freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #8 · Canon 70-200 F4 with Metabones vs Sony 70-200 F4 Macro | |
I own and love the 70-200GII, but tested out the Canon ISII earlier this year to see if it's as good an IR lens as the Canon 24-70/4L (it is) and I went ahead and also checked it out on my UT-modded rII and stock a1. Optically, the Canon's as its best on the UT-mod, which brings it closer in line with its native performance on Canon in the wider part of the range- past 140mm that no longer mattered. On both cameras, the Canon was slightly stronger at the long end. And that's where the advantages for the Canon end.
Speed of focus acquisition, stickiness, and ability to track regardless of focus distance and light all heavily favor the Sony. The OSS integrates with the IBIS to give a much more solid performance, particularly when close-focused. Where the Sony 1.4x only makes a minor ding on optical performance and doesn't impact operational speed or stability, the Canon 1.4x slows things down considerably on an MBIV and appears to make IS performance suffer on the MC-11. The Sony packs smaller and includes a tripod mount. Overall, though, the Canon hunted less on the MC-11 and had faster speed of acquisition.
Strictly speaking, this was single-copy to two-copy testing, but I've personally tested six other copies of the Sony at work and mine performs a bit above their average. All my gear (cameras, lens, extender, and both the MBIV and MC-11) have up to date firmware except for the a1, which I haven't updated to the latest because I didn't see the need. I rented one Canon and 1.4x vIII and borrowed a set from a coworker to verify the rental copy fell in line with his. He also did the handheld testing with me side-by-side as he is nearly half my age and in better shape, which was my way of verifying any IS/OSS differences weren't just me and my stability. Far from perfect methods, but we did make the effort to keep it fair.
Sorry I didn't test with any of the cameras that interest you, and that may impact operational speed, but I think I can speak to overall value proposition. As landscape lenses, they're both decent options, but both have a lot of astigmatism and little transverse CA at either end of their range. Mid-range-to-portrait, the Canon has a slight advantage so far as resolution and smoother bokeh (not smooth, just a bit smoother). The adapted AF of the Canon is fine for single-shot landscapes and working a crowd at an event, so the lower price, for those purposes, makes it attractive. However, I don't find it enough less expensive than Tamron's latest 70-180/2.8 to justify the hassle and objectively lesser performance of an adapted lens. For anything that moves quickly and for close-focus tracking, the Sony runs the show, and it's not even close.
|
