Isaacheus wrote:
Apologies for reviving an older thread.
Has anyone tried the 14mm sigma 1.8 with the mc-11? More for the weight of the lens on the mount than the af performance. I'd be keen to get this with the new Sony a7r 3 but don't want to be putting strain on the camera itself. It doesn't look like the adapter has a foot mount??
I have used this combo on the A9 & A7RIII and it seems structurally sound. The MC-11 seems to be built pretty well. Functionally, the adapter & lens combo seems to work perfectly and the lens is usable for astrophotography wide open if you zoom in on a star near the edge and focus just a hair short of infinity to minimize coma.
Has anyone used the MC-11 or Metabones IV/V or TechArt with the Canon 17-40? Wondering if I can get away with using that lens rather than buying the Sony 16-35 equivalent.
I had bought (and returned) the Metabones V when it did not handle my Canon EF 70-200/4 IS or 24-105 well. Ended up getting the Sony 24-105 and 100-400 instead.
I'm not crazy about Sony's options for replacing my beloved Canon EF 35/2 IS and it did well with Metabones V so now rethinking using an adapter (again) for the 35 and 17-40...
eyal wrote:
I had bought (and returned) the Metabones V when it did not handle my Canon EF 70-200/4 IS or 24-105 well. Ended up getting the Sony 24-105 and 100-400 instead.
Hi,
Did you get enough experience with the Canon 24-105 on the Sony to give your impressions on image quality with the Sony 24-105? I have the Canon which works OK on my a7rii / MC-11 with AF-C but it is a little weak at 24mm. Thanks.
eyal wrote:
Has anyone used the MC-11 or Metabones IV/V or TechArt with the Canon 17-40? Wondering if I can get away with using that lens rather than buying the Sony 16-35 equivalent.
I had bought (and returned) the Metabones V when it did not handle my Canon EF 70-200/4 IS or 24-105 well. Ended up getting the Sony 24-105 and 100-400 instead.
I'm not crazy about Sony's options for replacing my beloved Canon EF 35/2 IS and it did well with Metabones V so now rethinking using an adapter (again) for the 35 and 17-40...
I have the 17-40 and have used it on the MC-11. The combo seems to function quite well, though I've done little more than test the AF with several shots.
I also have the MB V, and (IIRC) it seemed to work well on that adapter too.
LostBoyNZ wrote:
Oh! That's worth pointing out yes.
I just tested the MP-E 65mm with the Metabones IV and can confirm it works with the A7r III.
And, thanks to the extraordinary generosity of a forumer who passed on to me his no longer used MB iii, I can confirm the metabones iii still works too.
For a short period of time I will have access to test the MC-11 with the latest firmware and Sony A7r II, A7RIII, Sony 70-200 F/4, Sony 70-200 F/2.8, Canon 70-200 F4, Canon 70-200 IS F4, Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II, Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, Canon 100-400 F4-5.6 IS II
I am not writing a report/review on all this and I have limited time due to a busy work schedule but if you want to see something specific let me know and I will try to check it out
raul jarquin wrote:
For a short period of time I will have access to test the MC-11 with the latest firmware and Sony A7r II, A7RIII, Sony 70-200 F/4, Sony 70-200 F/2.8, Canon 70-200 F4, Canon 70-200 IS F4, Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II, Canon 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, Canon 100-400 F4-5.6 IS II
I am not writing a report/review on all this and I have limited time due to a busy work schedule but if you want to see something specific let me know and I will try to check it out
Curious about your experience. Nothing specific.
I recently purchased a second MC-11 to go on my second a7R2. Now I can run two Canon-mount lenses at the same time. Works great and a real bargain.
Wish Sigma would also come out with a Nikon version so I could use a few of my AF lenses in that mount.
I find the MC-11 better than I expected and a great value. As of Feb 6th 2018 the latest adapter firmware revision is 1.11. I was able to drive the canon lenses I tested so far. All exhibited a little hunting in the low light conditions of my tests but with minimal manual pre-focusing you can avoid it. That is, if you get the image somewhat sharp by hand, which is super easy and fast to do, then you click on the AF button and it will lock focus much more reliably. I still need to test the 100-400 IS II. One early surprise was that the cheapest of the bunch, the Canon 70-200 F4 non IS performed rather well and certainly much better than its IS version. Also, with this firmware revision I have not noticed a lot of difference between the A7R2 and A7R3 but it may be because of the low light conditions of my testing setup.
I recently sold a Sigma 35 1.4 ART and now after seeing how well the MC-11 works I wish I had kept it.
I want to hear about Canon 40 STM. There havr been conflicting reports. Some say it works some say only the centre point works and for some it works like a charm.
The A7R3 + MC-11 (firmware 1.11) + EF 100-400L IS 2 performs well. It may hunt a little in dark areas but under normal conditions it does lock focus quite well. This was not my experience with the 70-200 IS F4. TMaybe I had a bad copy but it hunted quite a bit and when the IS was engaged it was quite noisy. The non IS version of the 70-200 did quite well too and it is a fantastic combination with the MC-11 for the price. I will be comparing my EF 100-400 to the Sony equivalent to see what I am giving up but I for one hate focus by wire so I am predisposed to like the Canon better.
Take all of the above with a grain of salt as I am not an AF person and I prefer MF lenses in general. In my limited tests the EF 100-400 IS 2 and the 70-200 F4 (non IS) did quite under normal lighting.
raul jarquin wrote:
The A7R3 + MC-11 (firmware 1.11) + EF 100-400L IS 2 performs well. It may hunt a little in dark areas but under normal conditions it does lock focus quite well. This was not my experience with the 70-200 IS F4. TMaybe I had a bad copy but it hunted quite a bit and when the IS was engaged it was quite noisy. The non IS version of the 70-200 did quite well too and it is a fantastic combination with the MC-11 for the price. I will be comparing my EF 100-400 to the Sony equivalent to see what I am giving up but I for one hate focus by wire so I am predisposed to like the Canon better.
Take all of the above with a grain of salt as I am not an AF person and I prefer MF lenses in general. In my limited tests the EF 100-400 IS 2 and the 70-200 F4 (non IS) did quite under normal lighting....Show more →
Much appreciated---good news, as to the 100-400L-2, & moving me closer to an A7R3 / MC-11 purchase.
I plan to use my 24-105-F4L, & 16-35-F4L primarily for Landscapes with Manual Focus; but with the 100-400L it's nice to have usable AF, especially for small, distant subjects.
If anyone can give an updated review of how the mc-11 AF works on an A6500 with Canon glass in video modes that would be fantastic.
I’m trying to make the switch to Sony for the purposes of shooting video. And it’s hard to find an adapter that will shoot video modes natively. I don’t care nearly as much about the stills performance.
I have:
28mm f/2.8 IS
35mm f/2.0 IS
50mm f/1.2L
85mm f/1.8
Anyone ever tried the MC-11 (or the MBIV/v) with the Canon 100-400L first version? I'm having quite an hard time to find any experience on that combo and I have to decide which of the two to pick. Thanks
I'm intersting in using the MC11 with wide lenses and telephoto lenses on the sony A6300.
Now I have Sony 70-200 f/4 and Zeiss 16-70 f/4.
Does anyone know how the MC11 works with Canon 70-300 IS or longer lenses, like Sigma 150-600, Canon 100-400L (MK1), etc.
My main use for telephoto lens is aircraft spotting, so I need fast autofocus and I can't use manual focus.
Also, I want to buy some wide lens, since the Sony 10-18 in really expensive, I thought about the MC11 with Canon 10-18 or Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 (I used the Sigma lens on Nikon D90 and D7100 and I liked the lens) or any cheap wide lens.
Which lens will work better on the A6300?
Here is my impression using MC-11 after owning it for 5months.
MC-11 + Canon 70-200 F4 IS:
AF is reasonable fast.
The only thing bothering me is the MC-11 required remount the adapter every time I power off the camera. (otherwise the camera can't focus)
MC-11 + Sigma 18-35 F1.8:
Doesn't need to remount.
AF is slow and not accurate when in backlit situation.
Tirpitz666 wrote:
Anyone ever tried the MC-11 (or the MBIV/v) with the Canon 100-400L first version? I'm having quite an hard time to find any experience on that combo and I have to decide which of the two to pick. Thanks
MC-11 works fine for my needs -- I own two copies. I used the 100-400/MC-11 combo for my actress daughter's head shots a year ago -- she was not moving and on a stool with available light filtered and bounce card. For moving subjects, I think the best results would be from the new EF 100-400L IS II. I seldom use above 100mm, so the original is fine for me -- plenty sharp enough and a terrific bargain at current used prices.
