The a7R2 automatically interacts with the MC-11 and Canon EF lens to select using in-lens IS (if available) or default to Sony IS based on the Canon lenses focal length without Canon IS.
It's a win win.
Odds are that Sony bodies with native lenses have an advantage for moving subjects, but for general photography it works fine and I'm happy with all L lenses and other lenses of recent manufacture (~ ca. 2000 and on).
Gunzorro wrote:
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.
Many thanks, I'll add my personal experience as soon as I get the adapter (along with the Canon 100 F2)
Just a quick report for the Canon 28-300/MC-11/A7RII. Early morning light, focus on mountain top trees at 300mm about 5 miles away. No hunting, reasonable fast focus. 28mm at 4 ft. normal focus.
Dorsht, I refer to a lens IS fitted.
For instence on a 70-200 IS you are allowed tu use the lens IS only or nothing.
Not possible tu use the A7Riii camera stabilizer.
While it is possible with Canon lenses without IS.
I think its equally important to discuss firmware version when elaborating on the MC11 with Canon Glass. As all firmware versions are not the same.
Speaking with Fred the Sigma USA rep, I was told the latest firmware version always attempts to solve issues of earlier firmware versions. Also, if you do update, its my understanding you cant revert back to a earlier version.
So if all is working with your present firmware version, that's something to think about
As the old saying goes "if it an't broke, dont try to fix it.
Moving forward I hope everyone also states there Firmware Version
A7III came in. MC-11 with 1.12 firmware. My Canon 100mm F2 and 200mm 2.8 work amazing well. Very accurate and very sharp. Lenses seem better on the sony body then they ever did on a Canon body.
Very nice to hear! I have the 100/2 and looking forward to use it on my (back-ordered) A7III. Have you done even some AF-C and tracking tests by chance? At least in good light?
Has anyone figured out which is generally better for AF performance: the Sigma MC-11 or the Metabones V? I have seen conflicting reports and it always seems to depend on the specific lens, camera, firmware and AF mode. So many variables! Hard to tell whether either has a clear advantage. Maybe they are about the same?
I understand that the Metabones has a few extra features, like the tripod foot and the programmable function button, neither of which seem important for me. The Sigma costs a good deal less, but I wonder whether Sigma will keep it up to date now that their line of FE lenses is coming out.
esanchez wrote:
No I don't really shoot too much AF-C, but I can try it today and see how well it works. I shoot AF-S 98% of the time.
Many thanks.
With regard to AF performance MC-11 vs MB IV/V the situation is indeed a bit confused, with seemingly none of the two clearly better than the other one.
Some recent Youtube vids that I've seen seems to point that the Sigma could be a bit better in keeping a subject in focus with AF-C, but I wouldn't call them conclusive at all.
At the end for my Canon 100-400 I think I'll go for the MC-11, it's cheaper and doesn't look any worse than the MB.
scalanc2 wrote:
Dorsht, I refer to a lens IS fitted.
For instence on a 70-200 IS you are allowed tu use the lens IS only or nothing.
Not possible tu use the A7Riii camera stabilizer.
While it is possible with Canon lenses without IS.
Ok, now it's clear. Thank You.
Has anyone tried the MC-11 with the NON-IS Canon 70-200 2.8L? With IS being taken care of in body it seems like a good cheaper 70-200 option so long as the AF works well?
pgeorges wrote:
Has anyone tried the MC-11 with the NON-IS Canon 70-200 2.8L? With IS being taken care of in body it seems like a good cheaper 70-200 option so long as the AF works well?
I've not tried that lens, but based on the other non-IS lenses I've tried, it should be a great alternative. The 70-200/2,8L non-IS was better regarded for IQ over its IS brother. So this would give you a sharper zoom, with added IBIS, and lighter weight as well.
My Sigma MC-11's have worked very well with 28-300L and 100-400L IS lenses of the same vintage as the 70-200, so I expect you would be happy with that combo. Whether it provided sufficient IBIS for your needs -- you will have to find that out, but it has to be better than no IS.
Hmmmm. Maybe it was just s**t lighting that day. On my old 6d that lens was vibrant. I'll test it again.
Tested it indoors (window light), took off PL filter (forgot it was on) and shots look great. Glad I revisited it,I love the 200 for portraits.
Thanks for the hint!
bluloo wrote:
The MC-11 adapter should have zero to do with how a lens/sensor combo renders color. It's basically a "translator" for AF and EXIF functionality.
Gunzorro wrote:
I've not tried that lens, but based on the other non-IS lenses I've tried, it should be a great alternative. The 70-200/2,8L non-IS was better regarded for IQ over its IS brother. So this would give you a sharper zoom, with added IBIS, and lighter weight as well.
My Sigma MC-11's have worked very well with 28-300L and 100-400L IS lenses of the same vintage as the 70-200, so I expect you would be happy with that combo. Whether it provided sufficient IBIS for your needs -- you will have to find that out, but it has to be better than no IS. ...Show more →
I'll have to give it a go! I've always preferred the rendering of the non-IS lens.
(along with the Canon 100 F2)