Archive 2017 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
chez wrote:
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.
The copy variance on the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 really isn't too bad. It is quite similar to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II from Canon, if you look at the tests at lens rentals blogs if anything the Sony is a bit better, so I don't see any reason to worry about buying this lens used. In my view copy variation should be considered at the level of the lens and not at the brand level.
p.4 #2 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
Scrutinising your images isn't tinkering.
I also capture about 1000 images a day and deliver about 50 images per day on average.
50 paying images a day, 5 days per week, I've been doing that for decades.
I've tinkered with adaptors and such, when I had to, I no longer have to.
I've learnt what's wrong with tinkering with adaptors, in fact, my Nikkor 14-24 is the last lens that has been replaced by the Sony 12-24, no more Metabones, no more MC-11, it feels great
I don't understand your view of tinkering. I just put my adapter onto my camera and after that change lenses just like normal. Where's the tinkering?
p.4 #3 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
You don't look amateurish, you are. You're spot on with this post.
This is my point. I'm good as taking photos, bad at getting my point across
GMPhotography wrote:
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
Pretty much. Part of shooting professionally is the impression you make on people while you're working. And if you're having trouble focusing a camera in front of them, your clients don't care that your adapter isn't working the way it should....all they see is someone that they paid to take photos struggling to get the job done.
Its especially a big deal when working with models, who are used to photographers who know what they're doing and move through poses quickly. There's a certain flow of poses and shots that happens when the model and photographer are in sync with one another....my issue with the Sigma 135 is that the focusing issues broke that flow, and that's when the Sigma 135 went back into my bag because I looked like an amateur.
Worse yet, if you're shooting something like a wedding and miss a key shot, your clients aren't going to accept "my adapter doesn't work as well as it should" as an excuse.
p.4 #4 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
chez wrote:
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.
I'd rather deal with copy variation than be stuck with a lens that fails to focus in the field.
It depends on what your tolerance to that type of thing is.
p.4 #5 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Steve Spencer wrote:
The copy variance on the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 really isn't too bad. It is quite similar to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II from Canon, if you look at the tests at lens rentals blogs if anything the Sony is a bit better, so I don't see any reason to worry about buying this lens used. In my view copy variation should be considered at the level of the lens and not at the brand level.
I'm just speaking in general if I was to replace my full range of Canon mount lenses with native mount lenses. I know my existing lenses are all good...but once I start to replace them, I enter the world of copy variance.
That said, for my travel / street shooting I have gone all Sony mount for the smaller size and better AF.
p.4 #9 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
haha, copy variance is a trait exclusive to Sony, apparently, but mounting x brand lenses to y brand adaptor to z brand body is AOK. Seriously, this is making me giggle.
I had to try 2 different metabones adapters, 2nd is great. Now all my Canon mount glass works beautifully on my A7R.
Tell me how many times has the merry-go-round of lenses gone around before you were happy with your Sony's. Let's not start to giggle too fast now.
p.4 #10 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
chez wrote:
I had to try 2 different metabones adapters, 2nd is great. Now all my Canon mount glass works beautifully on my A7R.
Tell me how many times has the merry-go-round of lenses gone around before you were happy with your Sony's. Let's not start to giggle too fast now.
The fact is, variances are sadly part of our hobby/work tools. Happened to me with lenses from Sony and Canon and even with Metabone adapters. At the end, just like looking for that gem CPU overclocker, you just need to keep trying until you find the one that makes you happy.
I would love to have all my lenses native but at this point in time, I cannot replace my Sigma 135mm, EF 300mm 2.8 and EF 35mm 1.4 L ii with a native lens that will make me as happy.
p.4 #11 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
I didn't even hear the music.
Not only do I recommend against adaptors unless necessary (in most cases it isn't now), most credible reviewers say not to and, I've just checked the biggest online resource (DPR), their top article? Canon lenses don't work very well on the Sony A9! Huh, how about that?
I just checked another big resource, Rockwell, he's raving about a Sony lenses and warning about adapting Canon, should I open up some more tabs and stumble on more confirmation in the first few lines of text?
Then why do you feel others who adapt their existing set of lenses hear that music?
As far as reviewers go...I don't trust any of them and rely on my own eyes shooting the way I shoot...not the way others shoot test charts or brick walls. My ultimate judge is large prints and from what I see in my prints, there is no degradation using my Canon mount lenses adapted to my Sony camera.
I have other more important things to use the $2,500+ needed to replace my existing Canon mount lenses with the equivalent ( some don't even exist ) Sony lenses...not to mention hopping on that Merry-go-round and listening to the carnival music.
p.4 #12 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
GabrielPhoto wrote:
The fact is, variances are sadly part of our hobby/work tools. Happened to me with lenses from Sony and Canon and even with Metabone adapters. At the end, just like looking for that gem CPU overclocker, you just need to keep trying until you find the one that makes you happy.
I would love to have all my lenses native but at this point in time, I cannot replace my Sigma 135mm, EF 300mm 2.8 and EF 35mm 1.4 L ii with a native lens that will make me as happy.
The nice thing about using existing lenses and adapting them is I've already gone through the variances with my Canon mount lenses and am happy with the set I use for landscape photography. I just needed to weed out 1 bad Matabones adapter and I'm all good now.
p.4 #13 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
chez wrote:
The nice thing about using existing lenses and adapting them is I've already gone through the variances with my Canon mount lenses and am happy with the set I use for landscape photography. I just needed to weed out 1 bad Matabones adapter and I'm all good now.
Good point. Plus locally I can test lots of non native lenses to find a good one too, which helps. Although I am seeing a lot more Sonys around too which is nice.
p.4 #14 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
I didn't even hear the music.
Not only do I recommend against adaptors unless necessary (in most cases it isn't now), most credible reviewers say not to and, I've just checked the biggest online resource (DPR), their top article? Canon lenses don't work very well on the Sony A9! Huh, how about that?
I just checked another big resource, Rockwell, he's raving about a Sony lenses and warning about adapting Canon, should I open up some more tabs and stumble on more confirmation in the first few lines of text?
On the a9, adapted lenses cannot actively track while burst firing. Really strange because the a7 bodies don't do this as far as I can tell.
p.4 #15 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
I didn't even hear the music.
Not only do I recommend against adaptors unless necessary (in most cases it isn't now), most credible reviewers say not to and, I've just checked the biggest online resource (DPR), their top article? Canon lenses don't work very well on the Sony A9! Huh, how about that?
I just checked another big resource, Rockwell, he's raving about a Sony lenses and warning about adapting Canon, should I open up some more tabs and stumble on more confirmation in the first few lines of text?
Actually that DPR article doesn't say Canon lenses don't work on an A9, it is about SOME Canon lenses on the A9 and even in those cases (300 2.8 and 400 2.8), as poor as they are the are still light years faster than the current FE 300 2.8 and FE 400 2.8. If you read the article DPR are happy with shorter Canon lenses on the A9 and it seems as well as ADAPTED A mount lenses.
p.4 #17 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
Well we're all happy, adapting or not
You're happy using red ringed + adaptor stuff + body and I'm happy with a turn key system that just works.
I'm happy with my lenses, all new designs and designed to work with my bodies, so EyeAF works, I can use all the PDAF points to the edges, my lenses work properly without requiring me to consult google on every different body Sony make and should I have an issue I can contact Sony and they won't laugh me off the phone becuase I'm after support for not one, but two third party products, one of which isn't designed to be used with my camera.
I also enjoy the benefit of short flange distance optics like the 12-24 which is almost a kilogram (!) lighter than the 11-24 + adaptor, cheaper (almost half price) and a lot less bulky too....Show more →
Not quite.
I am happy with BOTH adapted and native and that includes red ring and cheap too. It very much is on a lens to lens basis.
As for Eye AF, it works about as well on MY Sony camera (A7s) with Canon lenses as it does with native (just slower to focus). It also uses all the AF points with the Canon lenses as it does with the native lenses and I have yet to need support from anyone (well I did try and get support from Pentax a few years ago here in Australia and that was pointless).
That was one thing I had against using A mount lenses - the AF points with my A7/A7s was a lot more limited than on an A mount camera or different FF E mount camera (but that doesn't mean I would tell others not to use A mount adapted).
As for adapters, while not MADE by Sony (though of course the A mount adapters are), they are made by companies to work with lenses AND cameras and for the most part I have found they are fit for purpose for MY uses.
I am not trying to tell you to use them but I do object when others try and tell me they don't work or should not be used because THEY don't like using them.
Again, I am using more than one system and on micro four thirds, the AF with Canon lenses for AFS is about as fast as the AF is with my native lenses on my A7s (and previous A7) and maybe a bit faster.
The Canon lenses on my A7s while slow to AF will still focus in light lower than I would normally use (and I shoot in low light a lot which is why I have an A7s).
My 300mm 2.8 is an old manual focus lens and that works just great adapted on my FF Sony as it did on several others before.
Then again my Sony made FF E mount camera can not do any more than around 2fps for AFC and tracking even with the fastest Sony made lens.
There are reasons to prefer not to adapt and there are reasons to adapt and each has to decide what works for them.
p.4 #18 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Dealing in black and white will get you nowhere.
I adapt a 16mm minolta fisheye with the LA-EA3, it is very good.
If the native option is the 28mm FE and fisheye adapter I'm not thinking that is a more stable arrangement, would hate to see that unclip when pointing it down from the top of a step ladder. It is definitely not optically in the same league.
p.4 #19 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Bespoked wrote:
my lenses work properly without requiring me to consult google on every different body Sony make and should I have an issue I can contact Sony and they won't laugh me off the phone becuase I'm after support for not one, but two third party products, one of which isn't designed to be used with my camera.
This makes me laugh, I've never felt the need to phone Sony support.
Reminds me of my Apple owning friends telling me how awesome their Mac is - while I am fixing it for them!
There is no hotline for this PC if something goes wrong, it was made from scratch from 14 different parts from 12 manufacturers. Like the last one that ran 7 years without an issue (and still works as a backup at another location) this is absolutely rock solid.
If something works, it'll work in the same way unless something changes or until it wears out* .
Some adapted combinations aren't great but if you have an adapted combination that works perfectly, it should continue to work perfectly unless you change something, so you do have to be more careful with firmware updates.
p.4 #20 · Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there
Mystik wrote:
On the a9, adapted lenses cannot actively track while burst firing. Really strange because the a7 bodies don't do this as far as I can tell.
Beside the USM limitation, it might require hi-speed I/O interfaces from the lens & adapter to be in synced with A9 in order for 60fps AF tasks to work properly (in tracking modes) at A9 extremely high frame rate. The exists adapters should be OK with slower frame rate setting for now. Let hope, 3rd party adapters MFG will upgrade their CPUs anytime soon. Even this upgraded available, most adapted lenses can't compete with native lenses. It would be nice someone to list the best frame rates to work with canon lenses.
