Need a favor slightly off topic but related. Been thinking abut it the sigma 135 1.8 in e mount than adding a 1.4 TC to it. So couple thoughts take the current canon mount with a MC-11 can anyone try and use the 1.4 with that. Now there is a baffle inside the MC-11 and that may stop it BUT i would think the 135 Native e mount would not have that baffle inside it. Actually I would bet on it as there is no reason too. I really want a 200mm and this would get me damn close. 189 mm which is close enough than if I dropped in crop mode I can get to 284mm which is perfect for a certain job I do.
Can someone please try a MC-11 on a Sony TC 1.4 and maybe there 135
GMPhotography wrote:
Need a favor slightly off topic but related. Been thinking abut it the sigma 135 1.8 in e mount than adding a 1.4 TC to it. So couple thoughts take the current canon mount with a MC-11 can anyone try and use the 1.4 with that. Now there is a baffle inside the MC-11 and that may stop it BUT i would think the 135 Native e mount would not have that baffle inside it. Actually I would bet on it as there is no reason too. I really want a 200mm and this would get me damn close. 189 mm which is close enough than if I dropped in crop mode I can get to 284mm which is perfect for a certain job I do.
Can someone please try a MC-11 on a Sony TC 1.4 and maybe there 135
Guy, since the Sigma E-mount lenses are not readily available yet, we are only speculating whether any of the Sony FE TC will fit behind it. But for sure, the MC-11 will not allow the Sony FE TC to be mounted behind. The only smart adapter that allows that is the Metabones V. The image quality with the Sony TC is barely degraded, I may add.
Thanks Joshua so it sounds like the baffle is in the way. My bet you could cut that . But I’m thinking the E mount has exactly the same dimensions from the sensor and I doubt highly a baffle would be in there. Hmmmmmmmmm..
Now with the Metabones let’s say on a A7RIII your not getting Eye Af. My problem is I bought the Sigma way too early in its life cycle and everything has been upgraded so I don’t know anything at this point. Any thoughts
Heck I’d skip the 105 if this is doable. It solves a huge need
GMPhotography wrote:
Thanks Joshua so it sounds like the baffle is in the way. My bet you could cut that . But I’m thinking the E mount has exactly the same dimensions from the sensor and I doubt highly a baffle would be in there. Hmmmmmmmmm..
Now with the Metabones let’s say on a A7RIII your not getting Eye Af. My problem is I bought the Sigma way too early in its life cycle and everything has been upgraded so I don’t know anything at this point. Any thoughts
Heck I’d skip the 105 if this is doable. It solves a huge need
Guy, I am sure both the upper and lower baffles of the MC-11 can be “removed”, chopped or whatever to let the Sony FE fit in the rear. The baffles seems to be made out of plastic and lined with flock paper/cloth. There is a risk that the integrity of the MC-11 can be jeopardized if you do so, however.
With the latest FW of Metabones, Eye-AF works just fine. In the green mode, the AF-C it can be a little bit hesitant depending on the lighting conditions but in the AF-S it is sure footed. I have been using that for a few months already.
Since you sold your copy of the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens already, and the FE mount will be available before too long, I would wait for the FE mount to be available. If the Sigma FE mount allows the FE TC to be mounted, then you don’t have to go through the adapter ordeal again. If not, then the Canon mount is still a viable option. Sigma just “added” an extension to mimick the MC-11 for their current FE mount lenses and didn’t design the lenses not from the ground up. BTW, I still love my Sigma 135mm Art as much as when it was new. It is really that good.
Yea I would wait for the FE mount no question , since there saying it’s improved. I could certainly change out the Batis 135 and keep my Sony 85 1.8. Kind of like that option better over the 105 where I’d sell both. Also if I can get the TC on it than it really solves a big gig for me. Than I won’t have to rent the 70-200. I noticed finding a TC is like impossible. The other issue is stock on hand. Something to think about
GMPhotography wrote:
Thanks Joshua . Owe you donuts. Lol
My pleasure, Guy and don’t worry about donutsi. I have to cut my sugar intake down in a big way. I don’t remember when the last time I had donuts .
The Canon 1.4X TC doesn’t fit behind the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 lens either. I am not sure whether the Sigma 1.4X TC would or not and I am not sure about the IQ of that combo either. If it fits and the IQ is also excellent then another option for you would be to get that and use it with the MC-11. That is, of course, if you cannot moun the Sony FE TC behind the Sigma FE lenses.
I have the 100-400 and recently bought the 1.4x teleconverter. I find that there is some vignetting with it - with the auto compensation turned off it is obvious especially in areas like blue sky. With it turned on though it does a pretty good job of hiding it though if you look carefully you can see some of the impact with a darker area and a faint line where it stops.
I've put up a couple of photos on flickr at 560mm and wide open.
I think I would be satisfied with the look with the compensation on but I see others here writing that they saw no vignetting with this combination. I wonder if it is just that it is being cleared up well enough that others aren't noticing it or are there some copies of the 1.4x that really produce *no* vignetting at all? If so I'll return mine as I paid full price and can do so but I am hesitant as it's otherwise perfectly good.
.
