Surfnsun wrote:
Are many of you guys & gals using the TAP adapter or are you just using manual focus? If you are, how are you finding the AF?
I can't say for sure as I haven't kept any count. But from what I can remember, I believe there's only a handful of us in this thread with the majority being on E mount.
In a nutshell, if you have experience with TAP already, then it performs pretty well. If you don't, it'll take you a little bit of time to adjust and/or get acclimated to its quirks in order to best work with them.
-AF is not achievable across the entire frame.
-Envision the rule of thirds grid. AF works through the entire vertical central region and about half way into the left and right side of the grid.
-Speed is pretty good. Think Canon 85L-ish. Pretty fast if you are not racking from MFD to infinity or vice versa.
-Works down to pretty low light
-Eye AF works in the regions where AF is achievable (subject's eye has to be located in the region). This is all assuming that you are on one of the new bodies.
-AF-C is okay but not great. Works better in AF-S.
-Wide works okay, but single point has been better for me.
All of the sample photos I have posted are with the TAP which should give you an idea of what types of movement/speed one can capture with it.
As mentioned previously also, if field curvature is an issue of high importance to you, then going native would better mitigate that (albeit in exchange for AF).
GMPhotography wrote:
Now a lesson here for those young wedding couples under let’s say 5 years. I’m going on 29 but the trick is you don’t ask, you buy and beg for forgiveness later. Just passing on the rules of engagement here. Buy a baseball helmet and take the hit after the fact.
Man I’m going to get in so much trouble if my wife reads this. But trust me on this one too, they will get you back even worse. The swing goes back and forth.
I've had it for a month already... Was just plucking up courage 🤣👏
This thread is the definition of frustration. My order is in with Adorama for over 10 days and I have to sit and watch others at play while I wait impatiently. Seriously though, loving this recent glut of images.
"Eye AF works in the regions where AF is achievable (subject's eye has to be located in the region). This is all assuming that you are on one of the new bodies."
Does the A7r2 count as one of the new bodies? For those of you who use the E mount version, are you finding MF to be much of a problem? (In particular, on an A7r2.)
Chris Crevasse wrote:
"Eye AF works in the regions where AF is achievable (subject's eye has to be located in the region). This is all assuming that you are on one of the new bodies."
Does the A7r2 count as one of the new bodies? For those of you who use the E mount version, are you finding MF to be much of a problem? (In particular, on an A7r2.)
Thanks.
Chris, I shoot with a range of classic primes on the a7r2 And don’t find MF to be a problem. In fact the focus assist, which I have assigned to C2, is a huge asset. I did a portrait shoot on Sunday using a Minolta Rokkor MC 55/1.7, Canon FD 50/1.4 and it went very well. I have the CV 40/1.2 on order.
If you could be more specific about the problem, it would help. Best wishes, Rob
Mar 14, 2018 at 08:50 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Chris Crevasse wrote:
"Eye AF works in the regions where AF is achievable (subject's eye has to be located in the region). This is all assuming that you are on one of the new bodies."
Does the A7r2 count as one of the new bodies? For those of you who use the E mount version, are you finding MF to be much of a problem? (In particular, on an A7r2.)
Thanks.
I'm using an O.G. A7, with no problems, generally. Of course, at 1.2, if your subject is >2m away, if they breathe wrong you can miss focus. I forget who mentioned using burst, but I've been using that extensively lately to fire off 3 or so while micro-adjusting focus and almost always get a hit - so thanks!!
Mar 14, 2018 at 09:05 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
These are amazing. Do you have any concerns about using it on the beach? In the past I've only taken my "beater" cameras to the beach, but you're really making me want to break that rule.
Chris Crevasse wrote:
"Eye AF works in the regions where AF is achievable (subject's eye has to be located in the region). This is all assuming that you are on one of the new bodies."
Does the A7r2 count as one of the new bodies? For those of you who use the E mount version, are you finding MF to be much of a problem? (In particular, on an A7r2.)
Thanks.
Eye Autofocus does not work with the A7r2 and the Techart adapter I'm afraid.
But I find single shot autofocus works very well, so don't miss it.
Mar 14, 2018 at 09:43 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Well this thread ruined me and I just plunked down the cash for this lens. Feeling a little sheepish about putting an MF lens on an A9 with all of its AF wizardry, but the results posted in their thread don't lie. Looking forward to a new challenge as this will be my first (non-ultrawide) MF lens.
Chris Crevasse wrote:
"Eye AF works in the regions where AF is achievable (subject's eye has to be located in the region). This is all assuming that you are on one of the new bodies."
Does the A7r2 count as one of the new bodies? For those of you who use the E mount version, are you finding MF to be much of a problem? (In particular, on an A7r2.)
Thanks.
Not sure if anything has changed with the firmware on the r2 recently but it was not a part of the list of bodies that received the update to enable eye-af with adapted lenses. From what I can tell, it was just the A9 and R3. My assumption is that the A73 will include it also.
I shot the Mitakon 50/0.95 on the r2 for a good while and it was only a problem in certain scenarios. If you’re shooting static subjects or scenes, it is actually pretty easy. With subjects that are moving through varying planes of focus, it’s definitely a problem (for me at least).
Rob, thanks. I have no specific problem in mind, as I've never attempted to use a MF lens on my A7r2. It is more of a general concern that no one but I can really answer, namely: am I up to returning to MF? I used MF lenses from the mid-70s until the late 90s, when I was happy to adopt AF lenses as my eyes aged. I occasionally use MF with my RX1 and A7r2, but only in static situations where I can be very deliberate with my focusing. I would love a small yet fast 35-40mm lens to use on my A7r2, and the only options are MF lenses, thus my dilemma.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
These are amazing. Do you have any concerns about using it on the beach? In the past I've only taken my "beater" cameras to the beach, but you're really making me want to break that rule.
Thank you! We are beach wedding photographers. No choice It's a risk and cost of doing business.
Chris Crevasse wrote:
Rob, thanks. I have no specific problem in mind, as I've never attempted to use a MF lens on my A7r2. It is more of a general concern that no one but I can really answer, namely: am I up to returning to MF? I used MF lenses from the mid-70s until the late 90s, when I was happy to adopt AF lenses as my eyes aged. I occasionally use MF with my RX1 and A7r2, but only in static situations where I can be very deliberate with my focusing. I would love a small yet fast 35-40mm lens to use on my A7r2, and the only options are MF lenses, thus my dilemma. ...Show more →
It is not only your dilemma
All I can say is that once you will actually practice MF, it will get better. After all, modern mirrorless cameras are MUCH better for MF than rangefinders or old MF SLRs. Much better.
You have to get used to the ways, figure out adjustments you need for particular lenses in particular scenarios (like when to use different peaking levels) and just get used to use of MF on particular lenses. I can say that after less than a week with MF on CV 40/1.2, am often capable on nailing eyelashes on slowly moving humans without even using focus assist, just peaking. (I also didn't touch MF since 90s and vision is damaged ).
And, for sure, there are a lot of situations where MF just handier/faster than AF.
And, in MF with focus peaking you have added bonus of DOF visualisation
For any of the guys that are debating over which version for the various reasons (respectively for each version), I’d say the most important question to ask yourself is what you primarily desire to shoot with it.
For those that are not overly experienced with MF, simply give it a try by switching to MF with your other fast primes. If you find that you’re able to consistently/confidently accomplish what you need to in MF, then the answer is easy. Go with the native mount version since it maximizes optical performance.
But if you’re anything like me, I learned a long time ago (through using various MF lenses that I love) that trying to convince myself that I could MF with f/0.95-1.4 lenses on moving subjects only resulted in me having a bunch of MF lenses that I love but don’t use very often. Personally, my shooting hardly ever consists of posing or intervening with real life so that people pause for my photo. With a close to normal FOV lens with a very large aperture, my inclination is to use it as a walk-around for shooting my family and friends. For that purpose, MF with slightly superior optics will only result in more optically superior out of focus captures and missed moments which is why I happily exchanged some field curvature for more usability (for what and how I shoot).
Also, there are lots of images in the thread from both versions that should give you a very good idea about what can be accomplished with both.
It's a risk and cost of doing business.