list, but it misses one point that I would have appreciated most, ISO 64 like the D810.
And I love for it to be a 100MP sensor instead of 43MP but that just wasn't in the cards IMO ISO 64 is overrated - only a 1/2EV gain in noise/DR on the D810 and I can achieve the same noise benefit on an ISO 100 sensor via only slight ETTR with only a modest DR penalty.
p.12 #19 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
snapsy wrote:
And I love for it to be a 100MP sensor instead of 43MP but that just wasn't in the cards IMO ISO 64 is overrated - only a 1/2EV gain in noise/DR on the D810 and I can achieve the same noise benefit on an ISO 100 sensor via only slight ETTR with only a modest DR penalty.
ISO 64 is not only for the noise, but exposure times. But a 100 MP ISO 25 camera was not in the cards
p.12 #20 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
gdanmitchell wrote:
With that in mind, when I read that "AF works" with one of these lenses, should I assume that it works as well on the Sony as it does on a comparable Canon camera?
Thanks,
Dan
Dan, to be honest I think it takes some time before anybody can truly answer that. Take me: I still have to wrap my brain about the AF system in a Sony a7rII, learn it ups and downs. PDAF in a mirrorless is just different than in a DSLR as you know, so I think most of us can only right now say whether it is fast and check the photos to see whether it is accurate too.
There are bound to be some things that just works different and it will take time to evaluate whether it is better, worse, as good or just plain different.
