I have both, and I've found both work the same for me unless I'm using Sigma lenses. Then the Metabones focuses faster than the MC-11. I've no idea why that's the case. But with the Canon lenses, I see little difference between the adapters.
You should borrow the meta-bones from your friend and do a comparison test for yourself to help make the decision Scoobert wrote:
Got the MC-11 on sale for 150 and now have a chance to get a really good deal a used metabones iv from a friend.
Will it be an upgrade at all with the canon lenses I have?
Betacamman wrote:
I have both, and I've found both work the same for me unless I'm using Sigma lenses. Then the Metabones focuses faster than the MC-11. I've no idea why that's the case. But with the Canon lenses, I see little difference between the adapters.
Ha, I am finding the same, at least, with my only Sigma lens, the 135mm f/1.8 Art lens.
I would consider the Metabones V as an upgrade, albeit slight, for its ability to accept either the Sony FE 1.4X or 2.0X teleconverters.
Unless a lens has specific issues with the mc-11, IQ wise I would go for the mc11 every time specially after I did a test to confirm what I thought I had seen owning the mb iv and V previously:
&
I contacted metabones about those results and they told me they were going to test and get back to me...they never did so I guess they didn't find anything different to what I did.
Scoobert wrote:
Got the MC-11 on sale for 150 and now have a chance to get a really good deal a used metabones iv from a friend.
Will it be an upgrade at all with the canon lenses I have?
AGeoJO wrote:
Ha, I am finding the same, at least, with my only Sigma lens, the 135mm f/1.8 Art lens.
I've got the 35 1.4 Art and the 14-24 2.8 Art, and both take twice as long to focus on any body with the MC-11 because they do the "in-out" focus movements before locking on, while the MB just goes to the right focus point. It's rather maddening.
I've had both and have settled on the MC-11 for use with a range of Canon large-aperture lenses, with which the MC-11 works extremely well. I don't own any Sigma lenses, so I can't speak to that.
I think Sigma has a lot of motivation to continue to heighten performance of Canon mount lenses on Sony bodies and Sigma upgrades their firmware more often than does Metabones. The Sigma MC-11 seems better manufactured to me and it is significantly less expenseive. Metabones was there first and their original premium price, as the only game in town, now seems very overpriced to me.
I have both, although now I've sold pretty much all my Canon lenses.
Both are good, but the fact that the Metabones (at this point) is limited to only 3 fps in AF-C tracking (except with A9 body) made me switch to MC-11 + Sigma lenses. Actually, I have mostly native Sony lenses but for birds I now use the MC-11 + Sigma 150-600 C instead of my Metabones IV + Tamron 150-600 VC (selling both the Tamron lens and the Metabones). My Tamron was great with my former Canon bodies (especially the 5DIV) but with my Sony rig I couldn't tolerate the 3fps max.
AHHHH Sounds like I will be sticking with just the MC-11.
I somehow thought with the Metabones I would get farther to the edge focusing . With the MC-11 it seems once I get off center it wont track anymore. I guess that is not the case?
Depends on the lens. I had the Metabones and it was OK with my 70-200/4L, but abysmal with the Sigma 100-400. Both lenses are much, much better with the MC-11.
Scoobert wrote:
AHHHH Sounds like I will be sticking with just the MC-11.
I somehow thought with the Metabones I would get farther to the edge focusing . With the MC-11 it seems once I get off center it wont track anymore. I guess that is not the case?
I find the MC-11 and MB4 are essentially identical in all aspects of their performance with a range of Canon lenses. Be aware that the MC-11 and the MB4 cannot be used with Sony TC's because of a mechanical interference. The MB5 is compatible with Sony TC's.
The problem with AF tracking off-center left and right is a problem with both the MC-11 and the MB adapters. I and others did some tests and posted some comments starting on page 10 of another thread, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1569131/9
Scoobert wrote:
AHHHH Sounds like I will be sticking with just the MC-11.
I somehow thought with the Metabones I would get farther to the edge focusing . With the MC-11 it seems once I get off center it wont track anymore. I guess that is not the case?
I don't think the Metabones vs the MC-11 adapter is the limiting factor. I don't think the Metabones would be any different, with the same lens and the same camera body. But I don't do a lot of tracking photography, so you may need to hear from someone who does.
I think it rather depends a lot on which camera you are using, and also which lenses. The A73 has AF sensors farther out toward the edges, so you will get better tracking going out toward the edges. The A7r3 and A7r2 have more centered AF sensors, so you can't get AF as close to the edges.
I have also found that my Canon lenses seem to vary. The Canon 24mm f/1.4 II, 35mm f/1.4, the 35mm f/2 IS, the 50mm f/1.2L, and the 85mm f/1.2L II all autofocus well for me with the MC-11, a bit better on the A73 than on the A7r3, but very acceptably on the latter. However, the 135mm f/2 focuses well only with the more central focusing points on either camera. If I try to use a focus point toward the edges, it hunts unacceptably. This might be (though I really don't know) because it is a much older lens design (though my copy is recently made) with older firmware algorithms.
Look at Matt Lanier’s video with the 135 and MB. It focuses much better away from center than with the MC11. Performance varies by lens which is why you should borrow the MB and test with YOUR lenses and see which is best for you.
I've always been put off by MB excessive prices and the fact they allowed terrible internal flare in their first two or three models. I have always found Sigma to have great contrast, which is much more important to me than AF points near the edge (I never use them).
MB was better until recently. Now they're neck and neck. Any differences with non-Sigma lenses will be generally insignificant. You'll have huge gains with Sigma Global Vision lenses on the MC-11, though. Full native features on the latest FE cameras, though AF will still lag behind Sigma's native versions, which in turn lag behind Sony's native equivalents. Who knows what the next FW improvements will bring...
I don't have an apples to apples comparison here, but I have the Nikon 300 2.8 with MB and it works okay, but sometimes I need to remove the lens and start over. I also use the MC-11 with Canon lenses and they work great. Obviously, not as fast as native Sony lenses, but fast enough for my purpose.
dclark wrote:
I find the MC-11 and MB4 are essentially identical in all aspects of their performance with a range of Canon lenses. Be aware that the MC-11 and the MB4 cannot be used with Sony TC's because of a mechanical interference. The MB5 is compatible with Sony TC's.
The problem with AF tracking off-center left and right is a problem with both the MC-11 and the MB adapters. I and others did some tests and posted some comments starting on page 10 of another thread, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1569131/9
Dave
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Would like to know if the image quality is the same between MB4/5 and MC-11. The price difference on used ones are $150-200 between the two adapters. Would rather go with the better one.
