Has anyone tested Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS I ? Fred says the Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS II works well - unfortunately I still have the first version and that would be a rather expensive upgrade.
dhazard wrote:
Has anyone tested Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS I ? Fred says the Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS II works well - unfortunately I still have the first version and that would be a rather expensive upgrade.
I did, and replied i this thread about it. However either Fred stopped updating his list or he doesn't value my testing results much because i don't see it in the list yet. (still together with the 70-200 F4 L non IS that he still has on works well, which with me it clearly doesn't after repeated tests in low light).
therealthings wrote:
Ok so tried with the 500 F4 L USM in bright conditions. AF is unreliable, very unreliable. At first, just like the 70-200 F4 L (non IS, that Fred put on the list as AF works fine, which does NOT with me) it seems to work fine, until you choose a subject that is much closer or further away. Then you have to manual focus within range to help AF lock on again. But when you turn the zoom on the 70-200, let's say from 200 to 150mm and focus, it just bumps the focus back and forth once, and stops achieving focus.......Show more →
It's just pure physics, the on chip phase detection elements are not big enough and far away to detect proper direction when lens is strongly OOF.
Steve Spencer wrote:
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....Show more →
No i didn't say newer lenses work well. I said all tele lenses have trouble in low light, regardless of manufacturing date. I get similar AF results with the 100-400 II as i do with the 500 F4 IS I and 70-200 F4 non IS.
Of course I value your test. I am waiting at least two reports for each lens before updating the list.
The list has been updated now.
Best,
Fred
therealthings wrote:
I did, and replied i this thread about it. However either Fred stopped updating his list or he doesn't value my testing results much because i don't see it in the list yet. (still together with the 70-200 F4 L non IS that he still has on works well, which with me it clearly doesn't after repeated tests in low light).
mogul wrote:
You do have the choice of the superior Sony macro 90
Yes, there are alternatives for the 100L (don't know about 'superior', the 100L is plenty good for me). But all my Canon lenses would have to be replaced to get good AF, which makes moving to A7RII really expensive or even impossible.
I need a relatively light 300-400mm with good AF, good closeup capability and high image quality (and good TC add-on option). The Canon 4/300IS, 5.6/400L and 100-400II all seem to have problems on A7RII, Sony doesn't have good alternatives that I know of and the Canon lenses that do work like 2.8/300II and 4/400DO II are too heavy or too expensive for my taste. Still hoping that this this can be improved with new camera/adapter firmware, but I'm not optimistic as there may not be enough money for the adapter companies in supporting all those 'old' lenses.
Anyway, maybe on-sensor PDAF isn't quite ready for those longer tele lenses yet, judging from performance when image is strongly defocused (which is common with fast moving wildlife).
Seeing lots of differing reports. Makes me wonder whether copy variation might be at play here. Copy variation could be with the particular camera, adapter and/or lens used in a given test. With three different "variables" involved in every test, differing results seem almost inevitable.
Given the differing results, and all the caveats and qualifications we're seeing for even the lenses that supposedly work well, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to really know how well a particular lens will work for you is to try it on your A7RII with your adapter and your Canon lens.
p.10 #11 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
Ok so i tried playing with the best lens combination so far (the sigma 35 Art) and i experienced the AF bug like i talked about earlier several times. Here is what happens.
If i have the camera powered down, and mount the Sigma 35 1.4 Art lens, then power on the camera, AF works fine.
After some time (when camera hibernates, not sure if that happens, but the LCD goes black, when i half press the shutter to wake up the camera and use AF, it does not AF anymore. In the menu it says i need to enable AF on the lens (Focus Mode is greyed out).
Then i need to re-mount the lens in order to be able to AF again. This looks like a bug in the MB firmware.
I have not experienced this with canon glass yet. This might be a Sigma EF mount problem. I'm hoping others with Sigma Art lenses can test this as well.
p.10 #12 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
There is a pattern here. Older lenses don't af well. Newer lenses do.
What i can't understand is why 100-400 mark II can't af?? That seems to be the only lens in Freds list which is new.
p.10 #13 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
saintiwari wrote:
There is a pattern here. Older lenses don't af well. Newer lenses do.
What i can't understand is why 100-400 mark II can't af?? That seems to be the only lens in Freds list which is new.
I think I'm seeing another pattern--telezooms don't seem to work well at the long end.
p.10 #14 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
bhollis wrote:
Given the differing results, and all the caveats and qualifications we're seeing for even the lenses that supposedly work well, I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to really know how well a particular lens will work for you is to try it on your A7RII with your adapter and your Canon lens.
Testing this within the usual 1 week EU return period could be tricky; and it's even trickier to test a lens that you are planning to buy in the near future (and that you can only test while visiting a willing dealer). I'm glad I didn't rush to buy :-)
---------------------------------------------
saintiwari wrote:
There is a pattern here. Older lenses don't af well. Newer lenses do.
What i can't understand is why 100-400 mark II can't af?? That seems to be the only lens in Freds list which is new.
Both the 100-400II and 100L Macro are recent lenses that don't work (or don't work completely). There might be more exceptions coming.
With the A7R it seemed as if the Metabones adapter worked best with recent lenses, while alternatives like Viltrox sometimes worked well with older lenses. It's too early to tell what is going on with A7RII, maybe some older lenses will work with the other adapters (with some limitations), or maybe the A7RII uses a faster AF protocol that the adapters or the older Canon lenses have trouble handling?
If the adapters are using reverse-engineering of Canon AF protocol and work on the edge of what is possible given the practical limitations of such adapters, it doesn't surprise me if the behaviour is erratic, or varies between individual copies.
p.10 #16 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
bhollis wrote:
I think I'm seeing another pattern--telezooms don't seems to work well at the long end.
Maybe that is related to the fact that on-sensor PDAF doesn't work well with strongly defocused subjects, which becomes more of a problem with longer focal length? Difficult to say for now, because users are probably using different 'testing protocols' depending on their type of subject.
p.10 #17 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
technic wrote:
Testing this within the usual 1 week EU return period could be tricky; and it's even trickier to test a lens that you are planning to buy in the near future (and that you can only test while visiting a willing dealer). I'm glad I didn't rush to buy :-)
We have 14 days when buying something from internet. From a store where you can test it before buying you have 7 days. (I think that's a European law). But i don't want to return it actually. It was never my intention to return it, i want it to work and WOW me. ISO 100 in good light conditions with good glass delivers superb images, but there's a few things i value a lot that make me say hmmm...
Waiting to get dark here so i can do some 30s exposure testing myself and decide whether this camera is a keeper or not.
p.10 #18 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
I am surprised about 85 1.8 EF. Its AF actually worked better than many other EF lenses on my Sony A7r with King and Metabones III adapters, in good light. Now you guys say the same 85 1.8 is no go on A7RII which has more advanced AF system to A7R?
p.10 #19 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
absolutic wrote:
I am surprised about 85 1.8 EF. Its AF actually worked better than many other EF lenses on my Sony A7r with King and Metabones III adapters, in good light. Now you guys say the same 85 1.8 is no go on A7RII which has more advanced AF system to A7R?
'advanced' isn't always better in every way ;-)
It can mean more critical requirements when it comes to compatibility, suitable external conditions etc. The A7RII AF might be more selective with Canon lenses because of the more advanced AF system.
p.10 #20 · A7RII and Canon lenses AF compatibility
gdanmitchell wrote:
Besides "copy variation," there are potentially other factors, too.
1. Operator technique — subject and lighting variations, etc.
2. Confirmation bias — in both directions.
Dan
I'd say those two, along with "expectations," are much more important than "copy variation" in this situation.
Given that the A7RII is now exclusively using PDAF sensors, which are WAY smaller than what are on a DSLR, it is not surprising that longer lenses just flat out don't work. I think physics may be the problem here.
