I find the native Sony Zeiss lenses like 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 to be excellent. Why bother adapting? I dont like the ergonomics of using fslr lenses, too cumbersome and defeat the idea of mirrorless in the first place.
You pose a very logical question. While I certainly can't speak for everyone and perhaps I'm just stating the obvious that's been posted many times before, but here is a list of why I adapt:
1.) Like many camera owners, I already have an extensive EF lens collection;
2.) I'm stuck using Canon DSLRs for the foreseeable future, don't feel like maintaining 2- entirely separate sets of lenses and so far, have only invested in eight Sony native lenses that have no practical counterpart over in the Canon lens world;
3.) I haven't found adapting to be a bother....yet;
4.) Just using the example of the awesome Zeiss F1.4 lenses you mentioned, I have the Sigma EF 35 1.4 ART & 50 1.4 ART. They are also excellent lenses, capture stunning images and appear to focus as accurate + fast as any of the native Sony Zeiss lens that I own;
5.) Perhaps it's my imagination or I'm just doing something wrong, but there seems to be something magical with L series lenses attached to a Sony body. It's not to suggest that Sony Zeiss lenses are in any way inadequate, but there appears to be something special with L series glass that native Zonys lack. Like you, I posed the same question to my wife a while back: "why bother adapting?" After practically be threatened with my life and warned to keep every Canon DSLR and lens that we currently own, she subtly reminded me about "Canon colors". However, I took some Easter pics of our daughter that softened her up a little on Sony cameras. Even though she remains the ultimate Canon fangirl, when comparing pics of L series vs Zeiss glass on an A7R2 body using otherwise identical settings and outdoor lighting conditions, my wife conceded the A7R2 + Canon lens combo produced amazing images.
6.) While I remain optimistic, I'm currently unconvinced about the latest Sony lenses. With all the reports of decentering issues, if I ever do decide to invest in additional native lenses, it will only be at a later time when Sony has hopefully better addressed these widely reported issues. Adapted lenses allow me to currently shoot with confidence;
7.) With the exception of the excellent lightweight Sony Zeiss primes, ergonomics are simply too close to call (for me personally) as a factor when trying to justify the significant up-charge in Sony lenses. For example, while the Sony 70-200 F2.8 GM & Canon 70-200L II F2.8 are almost identical in weight and dimensions, the addition of an adapter is barely noticeable on a lens that already weighs over 3.25lbs and is almost 8- inches in length. IMHO, the only significant advantage that I perceive here in ergonomics here is to my wallet, which the Sony will make $700 lighter. lol.
Jun 21, 2017 at 09:49 AM
Previous versions of 1texasaggie's message #14080813 « Adapted vs Native. Any real tests out there »
