ChrisMak wrote:
How do you shoot the Nikon 500PF on the Sony A9 I wonder, and how does that work?
I use the Commlite adapter.
You have to MF the lens to just about perfect and then the AF can take over and track. Once that happens I would get a lot of sharp shots in a row. Trying to let the lens AF from even a few centimetres in front or back of your target either never moves or moves so slowly it can take a couple seconds till it gets to the target and starts focusing. The 300PF works much better.
A member on here has told me that on the A9II the 500PF actually worked okay but I haven't got to try it on that body yet.
MedicineMan has been posting a number of A7RIV and 300PF shots in the A7RIV thread so I think that combo is working well for him.
You have to MF the lens to just about perfect and then the AF can take over and track. Once that happens I would get a lot of sharp shots in a row. Trying to let the lens AF from even a few centimetres in front or back of your target either never moves or moves so slowly it can take a couple seconds till it gets to the target and starts focusing. The 300PF works much better.
A member on here has told me that on the A9II the 500PF actually worked okay but I haven't got to try it on that body yet.
MedicineMan has been posting a number of A7RIV and 300PF shots in the A7RIV thread so I think that combo is working well for him....Show more →
Not anywhere near as good as sigma's solution for Canon then, but the images do look very good. Somehow it always seems the A9 punches above its (limited) mp weight, especially the high iso images. Perhaps it's because the images are always spot on in focus...
ChrisMak wrote:
Not anywhere near as good as sigma's solution for Canon then, but the images do look very good. Somehow it always seems the A9 punches above its (limited) mp weight, especially the high iso images. Perhaps it's because the images are always spot on in focus...
The A9 is a very good high ISO camera. Your comment about the spot on focus certainly is a factor that I find in all the mirrorless cameras. Especially when using lens/TC combos that required significant MFA on a DSLR like my 500PF and 1.7TC. In very controlled tests on my DSLRs I know that combo can produce sharp images but in the field use the AF is so inconsistent that you rarely get something worth the sacrifices of the TC's light loss and ISO penalty. But if I put that 500PF/1.7 on my Z camera then I get a lot of tack sharp shots (within reason and of more static subjects) and the camera breathes new life into the combo. With my 500PF/2xTC I had to dial in +20 MFA on my D850 and I'm not even sure if that is enough. Throw that on the Z and it works just fine.
Adapting Canon to a Sony camera is magnitudes better than adapting a Nikon. Canon glass works amazingly well and can easily be a viable solution for most subjects (at least with the lenses I've used but I do know of people reporting certain lenses like 200-400 don't work well).
Very usefull info for me in putting things in perspective. I have the 400DOOII with both converters but have grown weary of the limited dynamic range and limited color depth of the 7DII next to the inability to do much about it all in post processing. I bought the 90D as well as the EOS-R but returned both and was lucky to be able to. The 90D has a controversial sensor that might work if only the AF system in the 90D was up to it, which it is not. The EOS-R suffered from peculiar IS jumps with the 400DOII that Canon had no answer to, and in honesty, the sensor seemed still not where the Sony sensors are (I used Pentax for years which gets very good performance out of the Sony sensors).
So now I am weighing my options since the 7DIII I hoped for is nowhere to be seen, and it is not realistic to keep waiting for it.. I got some samples from Robert to see that the Sony A6400 has very nice output with the 400DOII, and has the latest AF tech, but going to the store was a reality check: small body with awkward grip and rangefinder EVF that is nothing to write home about. So two options now:
-Forget Canon and head over to Nikon with D500, 500PF and 1.4TC
-Get the Sony A9 and use the Canon with extenders.
Now, the first option is what everyone would and should (I guess) do, but the 400DOII is near impossible to sell above 3000,- here, and although I don't attach to gear, I do realize what kind of a lens it is, and that lenses last a lot longer than cameras, and it seems a waste to practically dump such a superbly made lens. If, as I assume, the A9 with latest firmware and sigma mc-11, gives me a robust system with the Canon plus extenders, then it might not be such a bad idea to take that route. I know the resolution is not that high, but when using the 400DOII+2.0TC, I would be shooting at higher iso all the time anyway, and it seems that as the iso rises, the mp count starts to matter less. In any case, I really like the A9 images, especially the higher iso images, they have a certain clarity and rich color that works for me. Do you crop your A9 images a lot when needed, and do they hold up?
arbitrage wrote:
The A9 is a very good high ISO camera. Your comment about the spot on focus certainly is a factor that I find in all the mirrorless cameras. Especially when using lens/TC combos that required significant MFA on a DSLR like my 500PF and 1.7TC. In very controlled tests on my DSLRs I know that combo can produce sharp images but in the field use the AF is so inconsistent that you rarely get something worth the sacrifices of the TC's light loss and ISO penalty. But if I put that 500PF/1.7 on my Z camera then I get a lot of tack sharp shots (within reason and of more static subjects) and the camera breathes new life into the combo. With my 500PF/2xTC I had to dial in +20 MFA on my D850 and I'm not even sure if that is enough. Throw that on the Z and it works just fine.
Adapting Canon to a Sony camera is magnitudes better than adapting a Nikon. Canon glass works amazingly well and can easily be a viable solution for most subjects (at least with the lenses I've used but I do know of people reporting certain lenses like 200-400 don't work well)....Show more →
In Germany the lens is on a discount of €300 and I finally bit the bullet for one.
It's the first time I see a discount on this lens (although only 8%).
Chris Dees wrote:
In Germany the lens is on a discount of €300 and I finally bit the bullet for one.
It's the first time I see a discount on this lens (although only 8%).
It is a great summary of what I think we all value with this "little" lens. I'll be joining Brad on a trip this fall. I'm going to bring my copy of the 300PF along and let him use it if he cares to. I think he might change his tune on the 300PF comparison once he does. I truly feel that my 300PF is better (or at least dead equal) optically to my 500PF and to my (now sold for similar reasons Brad discusses) 500E FL. Will see what he thinks
