Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 10

12 end

Archive 2018 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

dclark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #1 · p.11 #1 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

mogul wrote:
E mount has no cross AF points so can get confused with different orientations.

I am aware that Sony PDAF sensors are only sensitive to vertical edge contrast. Kim mentioned that in his post. My tests were all done with the camera the same orientation (landscape) and I did not use a focus target with only vertical or horizontal contrast. The focus targets were bushes and trees that have a variety of structure.

Dec 17, 2018 at 07:23 PM

PaulMaewpa2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #2 · p.11 #2 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Thanks everybody. That is really helpful. I have a theory sbout what is going on although it diesn’t make complete sense yet. I’ll have to test it to confirm. Street dogs are going to get a bit unnerved this weekend (I like to test on things as close as possible to what I want to shoot).

Even though I was moving the focus spot (L) around in the hide there was never any wish to move it beyond the imaginary left or right third lines. It would never make sense to do that compositionally.

When shooting the squirrel in portrait those unused areas were exactly where it’s head was. You’ll see in the one that I posted I am a little too high - tail is chopped off.

Of course the stripes on the squirrel are a tempting explanation too but I did discount that on the spot.. at least as a primary cause. No way there was less contrast than on the tree shrew anyway.

So my working theory is that flexible spot is not equally effective throughout the frame. I mention only the left and right thirds (in landscape) because when some jungle fowl came along the male did a bit of displaying and then I did have to move significantly off center and don’t remember having any significant problems. However, since he was moving quite a lot if I was fast and smart enough (and sometimes I am, sometimes not) I would have switched to zone. Is there any way to check that in the EXIF?

Anyway it is just a theory!!!

Focusing on the edge? And no, the hide was was not in a farmyard. These are genuinely wild jungle birds and the origin of our domestic chickens.

Edited on Dec 17, 2018 at 08:17 PM · View previous versions

Dec 17, 2018 at 07:37 PM

PaulMaewpa2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #3 · p.11 #3 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Of course the above is same as found by kimknapp but I am definitely getting good performance away from the center too.

Dec 17, 2018 at 07:49 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #4 · p.11 #4 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

dclark wrote:
I set up to see if moving the AF point off center caused problems and I see the same thing you reported.

First I set up with the Canon 600mm+MC-11+A9 in AFC. Using Flexible Spot S M or L, or Expand Flexible Spot centered it focuses quickly. If I move the focus point left or right off center, the camera struggles to focus and usually fails. Moving the focus point to the extreme left or right it always fails. If I move the focus point up and down, it seems to focus just as well as centered. If I use...Show more →

I remembered when I was about to give up on the Sigma MC-11. Placing the AF point beyond the center area in horizontal orientation threw the AF off. I meant the small center area. When you moved the AF point up or down, it worked fine however. We couldn't figure out why but for sure it was Sigma issue. I don't remember the number of the FW but it was about 2 years ago or so. MB did way better back then. I used my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 for portraits quite a bit back then and still now. I still prefer Metabones for that lens even until now.

We waited months before Sigma fixed that issue and I really though they did fix it. Apparently, the same problem resurfaced although not to the extent that it was before or it wasn't completely fixed. I haven't tested mine yet... but for just using my gear for real-life shooting so far, I have yet to encounter any real issues. And I do believe that Sigma will address this issue and better be sooner rather than later, of course.

Dec 17, 2018 at 08:01 PM

dclark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #5 · p.11 #5 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

AGeoJO wrote:
I remembered when I was about to give up on the Sigma MC-11. Placing the AF point beyond the center area in horizontal orientation threw the AF off. I meant the small center area. When you moved the AF point up or down, it worked fine however. We couldn't figure out why but for sure it was Sigma issue. I don't remember the number of the FW but it was about 2 years ago or so. MB did way better back then. I used my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 for portraits quite a bit back then and still now. I still...Show more →

I see no difference between the Sigma MC-11 and the Metabones IV. I doubt that the adapter is the problem since I don't see how the adapter would be effected by where the AF point has been positioned. How would the adapter get that information? It is responding to analog signals sent by the camera. It seems much more likely that Sony is processing AF sensors differently for non-Sony lenses than Sony lenses.

The loss of focus capability as you move the focus point left or right is not a subtle effect. It is not as obvious in Zone or Wide mode but even then focus points in the center are the only ones that are effective. It is easy to see with a simple test. I have noticed it in real shooting when I move the focus point to focus on the eye when the animal gets large in the frame and the eye is not centered. Focus is lost and its starts racking the focus. It does not happen often because most of the time what I want in-focus is near the middle of the frame.

Dec 17, 2018 at 08:37 PM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #6 · p.11 #6 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

dclark wrote:
I see no difference between the Sigma MC-11 and the Metabones IV. I doubt that the adapter is the problem since I don't see how the adapter would be effected by where the AF point has been positioned. How would the adapter get that information? It is responding to analog signals sent by the camera. It seems much more likely that Sony is processing AF sensors differently for non-Sony lenses than Sony lenses.

The loss of focus capability as you move the focus point left or right is not a subtle effect. It is not as obvious in Zone or...Show more →

Dave,
This thread is a little bit too specialized to get the attention of the average Sony shooters that accrued experience from using both Metabones and Sigma MC-11. I experienced the difference first hand and posted my experience here and there on various threads in 2016 - 2017.

I located a few that you can peruse. You also can do your own search to dig up more. It is entirely up to you what you want to make out of info from those past threads.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1498238/0?keyword=Sigma,MC-11#14095768

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1520060/

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1534024/0?keyword=Sigma,MC-11#14392034

Dec 17, 2018 at 09:52 PM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #7 · p.11 #7 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

I haven't studied how the phrase detect AF works, but I suspect it needs some distance between two PDAF sensors to work well.
If the subject is in the center, you have the max amount of distance between two equidistant focus points. As the subject moves off center, the two equidistant focus points quickly get closer to each other, making it harder to detect phase differences. Just a SWAG, though.

I don't remember if there is a way to switch to force CDAF mode with the Sony (I think it was my EM1 mk2 that allows that). Too late to do any more testing here, tonight. Maybe tomorrow I'll try higher than f11 to see if it goes to CDAF and allows focus farther from the center.

dclark wrote:
I set up to see if moving the AF point off center caused problems and I see the same thing you reported.

First I set up with the Canon 600mm+MC-11+A9 in AFC. Using Flexible Spot S M or L, or Expand Flexible Spot centered it focuses quickly. If I move the focus point left or right off center, the camera struggles to focus and usually fails. Moving the focus point to the extreme left or right it always fails. If I move the focus point up and down, it seems to focus just as well as centered. If I use...Show more →

Dec 17, 2018 at 10:56 PM

arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #8 · p.11 #8 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

If you setup a simple subject with a very distant plain background and use Wide AF mode you can test where the edges of the AF works...you start AF-C focusing with the centre of the frame on your subject, then move the camera left and right, up and down and watch it track the subject (which isn't moving, instead you do the moving). You will note that it can track all the way up and down the frame but there are limits to how far it will track left and right. I've found that these left and right limits can vary by lens, with my 400 and 600mm lenses they were essentially the same. But with my adapted 16-35 and 24-70 the camera can track further out to the left and right. Still not all the way like it can with a native lens but further than the long primes.

As has been noted already, when in vertical orientation we are often using more extreme left and right (ie up and down in vertical) points than we usually do in landscape...this is just the nature of compositions you typically do in those two orientations....obviously exceptions apply....that is most likely where difference came from...

Dec 17, 2018 at 10:56 PM

PaulMaewpa2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #9 · p.11 #9 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

arbitrage wrote:
If you setup a simple subject with a very distant plain background and use Wide AF mode you can test where the edges of the AF works...you start AF-C focusing with the centre of the frame on your subject, then move the camera left and right, up and down and watch it track the subject (which isn't moving, instead you do the moving). You will note that it can track all the way up and down the frame but there are limits to how far it will track left and right. I've found that these left and right limits can...Show more →

The sad face is for what a useless tester I am. I could easily have done this if I had half a brain for science.

Will try this, and then bother the street dogs to confirm my results.

Dec 17, 2018 at 11:35 PM

PaulMaewpa2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #10 · p.11 #10 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

PaulMaewpa2 wrote:

The sad face is for what a useless tester I am. I could easily have done this if I had half a brain for science.

Will try this, and then bother the street dogs to confirm my results.

The street dogs get a reprieve. I did what Geoff suggested, although with my standard test subjects, and the results are so clear and obvious that I don’t need to do any more. With the 400/4 and MC-11 focus is Flexible Spot L is fast and accurate at 5m and 15m from an OOF starting point from top to bottom of the sensor (landscape). However moving the spot left to right it starts hunting at the third points and any further will not grip focus at all - although it will bring the subject right into focus it cannot confirm it. With zone focus all zones will work but only if you put the subject in the part of the zone within the same rectangle. Otherwise it will find something else in that rectangle (which might just be a square - I am going to check). This is clearly why I find zone focus so much more “reliable” and why I feel I can direct focus back onto a subject by moving the camera and pumping focus. In fact it is the moving of the camera that is vital (keeping the subject in the zone where focus is possible) and the pumping of focus is only useful if focus has already been lost. So in future I will not madly pump but gracefully reframe and gently press!

This actually provides one advantage. If shooting a scene with multiple possible subjects zone focus can effectively be turned into “strip focus” by moving the zone to an extreme left or right position. Put the object you want to focus on in that strip and you can nail it consistently, even if another person/ bird/ animal/ car moves closer to the camera elsewhere within the zone. Dave noticed this.

I knew this from experience but it is great to know what is happening. So I need to do this with all my lenses (something similar for eye focus too) and have a mental map in my head of where I can actually focus. I wonder if there are variations with native lenses too (100-400 seems pretty comprehensive in coverage but I have had eye AF surprises with e.g. the 55/1.8 and especially with the A7R3, so it’ll be interesting to see if there is an area where AF is becoming less reliable in e.g lower light).

This seems so obvious now and I still feel like an idiot, but now a well- informed idiot! Thousands of wasted shots will now not be taken! Thank you Geoff for lending me your common sense. I always knew in my heart it wasn’t the runes that decided whether I would be able to acquire focus.

I’ll post if I get radically different or interesting results with the 400 with TC or Metabones - at a guess based on past experience no to the former but yes (poorer performance over more of the sensor) for the latter.

So a firmware fixable thing or special Sony sauce ingredient that they will never share with Sigma (or Sigma has agreed not to add to the MC-11)? With Sigma lenses stated as compatible with the MC-11 does anyone know if there is greater coverage of the frame on the A9? Or only the ones with the converter apparently soldered on?

I had the 120-300 but it is in the UK now waiting for sale (if my nephew gets his finger out!) so I can’t check that.

Happy Christmas to all on this thread (and other threads - you know who you are) who have helped inspire me to get my head around this. Need to take some pictures now (Santa brought me a Voigtlander 21/3.5, with which there are no such issues, and it’s time to get that out of its box!).

Dec 22, 2018 at 12:40 AM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #11 · p.11 #11 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Does anybody know if the Metabones adaptor let's you move focus points outside the center area?

Kim

Dec 24, 2018 at 08:03 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #12 · p.11 #12 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

kimknapp wrote:
Does anybody know if the Metabones adaptor let's you move focus points outside the center area?

Kim

Kim, I am not home now and I cannot try that out. The last time I did use my Metabones V was with my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens some 2 months ago but it was with my A7r II or III for sure not on the A9. I wasn't testing it and used the Eye-AF for my needs. I could get that to work in the upper third for eye or eyes. Sorry not much of a help here.

Joshua

Dec 24, 2018 at 09:10 AM

trstahly
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #13 · p.11 #13 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

kimknapp wrote:
Good point.
Here is the way I look at it.

The 400 f2.8 gives native AF at 400 and 560. I don't know about 800 mm.
The 600 f4 gives very good AF at 600 and, apparently, 840. Does not work at 400 mm

Don't know about 1200 @ f11 on A9, Joshua?

Both are very sharp at their native FL. From experiments I did with a rented Sony 2x TC, I am not confident that the 400 at 800 mm would be as sharp as the 600 at 840. This is still to be clarified.

The 400 is ~ 5 pounds, the 600...Show more →

I am confused as to why much of what I read touts the 400 2.8 GM and being lighter and smaller and state 5 lbs in your post but Sony and other sites have the lens listed at 6.25lbs?

No doubt it is a fantastic lens, fast excellent AF and better balanced but as far as size I am confused when you compare it to others I have read that the weight is more towards the camera end so it handles better but it appears to be shorter and slightly more weight than the Canon? Sony states on their site the lens is Remarkably lightweight at just 102.2 oz (2.90 g) but lightweight compared to what because it is heavier and longer than the Canon?

I just got the Canon 500 F4 II and 1.4 extender for 500 & 700mm to pair with my 100-400 GM which will provide more reach and speed 500mm F4 or 700mm F5.6.

Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on using the Sony TC vs Canon with my Metabones V which someone earlier in the thread will work or which one has better IQ of there is even a difference?

The Canon 400 F4 really is appealing to me with much smaller form factor and weight but it doesn't make a lot of sense other than maybe handholding and BIF possibly.

Sony 100-400 GM 3.70 x 8.07" 3.07 lb
Canon 300 2.8 5.04 x 9.76" 5.29 lb
Sony 400 2.8 GM 6.22 x 14.13" 6.37 lb
Canon 400 F2.8 6.42 x 13.50" 6.25 lb
Canon 400 F4 5.04 x 9.16" 4.63 lb
Canon 500 F4 5.75 x 15.08" 7.02 lb
Canon 600 6.61 x 17.64" 6.71 lb

Edited on Dec 24, 2018 at 10:43 PM · View previous versions

Dec 24, 2018 at 03:31 PM

dclark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #14 · p.11 #14 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

dclark wrote:
I see no difference between the Sigma MC-11 and the Metabones IV. I doubt that the adapter is the problem since I don't see how the adapter would be effected by where the AF point has been positioned. How would the adapter get that information? It is responding to analog signals sent by the camera. It seems much more likely that Sony is processing AF sensors differently for non-Sony lenses than Sony lenses.

The loss of focus capability as you move the focus point left or right is not a subtle effect. It is not as obvious in Zone or...Show more →

---------------------------------------------

kimknapp wrote:
Does anybody know if the Metabones adaptor let's you move focus points outside the center area?

Kim

I believe my posts have answered your question. The short answer to your question is the Metabones seems to be identical to the Sigma MC-11.

Edit: I cannot include my post on the prior page in this post, but it describes the tests I ran and includes a comment that the Metabones was tested too.

Dec 24, 2018 at 05:28 PM

kimknapp
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #15 · p.11 #15 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

dclark wrote:
---------------------------------------------

I believe my posts have answered your question. The short answer to your question is the Metabones seems to be identical to the Sigma MC-11.

Edit: I cannot include my post on the prior page in this post, but it describes the tests I ran and includes a comment that the Metabones was tested too.

Sorry Dave,
Somehow (age - 70) I missed it.
Still love the 600L, in any case.

Kim

Dec 24, 2018 at 09:49 PM

SeanHew
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #16 · p.11 #16 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Sorry to bump this thread, but has anyone tested adapted canon lenses using the new firmware of the A7RIII and a9? Has it improved? I'm currently holding out for a Sony 600 f4 but I may just spring for the new canon 600 with an adapter if there isn't really a difference in performance at this point.

May 03, 2019 at 10:11 PM

trstahly
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #17 · p.11 #17 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

I just spent an afternoon with my A9 with my 400 GM and 600 F4 IS II USM and the Sony is night and day faster and more accurate. You could not even think about BIF with the Canon. I like the Canon but not for action. It’s not bad but tends to hunt, focus magnification and other just is not as good as native which is understandable. I cannot wait for the Sony version and bought the Canon preowned so when the Sony comes out I’m half way there when I sell the Canon.

I would certainly get one if you can get a mint copy for under 7k and would use the FL. Then when the Sony comes out it is not that big a step to trade up. I would find it hard to write a check for 13k after I already did for my 400 GM but a half step somehow I can justify that in my crazy mind.

One thing is for sure no non native lens is going to AF and track much less burst like one of the newer Sony GM lenses. Not gonna happen now or ever.

Edited on May 04, 2019 at 11:54 AM · View previous versions

May 03, 2019 at 10:31 PM

daniel.in.la
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #18 · p.11 #18 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

trstahly wrote:
I just spent an afternoon with my A9 with my 400 GM and 600 F4 IS II USM and the Sony is night and day faster and more accurate. You could not even think about BIF with the Canon. I like the Canon but not for action. It’s not bad but tends to hint focus magnification and other just is not as good as native which is understandable. I cannot wait for the Sony version and bought the Canon preowned so when the Sony comes out I’m half way there when I sell the Canon. I would get one if...Show more →

Agreed. The 400 outclasses longer glass like the 600 and 800 F4/F5.6 Canon glass in fast situations. I haven't missed a shot that I felt was action based when using the 400 GM. The 800 was a tank to begin with, and even with easier objects like planes flying over, focus was slow using MB IV adapter. The 600 II felt fine, but the 400 is just much better. Stationary shots really could work with almost anything in front of the sensor, but no one really just does still motion photography at this FL unless it's just to kill time between action shots!

May 03, 2019 at 11:58 PM

SeanHew
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.11 #19 · p.11 #19 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

daniel.in.la wrote:
Agreed. The 400 outclasses longer glass like the 600 and 800 F4/F5.6 Canon glass in fast situations. I haven't missed a shot that I felt was action based when using the 400 GM. The 800 was a tank to begin with, and even with easier objects like planes flying over, focus was slow using MB IV adapter. The 600 II felt fine, but the 400 is just much better. Stationary shots really could work with almost anything in front of the sensor, but no one really just does still motion photography at this FL unless it's just to kill time...Show more →

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Sounds like I'll just have to keep waiting until Sony releases a 600 f4. My 100-400GM will just have to do until then.

May 04, 2019 at 12:11 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.11 #20 · p.11 #20 · Wildlife lens selection and why not the 400mm GM

Guys, I am not claiming the 600mm f/4 to be a direct replacement for the GM 400mm but under certain circumstances, it works more than just decently. I could certainly do BIF actions for largish birds. With the right adapter, AF setting and gear handling technique, it is definitely more than just decent and for sure, I wouldn’t write it off completely. Check this thread out: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1585940/0. No problem getting BIF actions there during that trip.

Recently I tried to capture a pair of fast flying falcons; I had decent results before. This time around, I struck out; the 600mm lens was too big and heavy for me to hand hold and on a tripod, it was too slow for me to follow the action. I ended up using my GM 100-400mm lens plus a TC to capture the action.

In summary, while it has shortcomings but this adapted lens is more than just decent and until Sony comes up with a lens that would (closely) cover that FL, I will continue using that adapted lens. YMMV, of course.

May 04, 2019 at 01:44 AM

1 2 3 … 10 11 12 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 10 11 12 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.