stripedrex wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, can you tell me if this is the Sport or non sport version and if it is the non sport older version are you seeing native options show up with the MC11? I'd love to get this lens and love the idea of getting the lighter and cheaper older version as it has the same optics with the MC11 but prefer full AF support. I'll be using it for sports.
It is the Sport version. It does show the full name of the lens in the meta data. I have tried a friend's old non OS 120-300 f/2.8 as well, without the multiplier the AF worked really well but with the 2x multiplier it hunted a bit at 600mm. I am not sure if it reported the native lens, sorry, never looked and I did not keep the images, only tried AF-S.
zeitlos wrote:
Wow, that would be great! I highly appreciate your efforts! Especially if you got the comparison with the Metabones which will make it easier for people like me to make a decision which one is the one to go with this lens!
Thanks a lot!
Remember i have the a7r3 so not apples to apples for you. Both adapters worked with eye detect but metabones 4 seemwd better with tracking and seemed more reliable af accuracy wise. I didnt do a formal test really. Click my flickr on the left my photostram i used the 135l with mb4. I tested tracking at low burst with my son on the bike. It did quite well t 3fps.
RudiVenter wrote:
It is the Sport version. It does show the full name of the lens in the meta data. I have tried a friend's old non OS 120-300 f/2.8 as well, without the multiplier the AF worked really well but with the 2x multiplier it hunted a bit at 600mm. I am not sure if it reported the native lens, sorry, never looked and I did not keep the images, only tried AF-S.
Thank you! If you see your friend again could you do me a solid? Lol ill probably get a used copy at some point and test.
Thanks! Those look great. Do you remember how many of a sequence were out of focus?
Is there a difference with regard to the af between a7iii and a7iiir?
stripedrex wrote:
Remember i have the a7r3 so not apples to apples for you. Both adapters worked with eye detect but metabones 4 seemwd better with tracking and seemed more reliable af accuracy wise. I didnt do a formal test really. Click my flickr on the left my photostram i used the 135l with mb4. I tested tracking at low burst with my son on the bike. It did quite well t 3fps.
I use the Canon 135mm with the sigma adapter and the A7RIII. It works amazingly well, eye AF and all.
I don't try to capture BIF or anything, but it works fine with kids and dogs.
zeitlos wrote:
Thanks! Those look great. Do you remember how many of a sequence were out of focus?
Is there a difference with regard to the af between a7iii and a7iiir?
This was a bit ago bit if i recall it did best with the subject in the center but still did quite well near outside thirds. Maybe 80% was good? Struggled a lot at closer distances. If tracking is important consider the sigma alternative native or adapted. About 150ish more used for canon variant. Im moving that direction myself for 135.
I have not found any information if the MC-11 works with the Canon 180mm f/3.5 macro. I received a new MC-11 and updated the firmware to latest: 1.33 according to Sigma Optimization Pro, and tested the combination on A7Riii.
The 180mm + MC-11 autofocus does not work well. Sometimes it will focus, sometimes not even move focus in AF-S mode. I have not tried any other modes. If I rack the focus out to infinity and then focus on something closer it seems to focus, but if initially focused closer, will not focus back out to infinity. How accurate the focus performed when it did focus I did not determined. Macro distances is also very intermittent.
I will be receiving a Metabones V in a few days and will report if that performs any better.
Using the MC-11 with my Canon mount Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro (non-os version) the auto-focus is snappy at non-macro distances, and it does not work at all at macro distances.
Update with Canon 180mm macro and Metabones adapter works much better than MC-11. AF-C seems to be more reliable than AF-S. Metabones firmware version V63, A7iii.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone tried the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (version 1) with the MC-11?
I've still got EF 100-400L v.1, and three of the MC-11 adapters. I can take a few shots of stationary subjects for you. I doubt the Canon lens plus adapter is as good for follow-focus as the Sony version lens. But should do well enough for general shooting.
Gunzorro wrote:
I've still got EF 100-400L v.1, and three of the MC-11 adapters. I can take a few shots of stationary subjects for you. I doubt the Canon lens plus adapter is as good for follow-focus as the Sony version lens. But should do well enough for general shooting.
Any qualities in particular you are looking for?
Thanks for your insight. I've read that it hunts a lot with the lens at or above 300mm but perhaps it was with previous firmware versions.
All are capable of focusing easily, but it seems I have uncovered a misalignment issue with front-focusing at longer focal lengths equals about a meter+ close focus at 25 meter wide open. The good news is all three do well and perform the same despite being differing vintages -- my first one from their introduction still works fine on my a7R4, with its original firmware. All shot at 100mm are spot-on for focus accuracy.
Here are a couple sample shots at 100mm and 400mm, center focus/multi-spot, center of subject area focusing point, wide open.
I also noticed some diagonal smearing (most noticeable on the 400mm flowers shot) -- possibly related to the front focusing. License plate shot is closest and seems acceptable, the truck close-up is focused just under 0.5m forward in the pebbly road surface. Stopped down, this might not be a problem -- such are older lenses on newer electronics!
ILCE-7RM4DT 100-400mm F4.5 SAM lens100mmf/4.51/800s100 ISO-0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM4DT 100-400mm F4.5 SAM lens400mmf/5.61/640s100 ISO-0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM4DT 100-400mm F4.5 SAM lens100mmf/4.51/80s100 ISO-0.7 EV
ILCE-7RM4DT 100-400mm F4.5 SAM lens400mmf/5.61/125s100 ISO-0.7 EV
ILCE-7RM4DT 100-400mm F4.5 SAM lens100mmf/4.51/500s100 ISO-0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM4DT 100-400mm F4.5 SAM lens400mmf/5.61/320s100 ISO-0.3 EV
None of the three MC-11 I own do much "hunting" for focus. Occasionally there is a slight delay, especially in extremely dark conditions. Usually it is just a slight pause after shutter release is pressed -- not a problem for stationary subjects. Of course there is zero delay with manual lenses such as Zeiss ZE coupling.
Using the Commlite Pro 6 with Nikon lenses is an entirely different matter. Even common zoom such as AFS 24-120/4 ED IF Nano is quite difficult to achieve focus with delays or hunting -- best used as a coupled manual focus adapter.
I can report that the Canon 200mm f/2 IS works well with Sigma MC-11 v1.41…eye AF and minor tracking at walking speeds towards camera works on the Sony A1. Much better than Metabones V with beta v0.69 firmware.
Another datapoint for your delight and edification.
Gunzorro wrote:
Using the Commlite Pro 6 with Nikon lenses is an entirely different matter. Even common zoom such as AFS 24-120/4 ED IF Nano is quite difficult to achieve focus with delays or hunting -- best used as a coupled manual focus adapter.
Wow, I never had a problem with my Commlite adapter. Worked as well as the MC-11 on my 28 and 50 1.8Gs and Tamron 70-300 VC.
