jamato8 wrote:
Yes, it will work on mine, up to 300mm but after that it doesn't work.
It works @ 400mm the same way. So you tell me...
What i did notice however, and that is the same as with the 70-200 F4 L Non IS, is that when you start zooming out or in, and trying to achieve focus after that, it usually will stop trying to focus on half shutter press. Then try to put it @ 400mm and reattach the lens, it does work again. But like i said before, on high contrast area's and with the focus manually focussed within a close range of spot on focus of a subject.
Did some more testing, and reattaching does not help all the time. So, it's inconsistent. And by that i can say not usable when you rely on AF (and not when you are not either, because i know it will frustrate you after a while even when you have time). Next to try is the 24-105 (luckily we have gathered some glass in the years).
That one seems important since it fills a definite size/aperture gap between the FE 35mm f/2.8 and FE 35mm f/1.4. (Side note: A high image quality, fast AF, FE 35mm f/2 at about Canon size-- maybe smaller without OSS-- is my dream lens.)
jamato8 wrote:
As Fred has mentioned, Metabones has not updated their FW that would cover the A7RII, since the last FW was .41 and that was in June. I am hoping they can get the adapter to work better.
I've received a reply from Metabones re the 4.20 firmware I have on my adapter, and it seems it is a beta version that must have been on their website when I downloaded it. So it looks like they are certainly still working on improvements, though they didn't mention when the newer version might become the official latest version.
stevei wrote:
I've received a reply from Metabones re the 4.20 firmware I have on my adapter, and it seems it is a beta version that must have been on their website when I downloaded it. So it looks like they are certainly still working on improvements, though they didn't mention when the newer version might become the official latest version.
Yes, they are working on it but that beta would not be for the A7RII as they haven't had one to work with until today.
Tested the 24-105 L IS USM. AF is fast on high contrast situations. In low light it hunts and mostly does not aquire focus. Again like with the other lenses i tried, when you help to focus manually it is sometimes able to achieve focus. But inconsistent.
I have tested 6 lenses now with similar results, except for the sigma and 24-105.
I believe it has to do with wider lenses having a shoter travel to get things in focus and the more zoom you have, the longer it needs to achieve focus and usually misses.
I'm sceptical that MB can resolve this EF to E autofocus issue with a firmware update.
After testing so many lenses both new and old i can clearly say that AF with this adapter is not recommended on anything above 35mm unless you want to help achieving AF all the time (with even then having mixed results).
I also would like to know if all the people that said their EF lens focuses fast and reliable, have done low light tests as well. And tested where focus was initially off and had to travel a lot to achieve focus. Because i see it happening with all zooms i have.
After moderate success (moderate meaning I need to assist focus when moving my focus targets beyond a 5-6 foot depth) with the 400DOii and 300mm 2.8 IS II I decided to rent the 400mm 5.6. It arrived today from Lensrentals.com
High hopes for times when I don't want to carry the weight of the two mentioned above or risk a fall (hiking) and trashing the more expensive lens.
For a few moments the 400 5.6 acted like the other two then failure. The A7Rii made a sound like a hung shutter (though I have no idea what happened)...then LCD went blank. I rebooted the camera and tried again. This time on MF option was available when before I was in AF-S Flexible Spot Medium. I then disengaged lens and MBiv and reattached only to find MF again as the only option.
So in essence FAIL with the 400 5.6
I'd owned this lens in the past and used it with a Nex-7, MF/Focus Peaking, loving the weight of it. I had high hopes though I knew this lens was far older than the 2006 cut off date.
If would still work well for times when I'm hiking to a landscape shot and want something long for incidentals. The slow aperture is off-set by the new Sony's ISO capability. Whether I'll purchase another is undecided.
But this was my experience. My Sigma 35 Art will not work with my A7Rii + MBiv either yet others have reported it works well.
Aug 10, 2015 at 03:34 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
therealthings wrote:
Tested the 24-105 L IS USM. AF is fast on high contrast situations. In low light it hunts and mostly does not aquire focus. Again like with the other lenses i tried, when you help to focus manually it is sometimes able to achieve focus. But inconsistent.
I have tested 6 lenses now with similar results, except for the sigma and 24-105.
I believe it has to do with wider lenses having a shoter travel to get things in focus and the more zoom you have, the longer it needs to achieve focus and usually misses.
I'm sceptical that MB can resolve this EF to E autofocus issue with a firmware update.
After testing so many lenses both new and old i can clearly say that AF with this adapter is not recommended on anything above 35mm unless you want to help achieving AF all the time (with even then having mixed results).
I also would like to know if all the people that said their EF lens focuses fast and reliable, have done low light tests as well. And tested where focus was initially off and had to travel a lot to achieve focus. Because i see it happening with all zooms i have.
I don't know why you think that Metabones can't improve the AF. What you describe here is that with high contrast (good light, closer to being in focus) the newer lenses work well. What needs to be developed is better response when contrast is lower. Metabones just got the camera so they have had no time to work with it yet. They may or may not be able to get the adapter to aid AF with less contrast, but I don't see how any one could know yet that they can't. It is certainly in their interest to do all they can to improve the performance of the adapter. I don't think it will be easy, but they have a good team and I think they are likely to make some progress. How much and in what areas remains to be seen. The very fact that some lenses seem to work with other adapter suggests that different firmware can affect the performance and to me that suggests that improvements are possible, but we will know in a few months. I see no reason to dismiss the possibility already.
I don't know if the problem is with metabones or with the A7RII itself. Yesterday I tried a variety of longish zooms on the camera -- Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 APO HS with LA-EA4, Minolta 70-210 f4 with LA-EA4, Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS with Metabones III v30.
All three hunted badly in AF-C mode. Certainly much worse than I'm used to using the LA-EA4 on the A7R.
This isn't even using the pdaf of the sensor. So maybe there's something screwy in the A7RII focusing algorithm?
Aug 10, 2015 at 05:07 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ebrandon wrote:
I don't know if the problem is with metabones or with the A7RII itself. Yesterday I tried a variety of longish zooms on the camera -- Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 APO HS with LA-EA4, Minolta 70-210 f4 with LA-EA4, Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS with Metabones III v30.
All three hunted badly in AF-C mode. Certainly much worse than I'm used to using the LA-EA4 on the A7R.
This isn't even using the pdaf of the sensor. So maybe there's something screwy in the A7RII focusing algorithm?
Well the LAEA-4 isn't using the A7r II focussing algorithm, so that can't be the issue. As I understand it the AF is completely accomplished by the adapter and the camera just controls aperture, metering, and shutter speed. In the case of these lenses the camera doesn't even have any way to control the AF as they are screw driven. The adapter has to be driving the AF.
Metabones emailed me and said that their people are now working on it. I gave them a number of lenses and the problems and they said they would forward this to the engineers. We'll see. Hoping for the best.
jamato8 wrote:
Metabones emailed me and said that their people are now working on it. I gave them a number of lenses and the problems and they said they would forward this to the engineers. We'll see. Hoping for the best.
GMPhotography wrote:
Matt you have to use the LA-EA 4 with the Sony 135 1.8 which is fine and works great but your stuck with that center cluster AF points which is limiting for me at least.
Ah, thanks for reminding me. I have no desire to go back to separate AF sensors and the AF front/back focus calibration problems that go with them. I will cross the 1.8/135 off my list then.
Guess I'll keep the 135L and hope for new adapter/firmware - it shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to make these lenses work!
Thank you all who are dealing with this, the results are very valuable, and it seems there is a long way to go for reliable AF with the A7rII and Canon lenses, if we get there at all with this camera.
I agree that there was too much hype in the beginning, and to the degree that those of us who bought the 5DS/R earlier, almost got ridiculed for not understanding that the A7rII would be a better choice and a "Game Changer" for Canon lenses.
mttran wrote:
This imaging PDAF and CDAF technology will take off whenever the extra CPUs to be implemented on board to handle smarter algorithm for sporty world. So far, the concept is working real well as we see by most video samples.
Yes, I think it offers a huge potential but for now cpu power, and probably even more battery capacity and heat dissipation are limiting the potential.
I would love to have the ability to e.g. detect a subject moving within a certain set distance range (prevent hunting between minimum focus distance and background) and then have the camera automatically focus and track it, so the photographer only needs to keep the subject in the viewfinder and trigger the shutter at the right moments. For me this is for certain nature shots (with small and fast moving subjects), but probably a bit similar to sports.
mmurph wrote:
I just bought a Nikon D750 and am pretty happy with it! They are running about $1,600
used. You can also get the kit with 24-120 4.0 for about $2,250 from Canada. If you value the 24-120 at $650, the D750 runs about $1,600 new. You can also buy new grey market for as low as $1,400, with no Nikon USA support. The 24-120 is $550 for grey market.
There are a few disappointments compared to my Canon 7DII, especially the smaller auto focus point spread, and the louder shutter noise for events. (Quiet mode is too slow and doesn't help much. The D810 has a quieter shutter.) ...Show more →
Thanks for the feedback :-)
I'm in Europe where the D750 - and most lenses - are far more expensive, about $2450 body only (including 21% tax). I have the budget for A7RII, but only want to spend the money if it can do what I want and feel confident that I can keep using it for some years, as I don't like learning to use new menu, software, ergonomics etc. A7RII looks like a great 'universal' camera to me, but apparently I have the wrong Canon lenses to go with it ;-(
The 7DII would be a great camera for a few of my subjects, but not for general use. The 6D would be nice for some other subjects (especially if it had a tilt screen) but again not suitable for general use. That is where the D750 (and some other Nikon DSLRs) is more attractive to me.
If I buy the D750 I will probably sell most of my Canon gear and not keep dual systems because of the cost. I would probably buy a few primes like the 4/300PF, 1.8/24 and 1.8/85 and not try to cover everything. Not sure about the 24-120, it is close in reach to the 15-85 I'm now using on APS-C Canon, but I like to keep my gear as small/light as possible.
Stoffer wrote:
Yep, that and the Canon EF 100 f/2.8L IS Macro not working is a bit weird.
Yes, sad - two very popular lenses for nature photographers (100L and 100-400II) are not working well.
Could the new hybrid IS system of the 100L be a cause of trouble?
technic wrote:
Yes, sad - two very popular lenses for nature photographers (100L and 100-400II) are not working well.
Could the new hybrid IS system of the 100L be a cause of trouble?
You do have the choice of the superior Sony macro 90
