Archive 2017 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
chez wrote:
I still shoot many of my landscapes with my Canon mount lenses including a set of Zeiss ze lenses, and a 70-200 f4 and 300 f4 and am in no hurry to replace them as they still deliver on my A7R just like they delivered on my Canon cameras. Replacing those lenses with Sony lenses will cost me at least $2,500 if not more and I really doubt I'll get better print. Constantly chasing the best pixel peeped lens is not my game as I feel there will be very little if any difference once the print is hanging on the wall which is my game.
So for me, I really doubt I'd be in the Sony system if it was not so easy to adapt my existing Canon mount lenses...one of the big pluses of the Sony system....Show more →
Swapping our you Canon 70-200 f/4 for a Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS would cost very little. You can get a used Sony 70-200 f/4 pretty easily for $850. The Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS costs about $400 used and the IS version about $725. So the switch is pretty inexpensive. Sony doesn't yet have a 300 f/4, so that switch really isn't possible yet.
p.3 #3 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Steve Spencer wrote:
Swapping our you Canon 70-200 f/4 for a Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS would cost very little. You can get a used Sony 70-200 f/4 pretty easily for $850. The Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS costs about $400 used and the IS version about $725. So the switch is pretty inexpensive. Sony doesn't yet have a 300 f/4, so that switch really isn't possible yet.
p.3 #4 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I don't disagree wth this transition period and how long that takes is obviously up to the individual but it keeps coming down to the limitations using these adapters and at some point you start shaking your head wondering why your still limiting the functions the camera itself offers. I just watched a piece by Dan Watson with some long Canon lenses and the limitations imposed by it really start to get on your nerves. Now these are long lenses with more limitations but even under 200mm you still have a good majority of focus abilities limitations and such. I think the bigger issue that many folks are NOT looking at more than anything else is looking at your system in total . For example you have 6 lenses some native some 3rd party . The issue is working differently and with limitations on a few of them. So everytime you pick a lens you are looking at switching brain thoughts on how best to shoot it. Instead of every lens works the same. Your ultimately putting limitations on yourself and how to shoot. By going native you have one simple way to work and all that stuff gets out of your way. Now mostly talking about AF lenses here because some of us are using RF lenses and such but that's a little different as they are manual and your taking a slower more deliberate approach and that's a little easier to mix up. But going AF only it's let's face it a kludge of different techniques to get stuff to work. It's frustrating after awhile and gets in your way and ultimately can really be a issue . More my point here is this will affect certain people of different styles of photography like much less a issue to a landscape shooter for instance. But the folks coming over from Canon/Nikon need to know this stuff and make solid plans how this all works and what adjustments need to be made.
scrappydog wrote:
I am with Chez. I'm not sure I would have switched to Sony bodies if I couldn't adapt some of my Canon lenses. It made the transition more cost effective. The ability to adapt lenses to Sony is a great benefit of the system imo. For example, I have a very small travel kit that includes the 35ZM, 85ZM, and VC15. All are awesome, small, and deliver great IQ. I couldn't go that small and light with adapted Canon lenses (nor would I get the microcontrast of the Zeiss lenses). If I were a pro, I would go native to minimize risk of failure of the additional component to the imaging path (the adapter), but as an amateur, it's nice to have so many options, including the ever-expanding native lineup....Show more →
p.3 #5 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
GMPhotography wrote:
I don't disagree wth this transition period and how long that takes is obviously up to the individual but it keeps coming down to the limitations using these adapters and at some point you start shaking your head wondering why your still limiting the functions the camera itself offers. I just watched a piece by Dan Watson with some long Canon lenses and the limitations imposed by it really start to get on your nerves. Now these are long lenses with more limitations but even under 200mm you still have a good majority of focus abilities limitations and such. I think the bigger issue that many folks are NOT looking at more than anything else is looking at your system in total . For example you have 6 lenses some native some 3rd party . The issue is working differently and with limitations on a few of them. So everytime you pick a lens you are looking at switching brain thoughts on how best to shoot it. Instead of every lens works the same. Your ultimately putting limitations on yourself and how to shoot. By going native you have one simple way to work and all that stuff gets out of your way. Now mostly talking about AF lenses here because some of us are using RF lenses and such but that's a little different as they are manual and your taking a slower more deliberate approach and that's a little easier to mix up. But going AF only it's let's face it a kludge of different techniques to get stuff to work. It's frustrating after awhile and gets in your way and ultimately can really be a issue .
1. No sony equivalent
2. Dual brand shooter
3. Costs
4. Optics not up to snuff.
I'de say #4 is generally not the case, but then I do have the zeiss 100-300 and in most ways, is better than the 70-300g and by good margin.... and even then, I've considered going back for the ways it's not better.
#3, ok sure, it's costly, but dont mistake adapted as better. If someone would offer me a straight trade my canon 24-70ii for 24-70 GM, please hit me up pronto
#2 it is what it is
#1 sadly, still looking for the 135 f2, will make due with adapted
native is just so much more enjoyable, not having to deal with workarounds and enjoying the full experience.
p.3 #7 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
The bigger issue for hobbyists is you don't do this daily like I do and when you grab your gear to go shoot you forget what the heck you did last weeks . So your brain has to get rebooted again. Heck even for me that shoots daily I get confused sometimes. In all truth you want this stuff out of your way. I finally have a cam that I only have to go into the menu to format my card. You know how long I waited just to be able to keep it simple like that. Take it from me you WANT simple. It totally frees you to shoot and not think tech stuff.
p.3 #8 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
GMPhotography wrote:
The bigger issue for hobbyists is you don't do this daily like I do and when you grab your gear to go shoot you forget what the heck you did last weeks . So your brain has to get rebooted again. Heck even for me that shoots daily I get confused sometimes. In all truth you want this stuff out of your way. I finally have a cam that I only have to go into the menu to format my card. You know how long I waited just to be able to keep it simple like that. Take it from me you WANT simple. It totally frees you to shoot and not think tech stuff. ...Show more →
Hell yes, just compose and get the shot...why worries so much of AE/AF stuffs
p.3 #9 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
During the early A7 series days, it made sense adapting third party lenses. At that time, Sony only offered two native lenses (which I still own) but now for me personally, adapting is no longer a necessity.
For landscapes I am extremely happy with Loxia and Voigtlander native prime offerings. We have so many great native zoom options as well. The Sony 16-35/4 ZA is very good and the new 16-35GM has the potential to be even better. There is also the new 12-24/4...
For different applications, Sony has outstanding 35, 50 and 85mm f/1.4 primes. I love how they render and can't see myself adapting fast third party lenses instead. I would definitely miss the native AF capabilities and performance.
Having said that, I can find reasons to adapt tilt-and-shift lenses. I've used them for years and sometimes miss their capabilities in the field. It would be great if Sony develops at least one.
p.3 #10 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
GMPhotography wrote:
The bigger issue for hobbyists is you don't do this daily like I do and when you grab your gear to go shoot you forget what the heck you did last weeks . So your brain has to get rebooted again. Heck even for me that shoots daily I get confused sometimes. In all truth you want this stuff out of your way. I finally have a cam that I only have to go into the menu to format my card. You know how long I waited just to be able to keep it simple like that. Take it from me you WANT simple. It totally frees you to shoot and not think tech stuff. ...Show more →
Keep it simple eh ?. If I remember correctly you literally fought for weeks with M mount lenses and the infamous front filter solution, buying step rings, Optosigma elements, Hoyas, Proxars and what not..
No offence meant Guy, I played that game myself and, know what ? I barely use my Biogon G28 nowadays, in spite of being really great with a PCX1.5m front filter. Better color, microcontrast, control of CA and distortion than my 24-70 zoom but no AF, no auto iris, no Exif....
p.3 #11 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
No your absolutely right and no offense taken as I'm a great example of going to any length to solve these solutions than you throw your arms up at some point and go why I'm I struggling with this crap. Please take me as a example of not going through some of these great lengths to get a solution. Many times it's not worth it. Also I'm extremely picky and most folks do NOT have to be. OCD yes. Lol
p.3 #14 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
I was arguing about this again today and realised two things;
a) I'm wasting my life and too old to do so &
b) These hobbyists and younger guys that adapt have no idea what it's like to muck around with adaptors and other unreliable crap when you're shooting every day for a living.
I'm out of attempting to help people understand.
Good luck with your aftermarket adapting and all the nonsense that comes with it.
The thing you have to realize is not everyone shoots for a living and some love to experiment with different glass and that is OK. I for one have 5 adapted lenses that do just fine and have no intention of changing everything over to Sony just for the hell of it and drop $2,500 plus dollars in the process. I might get a minuscule better corner here and there...but I know it will NOT be noticable in my prints.
So instead of trying to convince the world to change over to your way of thinking, accept there are many other ways of skinning a cat.
p.3 #15 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I didn't find adapted Sigma lenses good enough for paid work. It's definitely fine for casual use, but those moments when I was out in the field having focusing issues while my clients are posing were not cool. Struggling with gear in the field makes you look like an amateur, and even if it happens 10% of the time, its not a good thing.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
chez wrote:
But would I get better images doing so?
Probably not, but I was just pointing out the cost for not fiddling with adapters and a bit better AF is much lower than you suggested. That might not matter to you, but it might matter to some.
p.3 #17 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
This is true, I have to understand that some like to tinker.
Perhaps I'll have to being with that. I like to advise people of my findings early on with the 'Sony E mount adaption
era'. There's little to gain and a whole lotta mucking around.
So, in future, if you're a professional, want the best IQ, support and reliability, use the native, preferably manufacturers own glass we now have available to us.
If you play with your equipment more than you shoot, adapt away.
My tinkering involved purchasing a Metabones adapter, putting it onto my camera and using my gear to make photos. From what you write, it looks to me you love to tinker, take test shots, zoom in at 100% into those far deep corners to test out multiple copies of lenses.
Me, I just adapted lenses that have worked for years for me and just continued to make photos.
p.3 #18 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
I cannot agree more with your comments here. I had this trouble with the GM 85 in the studio with clients looking at 5 different windows of 100 percent crops and I kept getting that look. It was sold immediately. It's really why I sold the Sigma 135 1.8 as well it would not even function on the A9 and was okay for the A7rII with not really big issues but it still hunted. Until Sigma really addresses the firmware on the MC-11 I had to bow out on it but I agree for non paid work it's awesome. But paid work you can't look bad in front of clients. The Batis 135 will not embarrass me
Mystik wrote:
I didn't find adapted Sigma lenses good enough for paid work. It's definitely fine for casual use, but those moments when I was out in the field having focusing issues while my clients are posing were not cool. Struggling with gear in the field makes you look like an amateur, and even if it happens 10% of the time, its not a good thing.
p.3 #19 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Steve Spencer wrote:
Probably not, but I was just pointing out the cost for not fiddling with adapters and a bit better AF is much lower than you suggested. That might not matter to you, but it might matter to some.
Sure, but with such copy variances in Sony lenses, what's the chance of getting a good copy used? I know I have a good copy of my existing gear.
p.3 #20 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Fred Miranda wrote:
Having said that, I can find reasons to adapt tilt-and-shift lenses. I've used them for years and sometimes miss their capabilities in the field. It would be great if Sony develops at least one.
Agreed. I sold my TS-E 24 II and TS-E 17 because I got distortion on my A7R2 and I wasn't going back to Canon. I love these lenses. It would be terrific if Sony produced some shift or tilt-shift lenses. Not sure if that will ever happen, but it would be a nice addition to their lineup.
