golfnphotog wrote:
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.
Both do not have any optics and seriously, there is no difference in image quality. It boils down to the AF performance, interface and operation. The biggest advantage of the Metabones V (and not the IV) is the ability to use an FE tele-extender behind the adapter, the presence of weather protection in the form of an O-ring between the adapter and your Sony body and the ability to mount the adapter on an Arca-style clamp. There is also an on/off switch for IBIS but that’s no big deal, IMHO. Again, I am referring to the V version of Metabones.
golfnphotog wrote:
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.
I see no difference in the image quality with the MC-11 and MB4. Optically they are both passive elements that have only one function, hold the lens at the right distance from the sensor. I have measured the thickness of the TC's and find them to be essentially identical. I was prompted to use a micrometer to measure them after seeing some posts that there were significant differences and it resulted in noticeable differences in image quality. As is the case with many posts it is easy to verify or refute them with simple measurements.
The only difference worth noting is that the MB has a "green" mode and an "advanced" mode. That may be an advantage if you want to use both modes, but I always use green mode. Consequently for me it is a slight disadvantage since I need to confirm I am in green mode, and if not I need to recall how to get it into green mode. The MB4 has no indication of the mode, the MB5 has a colored LED which indicates the mode. Consequently I most often use the MC-11 since I don't need to be concerned about it.
AGeoJO wrote:
Both do not have any optics and seriously, there is no difference in image quality. It boils down to the AF performance, interface and operation.
My experience with the MB IV and V vs the MC-11 show that there IS a difference at least with the samples I tested so I have to disagree based on my own personal experience and test.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
My experience with the MB IV and V vs the MC-11 show that there IS a difference at least with the samples I tested so I have to disagree based on my own personal experience and test.
"With the samples you tested" is the qualifying term. Both don't have any optics; the difference you saw has to do with the tolerance difference between your 2 copies and nothing else.
AGeoJO wrote:
"With the samples you tested" is the qualifying term. It doesn't have any optics; the difference you saw has to do with the tolerance difference between your 2 copies and nothing else.
2 copies of the MV IV (one rented one I owned) , one copy of the V that I owned and 2 copies of the MC-11. Metabones replied to my email regarding my results and told me they were going to test on their end and get back to me. Never replied back. You can interpret their silence any way you like.
Sure, tolerances or not, the fact is of the copies I tested, all metabones had the issues with IQ degradation on the edges.. And when you take into account the much higher price, you would expect if anything, that the MC-11 will be the one with more QC issues.
Regards
I'm bumping up this thread as I wonder if anyone has any more up-to-date info that might help me. I realise that very often the situation with adapters is camera and lens and even firmware specific so thought I would see where things stand in May 2019...
I still have my Canon 24-70 2.8 L II and was always very happy with it. I have a Sony A7R III and have been toying with the idea of getting the GM 24-70... right up until I held it and realised it's bigger than the Canon (though obviously the Canon needs an adapter). And of course it's not an inexpensive lens so I will consider adapting as it's mainly for landscape and some friends and family photos and not fast action.
So does anyone here have any recent experience with this lens and body combination and have any suggestions which adapter to go for? I was quite surprised to see that some reported the metabones causing image quality degradation (I'm assuming because lenses with floating elements need a precise mount alignment or maybe it's something else) - for the money they sell for it surprises me. The impression I get is the MC-11 is perhaps the better bet especially as I don't need a button for IS. But I wondered if anyone has actually got real world experience with this set up on the newest firmware and can save me from making a mistake! Or indeed tell me if there are any big downsides to adapting at all - I find many threads from 2016-17 discussing poor low light autofocus for example; does that still apply today? Any help appreciated, thanks
It is a difficult topic.
I agree that most information you can find is not that useful anymore,
due to the big changes the gen 3 FW 3.0 brought.
I will do a comparison of Sigma MC-11 and Metabones MK IV at phillipreeve.net, but all findings
will only apply to the lenses I own, and there surely are differences I did neither expect nor do they make much sense to me.
Hope you find someone who is running the same exact camera/lens/adapter(FW) combination,
that is the only thing that might help.
BastianK wrote:
It is a difficult topic.
I agree that most information you can find is not that useful anymore,
due to the big changes the gen 3 FW 3.0 brought.
I will do a comparison of Sigma MC-11 and Metabones MK IV at phillipreeve.net, but all findings
will only apply to the lenses I own, and there surely are differences I did neither expect nor do they make much sense to me.
Hope you find someone who is running the same exact camera/lens/adapter(FW) combination,
that is the only thing that might help.
Yes it gets quite complicated because of the autofocus. There do seem to be some broad themes that don't change much - variable aperture zooms, even L ones, seem to be generally not very good for autofocus. Also there are some clear generational divides. For example the 135L which gets universal praise for its autofocus speed on SLRs struggles with not only Sonys but, to my surprise, even the new RF Canons. I suppose it being a lens from the 90s must have an impact as Canon will keep updating the focus systems.
By contrast there are many who shoot super telephoto primes who seem very happy and able to even do bird in flight. Also some of the new wide aperture primes seem well suited to adaption - the 35 L II gets pretty much universal praise in this regard. I think it's fair to assume that more light getting through to the sensor must help things.
Quite where that leaves lenses like the 24-70 L is hard to discern. I feel in a bit of a pickle as the GM isn't going to offer any optical gain and doesn't even offer any size advantage. At least in the UK it's very expensive though so the thought of buying an adapter and avoiding buying a GM lens is tempting, especially as I don't trust Sony's quality control while that's one area Canon still leads.
The MC-11 is cheaper and appears to be built to tighter tolerances so I might just give it a go and see and will report back here.
I have two each of both. The MB V defaults to avanced mode so you must remember to fiddle them into Green mode (which is a blue LED). That alone is a slap to utility although if I want to use my excellent Sony TCs with non canon lenses then that’s the only way to go.
There was a time that I thought the MB V was a bit better than the MC-11 with my A9 bodies. But now I am not sure-especially that the FW is not the latest for the 4 units. Likely it would take good test set-up and a filled in spreadsheet for my many lenses. Pretty tiresome. It took me a fat day to upgrade the 5.0 FW on my four A9 bodies.
SoundHound wrote:
I have two each of both. The MB V defaults to avanced mode so you must remember to fiddle them into Green mode (which is a blue LED). That alone is a slap to utility although if I want to use my excellent Sony TCs with non canon lenses then that’s the only way to go.
The Metabones FW updater lets you change this behavior, choosing between Green and Advanced as default on startup.
_manny_ wrote:
I'm bumping up this thread as I wonder if anyone has any more up-to-date info that might help me. I realise that very often the situation with adapters is camera and lens and even firmware specific so thought I would see where things stand in May 2019...
I still have my Canon 24-70 2.8 L II and was always very happy with it. I have a Sony A7R III and have been toying with the idea of getting the GM 24-70... right up until I held it and realised it's bigger than the Canon (though obviously the Canon needs an adapter). And of course it's not an inexpensive lens so I will consider adapting as it's mainly for landscape and some friends and family photos and not fast action.
So does anyone here have any recent experience with this lens and body combination and have any suggestions which adapter to go for? I was quite surprised to see that some reported the metabones causing image quality degradation (I'm assuming because lenses with floating elements need a precise mount alignment or maybe it's something else) - for the money they sell for it surprises me. The impression I get is the MC-11 is perhaps the better bet especially as I don't need a button for IS. But I wondered if anyone has actually got real world experience with this set up on the newest firmware and can save me from making a mistake! Or indeed tell me if there are any big downsides to adapting at all - I find many threads from 2016-17 discussing poor low light autofocus for example; does that still apply today? Any help appreciated, thanks...Show more →
Anecdotal evidence from reading a number of different threads points to the MC-11 performing better than the MB these days for Canon lenses. But again there are always differences in different lenses.
I've always had the MC-11 and never the MB. The AF has improved and improved and improved over the past year I've owned it. I use it on the A9 though so could be different with the A7RIII. I adapt Canon 16-35/4, 24-70/4 and 400DOII. The two zooms work really well and Eye-AF works great. The 400DOII even now works fairly well with the 2xTC on it and I have shot BIF with it on the A9 getting an okay hit rate (not as good as my native 100-400GM) but probably almost as good as the lens did on my 1DX2. I'm trying to move to native Sony glass for long lenses but I have no need/want to switch out my zooms for Sony as they do everything I need of them adapted.
I actually liked the fit of the MC11 but it didn't work with my Otus 85, due to the lack of advanced/open aperture mode.
I didn't like the fit of MB4 as the tolerance was way too tight. MB5 is much better, though Sigma was the best.
You should get the adapter that works best for your lens.
Also MB owners, by holding the button then turning on the camera, and while still holding it turning the camera off changes the default mode permanently. No need to check for green mode constantly.
Thank you to all who replied. I really do appreciate it as so much of the information online is from a couple of years ago.
In particular I am pleased to hear Sigma have continued to update the MC-11 firmware and the autofocus keeps improving. That does make sense as Sigma continues to make EF mount lenses. Perhaps this is the way some of the industry will go - if one is buying a 70-200 2.8 perhaps it makes sense to get the EF mount and be able to use it on Sony, Canon or Nikon (or indeed now Panasonic as Sigma have brought out an adapter for that).
I ordered the MC-11 so will give it a go. The combination of the lower price and some reports complaining about the alignment issues with the Metabones made me decide to start with the Sigma and see how it goes.
One thing I have noticed is from reading lots of reports is that metabones is used often, for reasons I don't know, with big telephotos and very rarely seems to have any problems. Nearly all the reports of alignment issues were with wide angles where I suppose, especially with floating lens elements, anything slightly off from perfect will show up. I guess it goes to show that manufacturing such things perfectly isn't that easy and I suppose Sigma has a head start of many years when it comes to that. It appears that the Metabones might be better with certain aspects of manual focus and, though this varies from reports, IS. By contrast there seems a generally more favourable attitude to the MC-11 in terms of autofocus and build quality.
Though the more I read the more I realise that everything comes down to whichever very precise combination of camera, lens and firmware (of the camera and adapter) one is using.
I still have a fair few of my L lenses so will give them all a try and write up here what I find in case anyone has reason to use that information. I have the 24-70 L II, 35 L II, 50 L, 135L and 70-200 2.8 L II. Of these I am already fairly confident that 50 and 135 will have less than perfect AF in low light - it seems older lenses don't do so well. It must be that Sigma are making the MC-11 for their Art lenses and in turn to create the firmware for the Art lenses reverse engineering the newer Canon L glass.
I'll be very pleased if I can avoid selling my 24-70 L given its performance and the fact the Sony is actually bigger. What a strange situation that I might finally get good eye-AF as well as IBIS on my trusty Canon 24-70L but only by *not* using a Canon camera!!
Has anyone found a good tripod mount solution to work with the Sigma MC-11 for lenses that don't already have a tripod mount on them but that are heavy, unwieldy?
httivals wrote:
Has anyone found a good tripod mount solution to work with the Sigma MC-11 for lenses that don't already have a tripod mount on them but that are heavy, unwieldy?
However it's not clear to me how the smallrig adapter works? Do you just screw it into an arca swiss adapter plate?
Description says it's got 3x 1/4" threaded holes on bottom. So it's basically like Metabones, where you can screw it to a tripod plate, or clamp it in an Arca clamp.
