p.2 #1 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
Dan, I converted to Sony after 20+ years with Canon. The conversion started early in 2019 and completed by the end of 2020. To date I have both OEM lenses and some 3rd party ones. For sports shooting I'm basically OEM although that might change after I have the time to test out the Sigma 300-600 later this spring. For my Landscape gear the lenses are a mixture that suit my needs depending on what/where I'll be shooting. Sony via adapters does allow the use of Canon lenses and for anything but sports they should work just fine. That should allow you a bit of transition time. For sports the answer is no, adapted lenses just don't provide the speed and flexibility of native Song glass. FWIW, all of my current Sony lenses are definitely or par with the Canon counter parts.
p.2 #2 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
schlotz wrote:
Dan, I converted to Sony after 20+ years with Canon. The conversion started early in 2019 and completed by the end of 2020. To date I have both OEM lenses and some 3rd party ones. For sports shooting I'm basically OEM although that might change after I have the time to test out the Sigma 300-600 later this spring. For my Landscape gear the lenses are a mixture that suit my needs depending on what/where I'll be shooting. Sony via adapters does allow the use of Canon lenses and for anything but sports they should work just fine. That should allow you a bit of transition time. For sports the answer is no, adapted lenses just don't provide the speed and flexibility of native Song glass. FWIW, all of my current Sony lenses are definitely or par with the Canon counter parts. ...Show more →
I’ve considered hanging onto my EF 16-35mm f/4L, which is an excellent lens… that don’t use so much that I’d resent attaching it to an adapter.
I’ve imagined that I’d replace the other three of my four core zooms with Sony OEM alternatives. I’ve been working successfully with EF 24-70 f/f2.8L IS (though I’d be happy with an f/4 version for my purposes), 70-200mm f/4L IS, and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (II). I don’t need precisely those focal lengths, so some others combination that covers the same ground a perhaps a bit more at the long end will do.
While I do largely shoot landscape with my FF system, I do also photograph some wildlife, notably migratory birds — so the long lenses would definitely be Sony native.
Beyond that I use a E 100mm f/2.8 macro and (wait for it!) a Pentax MF 80-160mm zoom on a Mirex T/S adapter. I’m assuming that something equivalent is available to let me use that lens with T/S on Sony.
p.2 #3 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
guidostow wrote:
As an aside, the focus peaking makes using a tilt lens on a Sony a joy... Much faster and more accurate than on the 5DSR...
Heh, I’ll bet that is true. Focusing the darned thing is not exaclty easy! But it is probably no less trouble than blending four or five images in post…)
p.2 #4 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
1. I view the Sony lenses as premium compared to the third party. By this I mean basically anything with the XD linear motors. That defined a shift in Sony design competence and consistency. My understanding is the newer GM lenses are designed with the goal of resolving 100MP sensors and focusing at 120Hz, the engineering of the lenses was standardized to long term goals for the bodies (a9iii, maybe a7Rvi). I think the GM glass is on par or better than the Canon RF and Nikon Z, some lenses will be better on the other mounts.
2. Third party lenses might be 50% the cost of the Sony lens and provide 95% of the functionality. My Sigma 85DN is my sharpest lens, slightly edging out my 35GM and 135GM, all of them are razors. The Sigma does not have the focus speed of the GMs, it's not fast enough to shoot sports. My Sigma 24-70DN II has all the features I would want and linear motors fixed focus speed, but the hit rate is not quite as good as the GMs, so the focus is the missing 5%.
3. Third party has offerings that Sony doesn't. 135/1.4, 200/2, 35/1.2, soon 85/1.2, 25-200 (that's good), 20-200, 35-150, 45DN (character), small MF lenses, etc.
4. I think mostly Sony was the first mirrorless mount. This immediately opened up tons of vintage glass. The mount was open from day one so third party had design specs to the interface and were allowed to design for it. There were adapters to adapt from other mounts, this was needed when E mount was new and had few lenses. So Minolta A mount could adapt, then Sigma made adapters for Canon EF. Leica M mount and with a mod to the sensor stack thickness, optical performance comparable to leica. So people who are interested in third party for what ever reason would have landed at Sony and Sony never gave them a reason to leave.
For myself I came from Canon 6D, I had been shooting with mirrorless point and shoot with the Canon G7Xii. The focus capability was a downgrade. I tried a rental with the a7iii and MC11 adapter and my EF glass, huge improvement in focus over what Canon could do, so I switched and never looked back.Current Canon is certainly capable in focus, but the slow adoption of mirrorless caused them to bleed market share. I compared my 135L to the 135GM, the GM is significantly a better lens in many ways.
p.2 #5 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
Many Sony shooters came from other systems, and due to the adaptability of E-mount, were able to bring their previous system's lenses with them. That meant they started with Sony already comfortable using non-Sony lenses, which naturally made them more comfortable using non-Sony native E-Mount lenses as well.
p.2 #6 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’ve considered hanging onto my EF 16-35mm f/4L, which is an excellent lens… that don’t use so much that I’d resent attaching it to an adapter.
I’ve imagined that I’d replace the other three of my four core zooms with Sony OEM alternatives. I’ve been working successfully with EF 24-70 f/f2.8L IS (though I’d be happy with an f/4 version for my purposes), 70-200mm f/4L IS, and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (II). I don’t need precisely those focal lengths, so some others combination that covers the same ground a perhaps a bit more at the long end will do.
While I do largely shoot landscape with my FF system, I do also photograph some wildlife, notably migratory birds — so the long lenses would definitely be Sony native.
Beyond that I use a E 100mm f/2.8 macro and (wait for it!) a Pentax MF 80-160mm zoom on a Mirex T/S adapter. I’m assuming that something equivalent is available to let me use that lens with T/S on Sony....Show more →
Believe the Mirex T/S fits the Sony A-Mount. Don't know of a an E-Mount version that would allow the pentax zoom.
p.2 #9 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
So, from Sony body to Canon EF adapter to Mirex to Pentax? While the connections may work I really question the light path functionality? But, who knows?
p.2 #10 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
gdanmitchell wrote:
It sounds a bit Rube Goldbergish, but it seems like I should be able to mount my Mirex to a Canon EF adapter, right?
It's my understanding that UK photographer David Ward uses a Nikon F to EF Mirex T/S and adapts that to his Sony but I'm not sure which adapter he uses for that last step, but it is solid and reliable enough to be his primary lens system.
Since the lenses in question are fully manual with no exif data and will be manually stopped down, the issue of concern is are the adapters accurate enough to focus correctly at infinity.
p.2 #11 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
guidostow wrote:
It's my understanding that UK photographer David Ward uses a Nikon F to EF Mirex T/S and adapts that to his Sony but I'm not sure which adapter he uses for that last step, but it is solid and reliable enough to be his primary lens system.
Since the lenses in question are fully manual with no exif data and will be manually stopped down, the issue of concern is are the adapters accurate enough to focus correctly at infinity.
This would be a manual focus only situation for me. If the lens focuses at infinite on the Mirex attached to my Canon camera, it seems like it would still focus to infinity when attached to a EF to Sony adapter on a Sony camera… since that EF adapter should put the lens the right distance from the sensor.
In any case this is sort of a peripheral issue and the other lenses are more central.
p.2 #12 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
There's an old adage, you date the camera bodies, you marry the lenses. I think that's less true now that progress has been so rapid in lenses. I'm a mostly landscape/nature person. I came to Sony after years with film, from Minox to 4x5, then digital: Nikon, (even had athen Fuji and now, probably finally, Sony. I developed megapixel lust and got an A7RIII and have not looked back. That I still have megapixel lust is evidenced by the fact that I've seriously looked the Hasselblad X2DII but realized my prints are not large enough to justify $12K. I moved from the A7RIV to the A7RV when Sony finally added automated focus stacking. That made me get rid of my beloved manual focus Voightlander 110 APO Macro.
As far as lenses go, I've never used Canon but vigorously resist fanboy arguments that any brand's lenses are superior. I have almost all native Sony brand lenses from 16-400, zooms, with a few well placed primes just because. The Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM is a gem as is the Sony 85mm f/1.4 GMII. I have friends who use Nikon and Fuji and when we do print sharing, there has never been an issue with the quality of the lenses they use.
p.2 #13 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
gdanmitchell wrote:
This would be a manual focus only situation for me. If the lens focuses at infinite on the Mirex attached to my Canon camera, it seems like it would still focus to infinity when attached to a EF to Sony adapter on a Sony camera… since that EF adapter should put the lens the right distance from the sensor.
In any case this is sort of a peripheral issue and the other lenses are more central.
Unfortunately all EF adapters are not as accurate as one would like...
p.2 #14 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
doc4x5 wrote:
There's an old adage, you date the camera bodies, you marry the lenses. ...
and
As far as lenses go, I've never used Canon but vigorously resist fanboy arguments that any brand's lenses are superior.
My impression, also based on decades of shooting digital and decades of shooting film before that, is that you can pretty much get just about any excellent type of lens you need for any of the big brands these days.
The "date" adage, I think, recognizes that once you find the lenses that work for you, you keep them for many years even while you may update/replace bodies, particularly in this modern digital era of quicker body replacement cycles.
In fact, my background supports that idea. I bought into Canon digital a bit more than two decades ago, and I've used a series of several different camera bodies over those years. I would continue to use Canon if they had not moved to the new RF mount. (I understand why they did that, and have no complaints about that choice.)
But because sticking with Canon would also (for me, anyway) entail replacing all or almost all of my lenses with RF versions, the old financial imperative to stick with the tried and true familiar brand no longer applies. The costs of moving to Canon R would be quite similar to the costs of moving to an alternative brand. (In addition, I'm not thrilled to see that Canon has downgraded their highest resolution sensor from 50MP to 45MP, albeit in an excellent camera, while Sony has moved on to 60MP.)
- - -
There's a tendency to misinterpret the real meaning of some of the longtime photography adages.
For example, I think some might interpret the "date/marry" adage to mean that you should select the system you want based on what lenses it offers. But that's not what it is saying. It is essentially saying that whichever brand you select, you will likely change bodies but keep lenses, so choose them wisely.
Another old adage that leads a lot of people astray is the one about "buy a 50mm lens and learn to use it before being more lenses." Some interpret that to mean that new photographers should start with a 50mm prime rather than a zoom and stick to one lens until they "get good enough" for others. But that wasn't the point of that adage. It was not a claim that a 50mm prime is the best thing to start with today. Rather, it was advice to get whatever lens is right for you to start with, then shoot a lot and acquire experience before spending a lot of money on more lenses. Today that first lens is most likely to be... a zoom.
p.2 #15 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
I agree with Dan. It probably makes sense to switch given that the cost of switching ecosystems is so similar to that of lens replacements.
I recall getting my first Nikon, a Nikkormat and a 50mm prime (there were no zooms or autofocus then at least for normal people). I did use it only for quite some time before I got an 85 f/2 which became glued to my camera. When I got my first 4x5, a Toyo Field, I got a 210 Fujinon and used it for a year before I got another lens. I did learn to "see" with that focal length and it helped me. Years ago I was on a workshop and foolishly brought into the field, a digital D200, a film 6x6, and a 4x5. I spent so much time deciding which camera to use let alone which lens to use (I brought too many) that I never did get any good images. All these were manual focus, of course, except for lenses with the D200.
Starting with a zoom seems rational but avoids the discipline of learning to "see" with a given focal length. For young starting out photographers, it's probably a wise choice though.
p.2 #16 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
Off the top of my head, the best lenses for everyday use are the 70/200 f4 macro, the 300 f2.8 with TCs, and the 400/800. Of course, there are many more lenses I use, including the 100 f2.8 macro, which is insane to use with TCs. I don't shoot much with wide angles, unlike the OP.
p.2 #17 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
I switched from Canon to Sony about 16 months ago. Having used only Canon since 1978, I had lots of apprehension about the change. My main reason for switching was to lighten my load for hiking, but I didn't want much compromise in terms of IQ.
For hiking I ended up with the Sony A7R-V, Sony 20-70 F/4 and the Sony 70-200mm f/4 Macro OSS II.
I could have saved some weight with the Sony A7CR, but I was apprehensive about using an EVF regardless, and since I'd use the same body for everything I do I wanted the best EVF I could get. In addition there are a few other features I use that are missing from the A7CR. Overall the A7CR would've been a reasonable choice, but the A7R-V was a little better suited to my particular needs.
The 20-70 has far better IQ than I expected. At apertures I use (stopped down a bit) it's comparable to Canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II in that focal length range. At wider settings (out near 20 mm) corners degrade. That degradation isn't as much as I imagined. I can get by with 20mm at the wide end. In fact I don't get that wide very often, and since it saves the weight of an additional lens, for me it's a very worthwhile compromise.
The 70-200mm f/4 Macro OSS II is fantastic. I find it superior to the Canon EF equivalent, which was quite good.
I ended up getting the Sony 200-600 within a couple months. I considered the 400-800, but the 200-600 at f/5.6-6.3 is slow enough already, and the longer lens is missing the 200-400 focal lengths that I frequently use. I also find that cropping to 1.4x gives better results than Sony's 1.4x TC, which IMO is far worse than the Canon equivalent.
For hiking I got a much smaller backpack to hold the 20-70 f/4, 70-200 f/4, A7R-V, plus a few filters and miscellaneous accessories. It turns out that the old backpack I used for hiking with my Canon system will hold the 200-600 plus all the rest of the Sony equipment. That's a bonus I never expected.
I've also found that the Sigma MC-11 works much better than I expected, including eye-AF, with my Canon EF lenses, including the 600mm f/4. Although I bought the MC-11 and it works very well, the 3-lens Sony kit works so well that, except for trying it out, I haven't felt a need to use any of the Canon lenses I've accumulated.
p.2 #18 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
dmcphoto wrote:
I switched from Canon to Sony about 16 months ago. Having used only Canon since 1978, I had lots of apprehension about the change. My main reason for switching was to lighten my load for hiking, but I didn't want much compromise in terms of IQ.
For hiking I ended up with the Sony A7R-V, Sony 20-70 F/4 and the Sony 70-200mm f/4 Macro OSS II.
I could have saved some weight with the Sony A7CR, but I was apprehensive about using an EVF regardless, and since I'd use the same body for everything I do I wanted the best EVF I could get. In addition there are a few other features I use that are missing from the A7CR. Overall the A7CR would've been a reasonable choice, but the A7R-V was a little better suited to my particular needs.
The 20-70 has far better IQ than I expected. At apertures I use (stopped down a bit) it's comparable to Canon's EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II in that focal length range. At wider settings (out near 20 mm) corners degrade. That degradation isn't as much as I imagined. I can get by with 20mm at the wide end. In fact I don't get that wide very often, and since it saves the weight of an additional lens, for me it's a very worthwhile compromise.
The 70-200mm f/4 Macro OSS II is fantastic. I find it superior to the Canon EF equivalent, which was quite good.
I ended up getting the Sony 200-600 within a couple months. I considered the 400-800, but the 200-600 at f/5.6-6.3 is slow enough already, and the longer lens is missing the 200-400 focal lengths that I frequently use. I also find that cropping to 1.4x gives better results than Sony's 1.4x TC, which IMO is far worse than the Canon equivalent.
For hiking I got a much smaller backpack to hold the 20-70 f/4, 70-200 f/4, A7R-V, plus a few filters and miscellaneous accessories. It turns out that the old backpack I used for hiking with my Canon system will hold the 200-600 plus all the rest of the Sony equipment. That's a bonus I never expected.
I've also found that the Sigma MC-11 works much better than I expected, including eye-AF, with my Canon EF lenses, including the 600mm f/4. Although I bought the MC-11 and it works very well, the 3-lens Sony kit works so well that, except for trying it out, I haven't felt a need to use any of the Canon lenses I've accumulated.
That’s a useful an interesting post for me. The f/4 70-200mm is on my list, and I’ve heard good things about it from other photoraphers I know. Your report on the Sony 1.4x TC is interesting. My Canon 1.4x is actually quite good optically on the EF 100-400 but I would rarely need a TC on a 200-600mm lens.
The point about the 20-70 at the wide end is interesting. I’ve often thought that, to some extent, when companies extend the range of a familiar type of lens (such as the ubiquitous 24-70 range) that in some cases the plus of the extra range may outweigh the slight decline in IQ in the extended range. That would more likely be true for someone who owned an even wider lens (as I probably would) or who only rarely went wider than 24mm or so.
- - -
doc4x5 wrote:
I agree with Dan. It probably makes sense to switch given that the cost of switching ecosystems is so similar to that of lens replacements.
It is a rare circumstance where the economic incentive to stick with an existing brand is pretty much gone, which gives me an opportunity to start with a fresh slate.
Mar 03, 2026 at 10:21 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #19 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
I don't think it's any sort of benevolence, Sony just didn't have any lenses so they opened the mount
I don't think Sony stabilization tends to be as good, and some popular lenses like original 70-180 Tamron didn't have IS/OSS, especially make sure 3rd party has it if you are interested. I dont believe latest Sony 24-70/2.8 has it, either. I think this should get more attention on here
I can only imagine the screaming if Canon crippled 3rd party to 15 fps. But its Sony, on FM , so it's just A-OK. Really annoying
p.2 #20 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics
The 1.4x TC can be superb, actually. It depends on the lens that it is paired with and of course, there can be copy variation. The only lens that I currently use mine on is the 300/2.8 and if there is any degradation in IQ, you have to really look for it.
Sony has been putting out some stellar lenses and hopefully, they will release a MK II of the 100-400mm. Other manufacturers are also producing excellent lenses in E-mount, as has already been stated.
I have never been a Canon shooter, so cannot compare systems. So, some things that I am going to mention may apply to Canon as well. Sony cameras can be heavily customized for preferred operation by the user. The bodies are also comfortable to hold and use, plus lighter than some other options. Personally, I find manual focus on the Sony to be more difficult than with other brands of camera that I have used (Fuji and Leica), but I don't know if other people also find it more difficult or if that is just me.
Sony has had some issues with firmware updates in which major problems occurred for some people and they left the burden of repair on the customer's shoulders. I know this happened with the A1. Not sure about other models.
I also find it lame that they cripple some of the camera's capabilities when third party lenses are used.
At this point in time, I shoot with both Sony and Leica. While I do have some issues with Sony, I plan to continue using them. They are continuing to develop really good lenses, as are other companies that make lenses for E-mount. Sony can be a terrific option for a lot of reasons. Just go in knowing that they, like every other company, are not perfect.
