GHarris Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
httivals wrote:
I use the Canon R5 for telephotos and telephoto zooms and Sony A7RIV for wide angle to 70mm. Very happy with this. It’s based on my preferences for the lenses available for each. I tried the Sigma EF adapter and while it was ok, it’s a very serious compromise. The EF to Canon R adapters are perfect, seamless. . . . It took me awhile to do it, but I’ve now configured the buttons and settings between the two cameras so that the interfaces are quite similar, albeit not at all identical. It’s relatively seamless for me to switch from one camera to the other, and I typically carry one of each when doing serious photography (which for me is primarily travel or landscape). ...Show more →
For what it's worth, while the Sigma MC-11 is indeed a compromise, it's much less of one on the a9 than on the A7Riv you mention. The maximum burst rate rises to 10fps rather than 3, and the autofocus in combination with the a9 is really pretty good, with a high-end, fast-focussing lens (even my ancient 200mm f/1.8 autofocuses pretty well on the a9). Ah, but... how good? That's the unquantifiable "how long is a piece of string?" question that can only be answered by direct experience tested in the situation/use-case demanded.
Here's a weird idea. Find a Canon 400mm f/2.8 L IS II lens (specifically the IS II, note!) for sale at the best price you can obtain second-hand. Doesn't matter if the paint is chipped, as long as it isn't decentred or optically damaged, right? Try it. Keep it, or don't. Resell it immediately, or some years down the line, for similar to the price you paid to buy it. A free trial, aside from the faff and unpredictable timeframes involved in finding one and then reselling it.
I saw a mint-condition used Sony 400 f/2.8 GM for sale here recently in Germany. They don't come up all that often, since it's not an old, hugely widespread lens yet. It sold for around 8300 Euros - the price to buy new is 11,999. If you obtain one, given availability it's mostly by buying new, and you lose a lot of its value right away. Perhaps that particular used price was not representative, I don't know, but it happened. And that price drop is despite the fact that the GM doesn't even have a successor yet, it's still the latest model. The Canon IS II can be found more easily and for quite a lot less than that GM's used price, and then resold again for the same, because its merits are not depreciating any further from now.
The GM is definitely a faster-focusing lens for being native, and with better AF coverage into the far reaches of the frame. And it's much lighter and better-balanced, insofar as that matters depending on usage (handheld or monopod?). But is there any chance that its AF would be fast enough for you on an MC-11 with the a9?
The Canon has as-good image quality. Maybe slightly better. That gen II lens had nothing at all to criticise optically, it was close to perfect, and the gen III/RF model Canon (and its comparable competitor, the Sony GM) did not improve on it optically. With only one exception: The 2x TC may produce better image quality on mirrorless than the old Canon EF 2x TCs can... but that may be to do with the design of the newer, mirrorless-oriented/spaced TCs rather than anything else.
Just a dumb idea / thought experiment. I dwell on the idea occasionally myself, without having yet pulled the trigger, hence the waffling. If you need a fast 400 mm lens and the autofocus doesn't have to be the very best then there's little wrong with the IS II. If you need quite good autofocus, maybe() it's still enough with an a9/a1? Happy for anyone to tear the idea to shreds, it's just a thought.
|