Are there any reliable adapters for this? I'd like to grab some EF glass like the ART lenses to use on a cinema camera but also on my Z7 for stills work. Thanks for reading!
Define reliable? Fringer, Meike are two which come to mind, though there are others. It is impossible to find any objective information regarding how well they work although there are dozens of Youtube videos out there, FWIW.
Fringer *is* the reliable adapter for this. Almost native-like AF speed and works with pretty much all EF lenses including some exotic teleconverter combinations.
I think they released the Mark 2 version recently which adds weather sealing.
I use Fringer and have various ef lenses and they work great.
I use the Canon 200mm f2 with the fringer on my z9 and it behaves no different than the f mount version.
I'm delighted to know that there's an adapter with such a good reputation for performance (the Fringer) for Canon-to-Nikon. I'd be curious to know if there are any other minor considerations with it, than just autofocus speed.
For example, on Sony, the best available adapters for Canon lenses (such as the Sigma MC-11) have a slight limitation on the autofocus area. Rather than, say, almost the whole frame working for autofocus (as you'd expect on a native lens when used with one of the best Sony bodies), only a "square"-ish area can do fast reliable autofocus - so the furthest left and right edges don't focus well.
This sometimes ends up being of relevance, such as for example when you want to shoot in portrait orientation, and your model's eyes are at the top of the frame. There's an area where sometimes you want to put the model's eyes, but then you can't really focus well.
Are there any such snags/gotchas for this Nikon adapter? Just trying to flesh out the details of the discussion a bit based on likely considerations from a foreign system.
Oh, and are the adapted lenses in any way limited in terms of how many frames per second they are permitted to shoot - less than a native lens?
GHarris wrote:
I'm delighted to know that there's an adapter with such a good reputation for performance (the Fringer) for Canon-to-Nikon. I'd be curious to know if there are any other minor considerations with it, than just autofocus speed.
For example, on Sony, the best available adapters for Canon lenses (such as the Sigma MC-11) have a slight limitation on the autofocus area. Rather than, say, almost the whole frame working for autofocus (as you'd expect on a native lens when used with one of the best Sony bodies), only a "square"-ish area can do fast reliable autofocus - so the furthest left and right edges don't focus well.
This sometimes ends up being of relevance, such as for example when you want to shoot in portrait orientation, and your model's eyes are at the top of the frame. There's an area where sometimes you want to put the model's eyes, but then you can't really focus well.
Are there any such snags/gotchas for this Nikon adapter? Just trying to flesh out the details of the discussion a bit based on likely considerations from a foreign system.
Oh, and are the adapted lenses in any way limited in terms of how many frames per second they are permitted to shoot - less than a native lens?...Show more →
Forgot to mention that I also have the EF 85 1.4 IS and prefer it over the f mount version, sharper out to the edges.
Focus on all of the EF glass I have used is at the level of f mount lenses.
I have used the EF 200mm f2 for sports and shooting at 20fps with the z9 it keeps up with no problem.
GHarris wrote:
I'm delighted to know that there's an adapter with such a good reputation for performance (the Fringer) for Canon-to-Nikon. I'd be curious to know if there are any other minor considerations with it, than just autofocus speed.
For example, on Sony, the best available adapters for Canon lenses (such as the Sigma MC-11) have a slight limitation on the autofocus area. Rather than, say, almost the whole frame working for autofocus (as you'd expect on a native lens when used with one of the best Sony bodies), only a "square"-ish area can do fast reliable autofocus - so the furthest left and right edges don't focus well.
This sometimes ends up being of relevance, such as for example when you want to shoot in portrait orientation, and your model's eyes are at the top of the frame. There's an area where sometimes you want to put the model's eyes, but then you can't really focus well.
Are there any such snags/gotchas for this Nikon adapter? Just trying to flesh out the details of the discussion a bit based on likely considerations from a foreign system.
Oh, and are the adapted lenses in any way limited in terms of how many frames per second they are permitted to shoot - less than a native lens?...Show more →
The only AF mode that doesn't work reliably I have found is AF-S pinpoint. It does actually find the focus correctly but sometimes doesn't confirm it on my Z8, so you can't take pictures if you have focus priority set in AF-S. Not a big issue for me since I almost never use this mode.
All other modes (single point, dynamic, Wide-S/L, 3D, auto area) work and there is no limitation of the AF area. I've heard that focus bracketing also works but I have not tried it. It also supports smooth focus transition during video for selected lenses.
No limitations on FPS as well, you can blast at 20 fps as long as the AF system can keep up with the subject.
Thanks, everyone, for chiming in here! Lots of great info. My mind is kinda blown by learning of this adapter lol.
It seems like because of the mount diameter the EF to Z makes a little more sense to me than adapting G lenses to the Z. No? Seems backward because the mount is so much bigger on the Z.
So in my case, where I want to use ART lenses like the 50 on EF mount, the EF to Z might fit better...just a hunch.
So discernible loss of IQ? The ART lenses work?
Last Q: what's the difference between V1 and V2 of this adapter? The V1 seems able to be purchased for $150, or thereabouts. Thanks!
lukeiam wrote:
Thanks, everyone, for chiming in here! Lots of great info. My mind is kinda blown by learning of this adapter lol.
It seems like because of the mount diameter the EF to Z makes a little more sense to me than adapting G lenses to the Z. No? Seems backward because the mount is so much bigger on the Z.
So in my case, where I want to use ART lenses like the 50 on EF mount, the EF to Z might fit better...just a hunch.
So discernible loss of IQ? The ART lenses work?
Last Q: what's the difference between V1 and V2 of this adapter? The V1 seems able to be purchased for $150, or thereabouts. Thanks! ...Show more →
There should be no IQ loss since there is no glass inside, so any IQ difference would be caused the difference between the EF and F mount versions.
I believe all Sigma Art lenses should work since they are relatively new lenses, and probably well-tested since they are so popular in the DSLR world. You can always email Fringer himself (who is pretty responsive by my experience) if they don't work.
The V2 has additional weather sealing (rubber gaskets around the mount) and are otherwise identical functionality-wise, so definitely get the V2 if the prices are the same.
Nice to know the second, weather-sealed version has been released. Of course that had to happen after I've bought the first one, . But that first one is very good, I'd say the AF with it and the Z9 behind it is as good as it was on a Canon 1D camera with the same lenses. I've tested over a dozen lenses with it and most work without any issue. Some had a bit of a problem but that was resolved by updating the firmware (even though that particular lens wasn't listed in the firmware release notes).
Bumping this as I come around to finally trying to find one of these -- long story.
Q: it's probably equal in weight and length to the EF-RF adapter, I'd guess? The FTZ bothers me because of the mount/throat distance -- feels/looks janky to me.
Also, is there play in the adapter? The FTZ -- when I had it -- was solid. But not all adapters are this way. My Fringer EF-GFX adapter is also very solid. Thx!
lukeiam wrote:
Thanks, everyone, for chiming in here! Lots of great info. My mind is kinda blown by learning of this adapter lol.
It seems like because of the mount diameter the EF to Z makes a little more sense to me than adapting G lenses to the Z. No? Seems backward because the mount is so much bigger on the Z.
So in my case, where I want to use ART lenses like the 50 on EF mount, the EF to Z might fit better...just a hunch.
So discernible loss of IQ? The ART lenses work?
Last Q: what's the difference between V1 and V2 of this adapter? The V1 seems able to be purchased for $150, or thereabouts. Thanks! ...Show more →
Luke,
I have both the Sigma 50 and 28 art, both EF mounts and they work great on my Z9. I got them in EF mount so that
I can also use them on the GFX.
Creative Edge wrote:
Luke,
I have both the Sigma 50 and 28 art, both EF mounts and they work great on my Z9. I got them in EF mount so that
I can also use them on the GFX.
Amazing...And how's the fit with the Fringer on the Z9? And which Fringer adapter do you have for the Z? Ty!
I saw a comparison a few months ago that showed that EF lenses through the Fringer was faster than the same lenses on Canon mirrorless bodies through the native Canon adapter.
I saw a comparison a few months ago that showed that EF lenses through the Fringer was faster than the same lenses on Canon mirrorless bodies through the native Canon adapter.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oh wow! Don't suppose you have that link? I'll try to find it ty
. But that first one is very good, I'd say the AF with it and the Z9 behind it is as good as it was on a Canon 1D camera with the same lenses. I've tested over a dozen lenses with it and most work without any issue. Some had a bit of a problem but that was resolved by updating the firmware (even though that particular lens wasn't listed in the firmware release notes).