p.1 #2 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Native will always be faster. Adapted Canon lenses (with a Metabones) don't give you eye AF or lock on tracking, unless you change the mode to contrast detection autofocus.
That said, I've tried a lot of Sony lenses and prefer my Canons. I lose some of the fancy autofocus features, but I'm ok with that. I'm probably in the minority on that one.
You and I actually live close to each other. We pm'd when you were selling camera bags. If you want to check out Canon lens performance on Sony bodies, send me a message.
p.1 #3 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
maestrofilms wrote:
You and I actually live close to each other. We pm'd when you were selling camera bags. If you want to check out Canon lens performance on Sony bodies, send me a message.
p.1 #4 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
That said, I've tried a lot of Sony lenses and prefer my Canons. I lose some of the fancy autofocus features, but I'm ok with that. I'm probably in the minority on that one.
I must also be in the minority b/c I prefer good quality Canon EF lenses adapted to Sony cameras. The problem is I have quite a few Canon + Sigma ART EF lenses and had to buy both Metabones and Sigma adapters to get most of the adapted lenses to work well.
p.1 #5 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I also continue to use many of my Canon lenses on Sony bodies, along with some native lenses. The question that I am most interested in is which adapter works best in general with Canon lenses--the metabones or the sigma?
p.1 #6 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I also continue to use many of my Canon lenses on Sony bodies, along with some native lenses. The question that I am most interested in is which adapter works best in general with Canon lenses--the metabones or the sigma
In my personal experience, it's a toss up. The Metabones has worked amazingly well with the 24-70L II F2.8 & 70-200L II F2.8; since these are my go to lenses, I'm happy with the Metabones adapter.
The Sigma appears to be far superior with primes. In addition to the 20, 35 & 50 ARTs, I've also been very pleased with the MC-11 + 135L, 85L & 85 1.8
Neither adapter appears to work for my 50 1.4 or 180L, where the Metabones is slow + inaccurate with the 100-400L II...MC-11 didn't work at all with this lens. I haven't experimented enough yet with the 40 2.8 pancake or 1.4x extender
p.1 #7 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I'm also curious about an IS performance comparison between the two. And it would be interesting to see how much variation there is in batch of adapters from both companies. If anyone wanted to take on that tedious work, I'd be happy to read their blog post.
I think the best way to cope is to be happy if AF works and remember there's the manual focus ring if AF doesn't work.
p.1 #8 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
AF-S adapted is FASTER than native with a few lenses without the miss causing CDAF tune pulse at the end. You also get the small AF boxes so you can see which edge was detected. Other lenses can be slow and some start to play up away from the centre.
35LII is faster than the 35/1.4FE in AF-S on a A7RII and it is more accurate than on my 5DIII.
Tested old 35L vs D750 + Sigma Art 35mm on water bottles spread acround the room. Accurate hits 10/10 both runs for the Sony, around 6/10 for the Nikon even the hits looked worse because of the lower resolution .
Andrew
p.1 #9 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I haven't conducted any tests, but generally, I am happy with my EF lens performance on the A7R2 with the MB IV adapter. So much so, I haven't felt the need to get native. I have the Canon 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, 24-105/4, 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400 II, 400/5.6, and 500/4 II. AF works on all, and if the lens has IS, that works well too. IBIS works with all lenses. I only notice lag on FLs greater than 200mm or so. To minimize lag, pre-focus to near focus, engage AF, and it snaps to focus as fast as native. Despite speculative statements about the performance of adapted lenses on Sony from people who haven't shot them or shot them much, I shoot BIF with my A7R2 and Canon super-telephotos with keeper rates similar to those shot with the 5D3 and 7D2. I don't think eye-AF is available, but I mostly shoot wildlife rather than people. Since super-telephotos aren't available native (yet), adapted is your only choice with these FLs.
EDIT:
I forgot that I have the 40 pancake. It works great with the A7R2 + MB IV.
p.1 #10 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Jorge Torralba wrote:
Has anyone compared real performance and usability of an adapted canon/sigma to FE vs a native version?
Focus speed, eye focus on adapted lens vs a native. for example a Sony 50mm 1.4 vs a Canon or Sigma 1.4 adapted. Or even the 24-70 etc ...
Just looking at performance since most of these lenses all perform well when it comes to image quality.
Iirc I remember you as someone who loves Zeiss. I find the native Sony Zeiss lenses like 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 to be excellent. Why bother adapting? I dont like the ergonomics of using fslr lenses, too cumbersome and defeat the idea of mirrorless in the first place.
p.1 #11 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
photoluminaire wrote:
AF-S adapted is FASTER than native with a few lenses without the miss causing CDAF tune pulse at the end. You also get the small AF boxes so you can see which edge was detected. Other lenses can be slow and some start to play up away from the centre.
35LII is faster than the 35/1.4FE in AF-S on a A7RII and it is more accurate than on my 5DIII.
Tested old 35L vs D750 + Sigma Art 35mm on water bottles spread acround the room. Accurate hits 10/10 both runs for the Sony, around 6/10 for the Nikon even the hits looked worse because of the lower resolution .
Andrew ...Show more →
Yes pure pdaf is faster than the hybrid AF that native lenses use. That said, the sensitivity of on sensor pdaf systems in mirrorless bodies is really poor....which is why contrast detect is used as a crutch in low light. Adapted lenses using pure pdaf don't do well at all indoors even in only moderately low light.
I will say that with the a9, the AF sensitivity of the on sensor pdaf systrm had I proved quite a bit, and my 24-70II is actually usable indoors on it....but native lenses still focus more reliable in low light.
p.1 #12 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I find the native Sony Zeiss lenses like 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 to be excellent. Why bother adapting? I dont like the ergonomics of using fslr lenses, too cumbersome and defeat the idea of mirrorless in the first place.
You pose a very logical question. While I certainly can't speak for everyone and perhaps I'm just stating the obvious that's been posted many times before, but here is a list of why I adapt:
1.) Like many camera owners, I already have an extensive EF lens collection;
2.) I'm stuck using Canon DSLRs for the foreseeable future, don't feel like maintaining 2- entirely separate sets of lenses and so far, have only invested in eight Sony native lenses that have no practical counterpart over in the Canon lens world;
3.) I haven't found adapting to be a bother....yet;
4.) Just using the example of the awesome Zeiss F1.4 lenses you mentioned, I have the Sigma EF 35 1.4 ART & 50 1.4 ART. They are also excellent lenses, capture stunning images and appear to focus as accurate + fast as any of the native Sony Zeiss lens that I own;
5.) Perhaps it's my imagination or I'm just doing something wrong, but there seems to be something magical with L series lenses attached to a Sony body. It's not to suggest that Sony Zeiss lenses are in any way inadequate, but there appears to be something special with L series glass that native Zonys lack. Like you, I posed the same question to my wife a while back: "why bother adapting?" After practically be threatened with my life and warned to keep every Canon DSLR and lens that we currently own, she subtly reminded me about "Canon colors". However, I took some Easter pics of our daughter that softened her up a little on Sony cameras. Even though she remains the ultimate Canon fangirl, when comparing pics of L series vs Zeiss glass on an A7R2 body using otherwise identical settings and outdoor lighting conditions, my wife conceded the A7R2 + Canon lens combo produced amazing images.
6.) While I remain optimistic, I'm currently unconvinced about the latest Sony lenses. With all the reports of decentering issues, if I ever do decide to invest in additional native lenses, it will only be at a later time when Sony has hopefully better addressed these widely reported issues. Adapted lenses allow me to currently shoot with confidence;
7.) With the exception of the excellent lightweight Sony Zeiss primes, ergonomics are simply too close to call (for me personally) as a factor when trying to justify the significant up-charge in Sony lenses. For example, while the Sony 70-200 F2.8 GM & Canon 70-200L II F2.8 are almost identical in weight and dimensions, the addition of an adapter is barely noticeable on a lens that already weighs over 3.25lbs and is almost 8- inches in length. IMHO, the only really significant advantage that I perceive here in ergonomics is to my wallet, which the Sony will lighten by almost $700. lol.
p.1 #13 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
The 24-70II doesn't work the same as a 35L for sure at least not with the firmwares when
I tried it. I'd put it in the 'not usable' category for what I do. I traded mine for the 35LII.
Absolutely no issues in low light, quite the opposite with the f1.4 lens letting in plenty of light. Getting great results with the difficult to lock dancing shots, shots by fire light and all without any AF assist beam.
You have to be very specific as to what works and what doesn't, varies so much by lens.
p.1 #14 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Then there's something wrong with your adapters. Uneven thickness or something. How else can a lens perform worse if there's no glass in the adapter ?. You may say, different sensor filter stacks. Arguably, Canon uses a somehow thinner stack than Sony but I don't think that this is meaningful with lenses as long as 105mm.
My reason for using Canon lenses on Sony is cost and availability. I owned no Canon glass previously to buying my Sonys A7II/A7rII. I soon found out that there're some great bargains in the Canon line up, like that small 40/2.8 pancake that, for $100, is a steal. I was after a compact 24-70/4 and a Sony.Zeiss seemed the logical move, but contradictory reviews and price steered my boat towards a used Canon 24-70/4 for less than half the cost of a a new Sony FE 24-70/4.
Sony has still a limited amount of native glass and finding a used copy in pristine condition usually means is gonna be expensive. In Canonland the amount of used glass is huge; that helps to keep prices relatively down (excepting super fast teles and such)
Currently I'm using a Sigma MC-11 ( before that a Commlite). No experience with the Metabones. Yes. AF indoors isn't stellar. The Canon 40 pancake is better than the zoom for nailing focus but I suppose it's because of the faster aperture. Also, for video you can forget about any AF with MC-11 + Canon lenses.
Speaking from my amateur point of view, it's all about compromises. If you have a limited budget, then adapt your gear to it and choose your poison. There're poisons more tasty than others.
I'd rather have a GM 24-70/2.8 instead of a Canon 24-70/4 but the burden on my shoulders and specially on my pockets, prevents me from getting the Sony G Master.
p.1 #15 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
5.) Perhaps it's my imagination or I'm just doing something wrong, but there seems to be something magical with L series lenses attached to a Sony body.
I agree. I've tried many Sony lenses and always preferred the Canon versions.
The 24-70II doesn't work the same as a 35L for sure at least not with the firmwares when I tried it. I'd put it in the 'not usable' category for what I do.
Not my experience at all. I've used the 24-70 II in many situations and it almost always performs well.
It's not just the AF, but the IQ, I find lenses as long as 105mm have increased CA and reduced sharpness and contrast when adapted.
Again, not my experience. I've compared shots with the same Canon lenses on both Sony and Canon bodies, and seen no increase in CA or reduced sharpness. Quite the contrary, the shots with the Sony body are usually sharper.
p.1 #16 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
It's not just the AF, but the IQ, I find lenses as long as 105mm have increased CA and reduced sharpness and contrast when adapted.
More CA and reduced sharpness suggests an out of focus image.
On sensor PDAF eliminates one source of error but you can still get back or front focus if the lens doesn't move to where it should.
p.1 #18 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I think I would probably prefer native like for like in many instances but,
A) I use dual systems (A7s and M43) and Native E mount lenses don't adapt but Canon lenses work great on micro four thirds for a different angle of view.
and B) Some of my favourite lenses are not made in E mount.
I also think that some Canon lenses are better (or at least are for me) on my A7s than on any current Canon (at least much easier to use, again for me). That particularly applies to manual focus lenses like the Canon TS-Es.
I use my 17 TS-E for things I would never have dreamt of when I was using a Canon DSLR.
There are points favouring native and also favouring adapted and some reasons to prefer Canon lenses on Sony to Canon lenses on Canon.
Another thing favouring Canon adapted for me depends on the adapter.
I have a cheap Fotga adapter that has a circular "ledge" that pretty much exactly holds the glass from a 43mm filter so I can get cheap filters and take the glass out of the frame and use them with my various Canon lenses so I can use a 43mm polariser instead of a 150mm one in a holder with my 17mm TS-E (I already had/have a 150mm polariser but it is a pain to use). Currently searching for some exotic 43mm filters (a 43mm apodization filter for my EF 100 f2 would be nice to try if I could find one).
Another things is I can use a cheap and cheerful Canon APSC lens on my A7s and I could really do that on a FF Canon DSLR and again, I can also use them with a 43mm filter with the Fotga adapter.
For example, the 18-55 IS ii kit lens covers FF from around 23mm and up so can be used wider than on any Canon. OK it may not be the "best" lens and auto focus is very slow on my A7s but for a sub $100 stabilized AF 23-55 lens it is good value and not far off being disposable so I don't risk a better lens (as well as being able to be used in APSC mode.
I could also use native E mount APSC lenses too of course (the little 50 1.8 OSS was quite nice on a A7/A7s and covers FF with extension tubes of around 16mm).
Then again, I doubt there is any Canon lens I would replace the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 with and I am pretty partial to the FE 28-70 kit lens still.
If only I could adapt my Sony lenses elsewhere or could use a rear filter.
p.1 #19 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
Zeiss Distagon 15 on MC-11 (Canon Mount) delivers consistently worse (but not bad) results on the 7R2 than a 5DSR or 5D3.
Issues are significantly increased CA about 75% of the way to the edges and some light softness starting at about that same distance from the central portion of the frame.
I expected this for a 15, but not from the longer lenses.
Sounds like all the adapters vary a lot.
I used my Distagon 15 with Metabones IV on A7RII, and in identical compositions using the same lens on a 5DSR, it was slightly inferior at the ends/corners, especially at a distance. Recently I got a MC-11 to compare, and it's perfect: no discernable difference whatever from using it on the Canon. The MC-11 also improves corners on my Canon 17 tilt-shift, although they're still rather soft (even on the Canon) if I employ very much rise or fall.
p.1 #20 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Honestly, imo, if you love a bunch of Canon lenses, stick to a Canon body, they just work so much better.
It's annoying and unprofessional to adapt imo and we did it to transition when we were early adopters, but those times are gone and adapting is unnecessary now. IMHO.
It would be cool, but you have to agree adapting is undependable, results are unpredictable and almost always underperform in comparison to the being used on their native bodies.
Disagree. Quite frankly, it's difficult to take anyone as being serious that makes these type of ridiculous statements.
