I Repeat this Ken Rockwell test!. (are the quality of adapter important)?

[loomitz]

i see this post, talking about how adapted lenses on sony can really afect the quality of the image.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2015-10-16-a7r2-5dsr/index.htm

 

so, beacause i have a 5DSR and a7RII, and i use the same lens canon 16-35 f4 is, but my results are so diferent, the only thing i change is the adapter, he uses a Fotodiox, i use a Metabone VI.

 

My Corners (i dont see, that lose of quality on adapted lens) :

 

 

 

 

[Guest Colin Scott Johnson]

Ken Rockwell is a clown.

Don't pay too much attention to what he spouts...

[dclark2171]

 I'm not sure what he is seeing. Tons of reviews online with non metabones adaptor with no IQ issues (focus speed may de different). I use the Metabones with an original A7R for a week using various Canon lenses (16-35 included) and no issues whatsoever. 

[_Ben]

Ken Rockwell is a clown.

Don't pay too much attention to what he spouts...

I Agree. I don't think he is as concerned with accuracy as he is with providing content for the results of Search Engine Optimization. 

[loomitz]

im just show my result, because i think this class of "reviews" just seem made to damage, the name of some brand.

 

and i just say, yes you can adapt lenses and they work greate, just use a quality adapter.

[Guest all8]

See what you get if you take a shot under the same conditions with a similar subject ( Some kind of tree, green at edges and brown trunk in middle). Aperture of F4 and ISO 100. 

[loomitz]

See what you get if you take a shot under the same conditions with a similar subject ( Some kind of tree, green at edges and brown trunk in middle). Aperture of F4 and ISO 100. 

 

i try the same in other conditions and its the same, not that loss of quality, both sharp and nice.

[EDBR]

The problem is different, it's no lens or camera issue, it's a camera+lens issue. Not all lenses from other brands will function like they should on the A7r2 (or other A7). Even Leica see here: http://www.ronscheffler.com/techtalk/?page_id=306

When you look at reviews of Legacy lenses some will perform well, other not. The wider ( 35mm and lower) the more problems with smearing in the angles, so a 21mm….

For the moment I’ve the Contax G lenses 35mm,45mm and 90mm and they are very sharp. The 35 & 45mm at f4 and the 90mm wide open.

And a 21mm didn’t get sharp even at f11, f16 the lens showed to much smearing in the corners, returned it. Didn’t try the 28mm, maybe will be ok or not but didn’t test it. They outperform my new 16-35mm Sony and new Canon F4 IS (performed actually very similar, should sell one). Tried the Canon 24-75mmf2.8-II but was not near the quality of the Contax G’s in the corners. Fell in love with these lenses because they are so compact and have great IQ. Bought some Contax Y/C lenses to use on me Mirex T&S. Lenses  not in my possession, will have them later. Will be great or my landscapes ( is why I fell in love with the A7r2, coming from Canon)

In conclusion the A7r2 is not the problem, it’s great with top IQ & DR. And if you want to buy a legacy lens try it out before buying !

[gavinseim]

What I'm finding is a flare issue, I know others have written about it. Ken provides some good info, but sometimes he's full of it.

 

Sometimes it can be a full on lens flar and sometimes a softeneing of detail. I know it happens on my Fotodiox and I've heard of people adding felt inside the Metbones to make it stop. Something has to be done about it. I find myself holding my hand just right above the lens even with a hood to avioud light flare from the adapater. The adpaer componies need to adress this. It happens all the time, but can be overcome.

[dclark2171]

What I'm finding is a flare issue, I know others have written about it. Ken provides some good info, but sometimes he's full of it.

 

Sometimes it can be a full on lens flar and sometimes a softeneing of detail. I know it happens on my Fotodiox and I've heard of people adding felt inside the Metbones to make it stop. Something has to be done about it. I find myself holding my hand just right above the lens even with a hood to avioud light flare from the adapater. The adpaer componies need to adress this. It happens all the time, but can be overcome.

I believe the Metabones IV fixed the flare with a dull painted interior

[gavinseim]

Good to know, I may have to try one. They seem overpriced seeing as the FD works great other than that. I supose the FD could also also me modded. Seems odd they both left such a glaring error.

[pfogle]

I believe the Metabones IV fixed the flare with a dull painted interior

I did the same to my Fotofiox, using flat black Tamiya model paint. $3.50 retail...

 

One more thing, if KR is using jpgs not raw, the built-in corrections won't work on the Sony using the Canon lens. Just a thought, might not be relevant.

[Golem]

See what you get if you take a shot under the same

conditions with a similar subject ( Some kind of tree,

green at edges and brown trunk in middle). Aperture of

F4 and ISO 100.

No need to experiment. my visualization skills already

tell me the result. A green and brown image of a tree,

technically of low noise and modest depth of field. If

you record this with six different kits, you will get six

mildly differing renditions. Some will pixel peep more

favorably than others but all will be decent green and

brown tree pix.

 

`

[Adrichardson]

The only issue I've had worth adapters was finding an adaptall adapter that actually for my a7ii (rather than jamming half way round)...

[douglaspboyd]

Okay,

So far no one has explained how KR made this shot to try and show a bad result for Sony.  There are a number of ways he could have done this. But I have examined the two comparison photos closely and I believe the Sony is simply out of focus for the whole image.  It appears that the Sony is somewhat focused a bit in front of the trunk of the palm tree. KR states that the center of the image has equal sharpness, but this is not the case, if you look at the center closely you will see that critical focus is missed for the Sony shot.  KR should repeat this test with both cameras in focus!

==Doug

[MikeTison]

Ken uses a tree as a subject.. a trees is not a stable subject.. Wind can cause it to move it.. his test is not a great example.

[Guest all8]

Its a perfect subject. Simply look at the Palm leaves from the center and observe how they change as they move to the outside of the frame, notice the difference?. Then ponder the color green and brown, as rendered, which of the two is realistic?

 

The photo from the Canon looks good, looks better, simple as that. The photo from Sony/Canon combo needs work ... that is the point being made.

[crotach]

Ken Rockwell? Never heard of her!

[Sator]

It seems that the use of adapters has become so wildly popular that the immediate reaction on the net today is to immediately dismiss anyone as crazy who dares point out the fact that they do cause visible degradation in IQ. Even if you take the particular name of the author out of the equation, others have come to similar conclusions. The best example is Roger Cicala from Lens Rentals:

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

 

...when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems. 

 

We tried Leica to NEX and Leica to Micro 4/3 adapters, Canon to NEX, etc. We tried different lenses on one adapter. It didn't really matter. None of them would be acceptable for testing. Not one.

 

I'll point out that we carry only name-brand, fairly expensive adapters, not eBay $29 adapters. All of them are tested frequently and used frequently and none of the ones I tested today had any problems. Still, not one of them would be acceptable for testing

 

 

As Roger Cicala reports, it is rather curious that people actually respond with surprise at the predictable news that placing an extra lump of metal between the lens the body causes degradation in IQ!

 

The reason—reported by several independent sources—is that adapters introduce micro-misalignments between the lens and body. Particular at shorter focal lengths this starts to visibly degrade image quality. This may only become apparent only on corner crops, and that is certainly where Ken Rockwell demonstrates the issue. However, if people are happy with the fact that in many cases you may only notice this on zooming into the corners, and are content with the results ("nobody will ever notice"), then so be it, as long as you are aware of this. 

 

BTW I do own quite a few adapters myself and have fun using them with cheap vintage lense. I'm not trying to spoil your fun playing around with adapters at all. Just as with focal length extenders, I just think there is a strong argument to be made to avoid using them wherever possible and consider them to be a problematic makeshift solution, which can nonetheless be useful in many circumstances. What I don't feel the need to do is to attack anyone who dares to point out the fact there is perfectly good reason to believe that adapters do cause visible degradation in IQ. I also strictly avoid cheap adapters, and prefer Novoflex ones, which seem to provide a much more solid and stable mount to minimise any potential misalignment.