I've not yet tried it but the well-regarded E-mount 55-210 oss might be an interesting lightweight choice for safaris. Of course, it will operate in crop mode but the image will still be 18mp on the a7rii with a 315mm equivalent long throw at f/6.3. There is no Sony equivalent to the EF 300/4 but the old Minolta AF 300/4 is said to be tack sharp - don't know yet how it will focus with the LA-EA4 but I have one on the way. Heavy though!
I think that is a better representation of what people can expect from their hybrid adapted system. (and keep in mind that that is with centerpoint focus only in still a pretty well lit environment).
Maybe if there is a fix in the future it might be interesting, but if you plan to do shoots with this hybrid setup requiring critical AF, i would think twice. I cannot imagine doing weddings, wildlife, even the kids playing in the garden where that one split second counts making this setup, currently, worthwile.
Again, not trying to bash any brand, just giving a heads up to those interested and are on the brink of making the same mistake i made.
Aug 14, 2015 at 12:14 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think that is a better representation of what people can expect from their hybrid adapted system. (and keep in mind that that is with centerpoint focus only in still a pretty well lit environment).
Maybe if there is a fix in the future it might be interesting, but if you plan to do shoots with this hybrid setup requiring critical AF, i would think twice. I cannot imagine doing weddings, wildlife, even the kids playing in the garden where that one split second counts making this setup, currently, worthwile.
Again, not trying to bash any brand, just giving a heads up to those interested and are on the brink of making the same mistake i made....Show more →
But that video is with the f/4 version of the lens. To me it seems clear that going to an f/4 lens (except the ultrawides), the autofocus doesn't work nearly as well. Longer focal lengths too. Weddings might (notice I say might) be fine with the 24-70 f/2.8 II, but kids in the garden with a 50L are likely to be fine. I think everyone is just going to have to test things out for themselves to see if the lenses meet their needs. Some may find the MK II long teles to work fine with wildlife. The trinity users 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 MKII, and 70-200 f/2.8 II users might be happy (some might not) for events and weddings. Some might not be happy with the 35L or 50L for kids photos (although I usually suggest using prefocus and figuring out where kids are going to go when shooting kids. I have a lot of success with this with my 2 year old and I use a MF lens the ZE 35 f/1.4). I think the key is not to assume that anything will or won't work until you have tried it and you feel you have gotten the most out of the combination that you can. Then decide if it will meet your needs and if if will be better or not than the alternatives.
Steve Spencer wrote:
But that video is with the f/4 version of the lens. To me it seems clear that going to an f/4 lens (except the ultrawides), the autofocus doesn't work nearly as well. Longer focal lengths too. Weddings might (notice I say might) be fine with the 24-70 f/2.8 II, but kids in the garden with a 50L are likely to be fine. I think everyone is just going to have to test things out for themselves to see if the lenses meet their needs. Some may find the MK II long teles to work fine with wildlife. The trinity users 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 MKII, and 70-200 f/2.8 II users might be happy (some might not) for events and weddings. Some might not be happy with the 35L or 50L for kids photos (although I usually suggest using prefocus and figuring out where kids are going to go when shooting kids. I have a lot of success with this with my 2 year old and I use a MF lens the ZE 35 f/1.4). I think the key is not to assume that anything will or won't work until you have tried it and you feel you have gotten the most out of the combination that you can. Then decide if it will meet your needs and if if will be better or not than the alternatives....Show more →
Testing yourself is the best way to go yes. But i hope others will be careful not to believe that every lens does fine. I read you say the 2.8's do well, but have you had good successrates with low light and low contrast scenes trying to AF from far to close or the other way round, or was it more hit and miss?
Aug 14, 2015 at 12:55 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
therealthings wrote:
Testing yourself is the best way to go yes. But i hope others will be careful not to believe that every lens does fine. I read you say the 2.8's do well, but have you had good successrates with low light and low contrast scenes trying to AF from far to close or the other way round, or was it more hit and miss?
I actually didn't say that the f/2.8s work well. Instead I said the f/4 don't seem to work as well. I don't have the A7r II, at least not yet (I have the A7 II). I have been trying to follow the reports closely, however. Everyone is going to have a different standard for what works well means. Personally, I don't think any AF system works well--but that may be just me. I much prefer MF. I think the questions you ask about low light and close up to far are good ones, but ideally those questions would be answered by testing with an alternative camera in side by side tests. Something I have not seen yet.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I actually didn't say that the f/2.8s work well. Instead I said the f/4 don't seem to work as well. I don't have the A7r II, at least not yet (I have the A7 II). I have been trying to follow the reports closely, however. Everyone is going to have a different standard for what works well means. Personally, I don't think any AF system works well--but that may be just me. I much prefer MF. I think the questions you ask about low light and close up to far are good ones, but ideally those questions would be answered by testing with an alternative camera in side by side tests. Something I have not seen yet....Show more →
Ahh i thought you actually owned the a7rII. I tested the same lenses both on the a7rII and 6d in the same conditions and the 6d managed to focus spot on 99% of the time where the a7rII was a hit and miss (not even taking in account the bugs of freezing up the camera). But you are correct that everyone's standard of bad, acceptable and good are different. What i can say the claim of dslr like AF is busted
I do however think that the AF system of the 1dx works well but that is a specialized action camera.
Tested the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX (non-art) with the Fotga EF-E adapter today. The adapter's a bit tempermental. Sometimes, it works poorly, with hunting like mad, but turning the camera off and on (sometimes 2-3 times) will get it so that it works very well. When it's behaving, AF was as fast (or faster) as the lens is on my 1Ds II, and very accurate.
p.14 #10 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
therealthings wrote:
I tested the same lenses both on the a7rII and 6d in the same conditions and the 6d managed to focus spot on 99% of the time where the a7rII was a hit and miss (not even taking in account the bugs of freezing up the camera). But you are correct that everyone's standard of bad, acceptable and good are different. What i can say the claim of dslr like AF is busted
Agree about 'busted', assuming this cannot be fixed with firmware upgrades for adapters or camera (too early to decide about that).
I think based on early rumors many were expecting AF performance with EF lenses similar to the 6D, at least in decent to good lighting conditions. But reality is less rosy, unless you happen to have one of the few Canon lenses that works very well and assuming you work mostly in suitable conditions.
Aug 15, 2015 at 06:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.14 #11 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
technic wrote:
Agree about 'busted', assuming this cannot be fixed with firmware upgrades for adapters or camera (too early to decide about that).
I think based on early rumors many were expecting AF performance with EF lenses similar to the 6D, at least in decent to good lighting conditions. But reality is less rosy, unless you happen to have one of the few Canon lenses that works very well and assuming you work mostly in suitable conditions.
Well if the 6D is the standard and especially if you are talking the centre point AF, then that is a quite high standard. The 6D has a excellent centre point with even better performance in low light. I would expect something more like 5D MKII AF, but with some advantage--much better coverage of the frame and just as good of performance off the centre as in the centre. I would not be surprised if the A7r II AF matched or even bettered the 6D AF outside of the centre point AF, but I would be surprised if it did as well in the centre.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.14 #13 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
gdanmitchell wrote:
Matching the 5DII, used by a photographer who knows best how to select among focusing modes and use the camera to photograph dynamic subjects, would be quite something. While the 5DII certainly did not define the high end of AF when it was introduced almost exactly seven years ago (September 2008), in the hands of capable photographers it can be used effectively to track moving subjects with virtually any Canon lens.
I'll be very impressed if the A7rII can achieve that 5DII level of performance with a wide range of lenses, making it a very useful camera/lens combination for photography of active wildlife and similar subjects in a wide range of lighting conditions.
I don't expect the A7r II will match the 5D MK II in all aspects, but I would not be surprised if it did in a number or aspects and it would be better in others. We are talking about 7 year old AF as you point out. The 5D MK II has a quite good centre AF, not as good as the 6D, but still quite good. The outer focus points are quite weak, IMO, however, and they don't cover much of the frame. I would not be surprised if the A7r II was as good as, if not a bit better, with outer focus points, and it should cover a much wider area of the frame. I would also expect that the A7r II won't be as good as the centre AF of the 5D MK II, but maybe it will be with some lenses. So, I would not be surprised if in some ways the A7r II is better than a 5D MK II and in some ways it is worse. Overall which is better may depend on what aspects of AF matter most to you. If coverage of a wide area of the frame is most important then an a7r II might be better for you. In contrast if tracking with the centre AF point is what you typically do, then the A7r II might not even be up to the 5D MKII, but hopefully we will get more details on comparisons of the A7r II to other cameras as we learn more and we can move to understanding more of these details.
p.14 #14 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
I find the focus points on the A7RII to work very well no matter where I have them. I have also found that depending upon the situation, jockeying between small flex to medium makes focusing, depending upon the situation, pretty foolproof. There are situations where my 5DIII would be faster but in most, it would not be any faster. I have been using the 24-70L II quite a bit, getting very sharp results and ease of use.
I have been going out on my long hikes every day now in the desert, even with temps over 100, and the A7RII is performing fine. It is all a learning curve. I am interested in seeing what Metabones comes up with for the II.
p.14 #15 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well if the 6D is the standard and especially if you are talking the centre point AF, then that is a quite high standard. The 6D has a excellent centre point with even better performance in low light. I would expect something more like 5D MKII AF, but with some advantage--much better coverage of the frame and just as good of performance off the centre as in the centre. I would not be surprised if the A7r II AF matched or even bettered the 6D AF outside of the centre point AF, but I would be surprised if it did as well in the centre....Show more →
I was talking about 6D AF in general, with general subject (including action) and general lighting conditions. I know 6D AF is very good on a few specific situations, but for more general use IMHO it isn't much better than a recent Rebel.
Aug 15, 2015 at 01:47 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.14 #16 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
That makes sense, since it appears the AF points are all the same for the A7r II, whereas for Canon cameras the focus points are very different in the centre and the outer zones, for most if not all cameras.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.14 #18 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
technic wrote:
I was talking about 6D AF in general, with general subject (including action) and general lighting conditions. I know 6D AF is very good on a few specific situations, but for more general use IMHO it isn't much better than a recent Rebel.
I guess my point is that I'm not sure what 6D AF in general really means. IMO, that camera has very different performance with the centre AF and with the outer AF points. It is also excellent in low light especially with the centre point. In my view if you primarily use the centre AF point, it has very good AF, but if you often use the outer points you could easily be dissatisfied. So talking about AF in general with this camera, IMO, isn't specific enough.
p.14 #19 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
^ Agreed, 6D's center point makes that body perfectly BIF capable...just keep the center cross on target...not my first choice also having a 7Dii but owning a 6D would be no excuse in flight photography.
p.14 #20 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
MedicineMan404 wrote:
^ Agreed, 6D's center point makes that body perfectly BIF capable...just keep the center cross on target...not my first choice also having a 7Dii but owning a 6D would be no excuse in flight photography.
On a recent trip i went shooting landing gannets on a cliff with a 500 f4 and a 6d. My keeper rate was pretty bad. And i have been shooting BIF for years. Next to me was a guy with an 1dx. I can tell you that i was pretty jealous. The center AF is ok, but the 1dx, and 7dII to some extent, are a whole different ballgame.
