Re: Anyone try a NON-Metabones EOS/Nex AF/IS adapter ?
I think this is a very good and fair answer. However, for many of us the issue is that if we find the adapter is problematic we cannot simply go to our local camera shop, or even online dealer, and request an exchange. Instead it has to go back to Japan. This introduces unacceptable additions to cost - postage and customs hassles. I imagine that if Metabones copied Novoflex and arranged international dealerships - for example, I buy all my Novoflex adapters from Speedgraphic here in the UK - then people would not be bothered about having to request a replacement. As things stand I am afraid that, notwithstanding this reasonable argument from Metabones, I shall still await the Novoflex solution. Of course, if Metabones arranges a UK dealership which allows me to buy the adapter here for a GPB denominated price and at local postage rates I shall be delighted to support them. cyberstudio wrote: waterden wrote:
I have the TSE II 24/3.5 which I want to adapt for a7 usage. However, having read about the Metabones tight-fit issues I shall not be going down that route - in my view this problem is unacceptable and inexcusable and a major error on Metabones\' part. Of course, I neither want nor need AF capability when using this lens but I am certainly not going to risk the gold aperture contacts with a generic Chinese adapter. So I shall wait for the Novoflex adapter, as and when it arrives. I have a number of Novoflex adapters and they are excellent (although I did have to replace an OM-E because the fit was overly tight and it would not focus to infinity). I am really surprised at the dearth of EF-E adapters and can only imagine it is because the real need has only become apparent with the advent of the a7R. It is astonishing that Metabones has shot itself in the foot and sullied its good name by offering a variable quality item at such a premium price and also odd that Fotodiox has not upped its game - very poor commercial practice.
Disclosure: I am related to Metabones and my opinions may be biased. However it is somewhat necessary to clarify the tight fit issues circulated on the net.
It is really easy to make an adapter that smoothly fits onto every camera and every lens. Just make the fit loose enough, and everything will fit onto it. But then, you would run into a myriad of other problems such as optical alignment, focusing, infinity issues and increased aberrations.
Metabones\' objective is to achieve a tighter fit than OEM. There are 2 reasons for this: 1, videographers want a tight fit to ensure that the lens does not move when the lens is focused or zoomed, and 2, there are now two mounting surfaces with an adapter instead of one, so we have to half the amount of variance to achieve the same optical performance.
The lens mount itself has tolerances so if we increase the tightness of the fitment there will be a small number of lenses which become too tight to fit, and the unhappy owners will most likely \"spread the word\" on the Internet.
The trade-off here is simply whether we want to make a small number of users unhappy because the fit is too tight, or to tolerate looseness issues for all users. Metabones is not afraid of the occasional return, if it means all the rest of the users benefit from a solid connection. Indeed, a very high level of capability is required to maintain the tight tolerances of an adapter that makes a solid connection with the lens and the camera body.
Apr 19, 2014 at 05:23 PM
Previous versions of waterden's message #12290337 « Anyone try a NON-Metabones EOS/Nex AF/IS adapter ? »
