When I received the Metabones IV when it was launched, I could not autofocus the Canon 200-400mm f/4L IS +1.4 on short distances (around 12 feet which is farther than min distance). It did work on long distances over 20 feet let's say but not on shorter ones. It did not bother me that much because I am using the A7R II for landscapes and with landscape lenses (not the 200-400mm)
Today I have retested the Metabones IV with Firmware 0.48. I can say now that everything works fine with the combo A7R II + Metabones IV (FW-0.48) + 200-400mm at all focales at all distances greater than the Min. distance of the lens.
I have also tested the 100-400mm MK II and this one also works fine at all distances.
esanchez wrote:
Has anyone tested the Canon 200mm 2.8L with the Metabones or FotidioX Pro adapter? On a Sony A7 II with update.
I have just tried my Canon EF 200mm 2.8L MkI with the MB MkIV with firmware 0.48 and it works very well on AF-S and reasonably well on AF-C on a Sony A7II with 2.0 firmware. The same lens and camera would very rarely autofocus using a Commlite adaptor, but exif and aperture were OK.
Now having had the MB IV 0.48 for about 6 months with the A7rII and 50L/85L II I am just realizing how the good the Advanced mode is with these 2 lenses.
Particularly for night time and close portrait shots, the Advanced mode is excellent. Leaving the A7rII on, just remove the lens/MB IV and then re-attach with the WO button depressed and you are in Advanced mode. Do the same again takes you back into Green mode.
The MF automatically enlarges as the turn the focus ring with a visible distance scale. Finally no 2 step process! This is so good for nailing the focus exactly where you want it... quickly. Battery life is shorter but it works so well. Better than my M240 with the 50 Nocti f/1.0 in a past life
I have the Metabones T IV v0.48. I recently tested out five lenses on a couple of shoots: 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400 II, 400/5.6, and 500/4 II. I mostly shot in bright conditions (I noticed that conditions can impact AF performance). I used Flexible Spot AF and shifted between S, M, L through my shooting sessions. Generally, I kept the focus area in the middle. Those results are below. When I moved the focus area off-center, the lenses hunted endlessly, so I ended up sticking to center point/recompose for most of my static shots. This was only the second time I've used the A7RII, so I am a newbie with the system.
My observations:
24-70 II: super fast AF, very accurate AF, no issues at all.
70-200 II: super fast AF even in very low light, very accurate AF, no issues at all.
100-400 II: hunted a lot at longer FLs (much better at shorter FLs), but if the lens was nearly focused, it locked on and stayed locked on very quickly in continuous mode. I used this for BIF with some good shots. It slowed down and hunted more in low light than faster lenses (e.g., 70-200/2.8 II).
100-400 II + 1.4x III: I did not notice a difference in performance compared to the 100-400 II alone, including when used for BIF shots.
400: I only tested this briefly in shady light. Fast and accurate.
500 II: fast to very fast AF, very accurate AF. Occasional hunting. It was a little like the 100-400 at 400mm at times in that if the lens was nearly focused, it acquired focus very quickly and stayed focused in continuous mode with a moving subject. Generally, it is faster than the 100-400 at 400mm, which I suspect is due to the f/4 maximum aperture (vs. f/5.6 for the 100-400 II).
500 II + 1.4x III: I did not notice a difference in performance compared to the 500 II alone.
scrappydog wrote:
I have the Metabones T IV v0.48. I recently tested out five lenses on a couple of shoots: 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400 II, 400/5.6, and 500/4 II. I mostly shot in bright conditions (I noticed that conditions can impact AF performance). I used Flexible Spot AF and shifted between S, M, L through my shooting sessions. Generally, I kept the focus area in the middle. Those results are below. When I moved the focus area off-center, the lenses hunted endlessly, so I ended up sticking to center point/recompose for most of my static shots. This was only the second time I've used the A7RII, so I am a newbie with the system.
My observations:
24-70 II: super fast AF, very accurate AF, no issues at all.
70-200 II: super fast AF even in very low light, very accurate AF, no issues at all.
100-400 II: hunted a lot at longer FLs (much better at shorter FLs), but if the lens was nearly focused, it locked on and stayed locked on very quickly in continuous mode. I used this for BIF with some good shots. It slowed down and hunted more in low light than faster lenses (e.g., 70-200/2.8 II).
100-400 II + 1.4x III: I did not notice a difference in performance compared to the 100-400 II alone, including when used for BIF shots.
400: I only tested this briefly in shady light. Fast and accurate.
500 II: fast to very fast AF, very accurate AF. Occasional hunting. It was a little like the 100-400 at 400mm at times in that if the lens was nearly focused, it acquired focus very quickly and stayed focused in continuous mode with a moving subject. Generally, it is faster than the 100-400 at 400mm, which I suspect is due to the f/4 maximum aperture (vs. f/5.6 for the 100-400 II).
500 II + 1.4x III: I did not notice a difference in performance compared to the 500 II alone. ...Show more →
Hi scrappydog , very useful info question, have you tried the 70-200 II with the 1.4x III ( or the 2x iii if you own it ) ?
is it similar to the 70-200 ii alone? my debate is between that one with a TC or the 100-400II
i own the sigma 150-600 C and i used with the Commlite EF-NEX adapter and it worked very similar to your experience with the 100-400 II , i hoped that given the A7Rii sensor i might be similar with an excellent 400mm rather than a "very good" 600mm (and have better AF of course)
any comment is appreciated
thanks
p.36 #10 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
pochoSuBLoW wrote:
Hi scrappydog , very useful info question, have you tried the 70-200 II with the 1.4x III ( or the 2x iii if you own it ) ? is it similar to the 70-200 ii alone? my debate is between that one with a TC or the 100-400II
I have not tested the 70-200 II with the 1.4x III or 2x III. Sorry. If I get some free time, I will test it out with the 1.4x III (I don't have a 2x).
p.36 #11 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Just finished testing A7R2 with 100-400 II at 400mm - This was ridiculously slow - sometimes 5 Seconds. It always auto-focus but you can do faster manual focus :-)
And this is new lens less then year old
I have tested 2 different 400mm f/5.6
One (few years old 6+ at least) - I could not get focus almost never. It came close and then it was just moving rapidly focus around the point in and out
Second (newer version - Less then 2 years old) - focused fine and very fast. Sometimes it hunts but most of the time focus was relay accurate and very fast
p.36 #12 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Georgino, did you test your lenses with different subjects or light? I noticed that the subject or lighting can impact the lens performance a lot with the Metabones on my A7RII. For example, I was trying to AF my 100-400 II on a grey bird in bright sun and it just hunted, whereas AF was super fast in the shade with a black bird.
p.36 #15 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Sorry, not a a7RII or Metabones IV matter. . . but in the same vein.
This morning I continued my testing with several Canon lenses I have on hand (50/1.2L and original 24-70/2.8L) against Zony 24-70/4. I am using Commlite AF adapter (from China). I was kind of shocked to find the AF to be very accurate with these Canon lenses wide open (and presumably at all other apertures). A little slow on acquiring focus compared to a 1Ds3 body, but very predictable. I have some head shots to do this weekend and looking for best non-E-mount lenses on hand.
I always like the original 24-70L, and had outstanding results after having Canon adjust it years ago, especially at 70mm.
Here's a quick grab indoors with available light that made me think I shouldn't be too hasty about ignoring the Canon products. May need to get the new Sigma AF adapter and see how it does, after watching those British chaps' video regarding the Sigma with older Canon AF lenses.
Looking forward to doing a head-to-head between the Zony and the Canon 24-70L and 24-105L (which did very well on the Sigma in the video).
p.36 #17 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Guys,
Any comments on A6300? I'm considering going 50/50 Canon and Sony and don't want to shoot full frame anymore, crop is good enough for me. If the A6300 + adapter could utilize my Canon lenses that would be fantastic.
p.36 #18 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
I have a Metabones 3 with my A7II and I'm extremely bummed it won't focus worth a damn with my 135L . Works fine with my. 28-135 and 70-200/2.8 II. I wonder if Metabones 4 will be much different?
p.36 #19 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Yes,
It's night and day. Try sending your v3 to Metabones for a firmware upgrade.
Fred
Sirfishalot wrote:
I have a Metabones 3 with my A7II and I'm extremely bummed it won't focus worth a damn with my 135L . Works fine with my. 28-135 and 70-200/2.8 II. I wonder if Metabones 4 will be much different?
p.36 #20 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Anyone tried FW 0.52 with longer lenses (85,135,200L)?.- On the metabones page there is info about "Advanced" mode AF-C improvements." How it performs compared to FW 0.48? I´am still using FW 0.48 with 135L and 200/2L with PDAF, later FW´s were with slower AF performance in advanced mode from what I read on forums.
.
question, have you tried the 70-200 II with the 1.4x III ( or the 2x iii if you own it ) ?