Okay The Tammy 35mm 1.8 works perfectly now with the on/off switch the aperture ring wakes up immediately. Bonus time the AF is faster. The 135 seems faster too. Need to play more but so far so good.
Just a few impressions (and not test results), using my common Canon lenses the AF speed improvements are imperceptible, I would say. May be it was there but since I didn't do any comparison, relying only on "memories", I didn't notice any major improvement nor did I expect it.
It does seem more responsive using my 300mm f/2.8 lens though. Maybe not quite for sport photography or bird-in-flight but I would feel more confidence in that combo now. I will have to look into trying this out for "wildlife" later in a week or so due to an upcoming trip tomorrow. When I turn off the camera, the IS of Canon lenses that have that feature, does make a regular noise, similar to that generates by a Canon body. Yes, I remembered it being louder before.
Actually, the results of the new FW is promising, with some improvements in certain area and I did not see any changes for the worse from playing with it briefly. So, the .46 FW stays .
molson wrote:
I think that's a camera limitation, not an adapter issue.
Even Sony's own A-series telephoto zooms perform very poorly with the Sony LA-EA3 adapter - anything over about 200mm and/or f4 seems to be beyond the camera's AF ability.
I read somewhere this is generally a weak point with sensor based AF. I don't think they can fix it. It could explain why we haven't seen a longer FE lens than 200mm.
Anyway, looking forward to information... hopefully they didn't compromise the great accuracy for speed.
I still wonder why eyeAF can't work on these lenses...
Schlotkins wrote:
I read somewhere this is generally a weak point with sensor based AF. I don't think they can fix it. It could explain why we haven't seen a longer FE lens than 200mm.
I don't doubt this is true so not disputing. FWIW, I was shooting after sunset this past weekend with my A7II and Sony 70-200 f/4. At first I tried manual focusing, thinking it wouldn't have a hope of nailing auto focus. MF was tough in the dim light, and I really don't like the focus-by-wire on that lens, so I switched back to AF. It hunted for a half second each time (luckily stationary subject) then hit focus where I thought there wouldn't be enough contrast. I was amazed when I reviewed the images how spot-on the focus was. This was at f/5.6 and made me a happy camper.
Currently softening up my wife to purchase the A7RII and Metabones IV T adapter in time to take to the Grand Canyon in two weeks. The A7II is very good, but I really want something extra, and I have great Canon lenses to utilize.
Just loaded .46 FW and looks good so far. It seems more responsive with the 50L and 85L II so this relates to the speed of the AF, as Joshua mentioned it is not something you put on the bench and measure. The accuracy is excellent as before. More testing needed
molson wrote:
I think that's a camera limitation, not an adapter issue.
Even Sony's own A-series telephoto zooms perform very poorly with the Sony LA-EA3 adapter - anything over about 200mm and/or f4 seems to be beyond the camera's AF ability.
I'm gonna have to disagree with this. I had practically zero OOF shots out of 650 from airshow I shot (fighter jets + acrobatic planes) with A7R II + LA-EA3 + 70-400SSM2 and I only used 300-400 mm. AF-C + flex spot medium +single shutter/slow burst. Plenty of light obviously and easy background, but tracking was spot-on even when the planes were coming towards me at full throttle or making distance rapidly. Nothing very poor IMO
molson wrote:
I think that's a camera limitation, not an adapter issue.
Even Sony's own A-series telephoto zooms perform very poorly with the Sony LA-EA3 adapter - anything over about 200mm and/or f4 seems to be beyond the camera's AF ability.
I don't think that's correct - I just tested 3 long lenses that I wouldn't think I would mount on the A7r II but after I upgraded to the latest .46 FW of Metabones I became curious. I mentioned a little bit about the 300mm f/2.8 Mark II before since there is a chance for me to use it on the A7r II. So, I am expanding my observation some more here:
Canon 300mm f/2.8 Mark II - the PDAF works fast and responsive. Not all points work however and that's the same I noticed on shorter lenses, too like the 135mm f/2, for example. The center cluster of some 170 or PDAF points work just fine and I did not notice any restrictions in the AF range.
Canon 400mm f/2.8 Mark II - the PDAF is a little bit less responsive but it still work just fine. A pleasant surprise here. Again, similar to the shorter lens, only the center cluster of AF points work. The cluster still consists of >100 PDAF points. And no other restrictions were noticeable.
Canon 600mm f/4 Mark II - it felt even less responsive, although while testing in the backyard, I notice a commercial plane flying over head, I pointed the lens up, and the setup found it, focused on it and guess what? The plane was in perfect focus! What a surprise! However, I noticed that the minimum focusing distance was reduced by quite a bit. The actual MFD is 15 feet but I couldn't focus anything closer than let's say 30 feet or so. That's not so good but still... That's probably is more FW issue of Metabones though
p.28 #10 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Schlotkins wrote:
why we haven't seen a longer FE lens than 200mm.
While it isn't the same reasoning, per se ... it kinda reminds me of Leica M mount glass, i.e. nothing long. If you were a long glass shooter, Leica had the R mount, (guessing) owing that those shooting smaller rangefinder cameras ... likely weren't really long glass shooters, i.e. PJ, street, travel.
It's encouraging to hear that FW is improving the situation and with ideal conditions, but I think it is still a matter of the right tool for the right job for the dedicated long glass shooter.
p.28 #11 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
I tried a direct comparison between the A-mount Sony 70-300/4.5-5.6G SSM and the Canon 70-300/4-5.6L IS USM on their respective adapters. Under good light with sufficient contrast, and when subject distance does not alter that much (a huge focus distance adjustment would cause hunting), both combinations perform admirably. Under dim light/low contrast, both setups merely rack back and forth without ever locking. All tested at 300mm of course.
The one area where the A-mount 70-300 shines is when a corner AF point is selected. The success rate is pretty high whereas I could hardly ever get the corner AF point to lock on anything with the Canon. Upon closer inspection, I noticed the Sony 70-300 had surprisingly little breathing, as if the lens were designed ground up for video work. Most Canon lenses breathe quite significantly, which I tend to think is a typical Canon design decision to prioritize breathing pretty low down the list so that other attributes can be optimized better. The Sony DT 55-200/4-5.6 had more breathing at 200mm and it was considerably harder to get it to lock at a corner AF point (but still easier than with a Canon).
p.28 #12 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
AGeoJO wrote:
I don't think that's correct - I just tested 3 long lenses that I wouldn't think I would mount on the A7r II but after I upgraded to the latest .46 FW of Metabones I became curious. I mentioned a little bit about the 300mm f/2.8 Mark II before since there is a chance for me to use it on the A7r II. So, I am expanding my observation some more here:
Canon 300mm f/2.8 Mark II - the PDAF works fast and responsive. Not all points work however and that's the same I noticed on shorter lenses, too like the 135mm f/2, for example. The center cluster of some 170 or PDAF points work just fine and I did not notice any restrictions in the AF range.
Canon 400mm f/2.8 Mark II - the PDAF is a little bit less responsive but it still work just fine. A pleasant surprise here. Again, similar to the shorter lens, only the center cluster of AF points work. The cluster still consists of >100 PDAF points. And no other restrictions were noticeable.
Canon 600mm f/4 Mark II - it felt even less responsive, although while testing in the backyard, I notice a commercial plane flying over head, I pointed the lens up, and the setup found it, focused on it and guess what? The plane was in perfect focus! What a surprise! However, I noticed that the minimum focusing distance was reduced by quite a bit. The actual MFD is 15 feet but I couldn't focus anything closer than let's say 30 feet or so. That's not so good but still... That's probably is more FW issue of Metabones though...Show more →
How would you rate the AF acquisition speed against a native Canon camera like the 5D series or 7D camera.
p.28 #13 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
The commercial plane I was referring to in my earlier post. The entire image first and a sizable crop after that. Some minor highlight, contrast adjustment in LR and converted to JPG.
p.28 #14 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
chez wrote:
How would you rate the AF acquisition speed against a native Canon camera like the 5D series or 7D camera.
Pretty fast but my Canon 7D II seems to be a tad faster in the initial acquisition speed. The difference is more noticeable the longer the FL in question becomes. After the initial focus has be acquired, slight changes in the distance seem to be handled equally well by both systems. But again, this comparison is subjective since I don't have the means to do it otherwise.
p.28 #15 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
tn1krr wrote:
I'm gonna have to disagree with this. I had practically zero OOF shots out of 650 from airshow I shot (fighter jets + acrobatic planes) with A7R II + LA-EA3 + 70-400SSM2 and I only used 300-400 mm. AF-C + flex spot medium +single shutter/slow burst. Plenty of light obviously and easy background, but tracking was spot-on even when the planes were coming towards me at full throttle or making distance rapidly. Nothing very poor IMO
It works okay in bright sunlight, but unfortunately as the light level drops, so does the AF performance.
By late afternoon on a heavy overcast day when the light and contrast are low, that combination stops focusing altogether - which is why I returned my 70-400G2 on the weekend.
Canon EF lenses on the Metabones IV adapter do seem to perform a bit better, but it's still a struggle - but even the Sony FE 70-200 f4 has trouble in low light.
After I returned the Sony 70-400 G2, I bought a Nikon D750 and 200-500 f5.6 VR - this combo snaps into focus almost instantaneously in light levels at least 5 or 6 EV lower than what the Sony + adapter combos can handle - quite remarkable.
p.28 #16 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
molson wrote:
It works okay in bright sunlight, but unfortunately as the light level drops, so does the AF performance.
By late afternoon on a heavy overcast day when the light and contrast are low, that combination stops focusing altogether - which is why I returned my 70-400G2 on the weekend.
Canon EF lenses on the Metabones IV adapter do seem to perform a bit better, but it's still a struggle - but even the Sony FE 70-200 f4 has trouble in low light.
After I returned the Sony 70-400 G2, I bought a Nikon D750 and 200-500 f5.6 VR - this combo snaps into focus almost instantaneously in light levels at least 5 or 6 EV lower than what the Sony + adapter combos can handle - quite remarkable.
This actually makes perfect sense, no disagreement here. Nikon has pretty huge benefit on the fact that it has wayy bigger PDAF sensels on mirror AF system vs pile of small one's on the A7R II sensor. The CDAF part hybrid AF system on the A7R II is not used at all when using adapted lenses with camera "AF System" set to "PDAF". Big part of native lenses low light capability is accomplished with CDAF using lenses with linear motors.
Tested this yesterday actually with FE 55. At light levels where AF-C with it's cool PDAF blinkies fails to lock at all the CDAF used in AF-S mode still locks pretty instantly. Fast glass, focusing wide open regadless of chosen aperture (A7R II is the 1st E Mount camera to do this) superb high ISO performance of the BSI sensor makes A7R II very good for low light CDAF focus, but on-sensor PDAF does not reach nearly as low light levels. Whereas something like D750 is PDAF all the way max sensitivity and thus is gonna maintain the tracking capability to way lower light levels. This also means that adapted glass regardless of focal length is not gonna work as well as native since the adapted glass is terrible for contrast detect (hybrid AF is not even available for adapted glass)
As nice as the AF system on the A7R II is I think we are still several generations of sensor tech from point where sensor-based AF can really compete with mirror systems when shooting fast-moving stuff on low light.
p.28 #17 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
So how low light does the 24-70 II AF reliably? Or the 85II? For me, those are the only adapted lenses I would want/need decent AF at lower light levels.
p.28 #18 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Schlotkins wrote:
So how low light does the 24-70 II AF reliably? Or the 85II? For me, those are the only adapted lenses I would want/need decent AF at lower light levels.
Thanks
Chris
I thought it was slightly better this before the last metabones update but it is good, as long as you have a little contrast and something realistic to focus on. 5DIII is better but for most work, for me, the lens with Metabones IV T, works fine.
p.28 #19 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Schlotkins wrote:
So how low light does the 24-70 II AF reliably? Or the 85II? For me, those are the only adapted lenses I would want/need decent AF at lower light levels.
Thanks
Chris
Hi Chris,
I am sure Joshua will fill in the details for the 24-70 II AF, but the 85L II is excellent with the MB IV v.46. For portraits I use them in low light, and the AF central region locks accurately on the features I choose. The accuracy of the AF is more important, than speed. The 85L II has been always been a slower lens, but in truth I do not even notice any speed issues as it locks on quickly.
Previously with the 5DII the AF with the 85L II was an issue, as even with the MFA adjustments the AF was not always repeatable. For low light portraits, I had a 50% hit rate, so I opted for MF.
Of course we have different needs for decent AF. For me with the 85L II with the razor thin DOF, the A7rII PDAF points are incredibly accurate at f/1.2. I do not need to chimp and see whether I had the near eye lash or nose bridge.
For sporting/action the DSLR is still the best option for now, although many can adapt the A7rII for their needs. Maybe with some fast FE mount long lenses this will change the dynamics. If I were to opt for horse action photography again, I would opt for the Nikon DSLR system, as I really like the dynamics of the AF system. No need to buy, as it is very easy to rent for a week when needed.
p.28 #20 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
I have a 7d2 for action - that's what I shoot wildlife with. I just need something for when I want to take portraits of family or friends... sounds like the a7rII would be plenty good!
.
