The Old EF-to-E-mount Puzzle

[Username]

`        

   

     

Let's try a "new twist" on the Canon-to-Sony puzzle :-)   

     

Plenty has already been asked and answered about 

the nightmarish world of Canon-to-Sony adapters. I'm 

not against them. I've returned a few, and kept one ... 

and despite it's shortcomings, I get good use out of it.  

   

Here it is:   

   

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    

    

And here is a game, a puzzle azzitwer:   

   

What is wrong with the item shown above ? 

   

A. the " - S "    

B. the " AF "  

C. the glass [as seen above]  

D. all of the above    

     

  

[see next post to score your reply]  

   

    

`

[Username]

`    

   

   

The answer acoarst is "all of the above" :-)    

    

   

1. The " - S " is just plain wrong. Notice the glass ?     

 

2. The " AF " designation is dubious, but so what ....   

    

3. The glass, in and of itself, is not really 'wrong' ...

it's really very good optically. What is WRONG with 

the glass is that it is in an adapter designated as for 

Canon EF-s lenses onto Sony E-mount bodies.   

    

It's no wonder these makers can't get their firmware 

figgered out, given the lack of "proof reading" before 

engraving a production run incorrectly :-(     

    

  

---------------------------------------------------------------   

   

   

Just a fun game. NOT asking to put the maker up 

against the wall with a blindfold and last cigarette !  

Actually, the optics and mechanical build of this item 

are very good. The auto iris works and the exposure 

data coupling works, so it's a convenience, for me ... 

but if you want the AF &or the IS of your Canon lens 

to work, this adapter is NOT a convenience, for you.   

  

And altho I'm happy enuf with it at its holiday season   

discount price, I would never have bought/kept it at 

its normally higher price. 

   

I'm OK with "dumb" adapters, but acoarst Canon EF 

lenses are not functional on those. Thus we have the 

"smart" adapters for Canon lenses. Little mention is 

made in the promotional info, but most of the "smart"  

adapters are ... uhmnn ... "intellectually challenged" ! 

 

 

 

   

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

What are the photos like? I've always preferred using the sweet spot advantage of FF lenses on APS-C cameras. Focal length reducers tend to negate any of the desirable optical qualities of the lens.

[Username]

What are the photos like? I've always preferred using the

sweet spot advantage of FF lenses on APS-C cameras.

Focal length reducers tend to negate any of the desirable

optical qualities of the lens.

    

First of all, use of a focal reducer is not my go-to mode. 

Given that the AF and OIS don't work, and given other 

options in my hoard of gear, the FL reducer comes into 

use mainly when a peculiar advantage reigns supreme 

for certain circumstances.   

   

Since the "most supreme" advantage, IMNSHO, is the 

increased optical speed, and since the increase only 

matters when at wide open, my application is for rather 

dim light where gaining an f/stop matters; and since it's 

also a job for high ISO, there's no visible loss of optical 

performance. Also, given the lack of DoF at wide open,  

there's no issue of corner sharpness. It's very unlikely 

that the focus plane intersects anything other than the

main subject anywho. 

   

So much for "sweet spot" miracles. If I use a 50/1.4 at 

wide open without a FL reducer, there is still no sweet 

spot advantage, cuz for me working at wide open goes 

hand in hand with dim conditions and high ISO.   

  

FWIW the lack of useful AF is a nonissue since in such 

circumstances I can't trust AF anywho. Even when it's 

working very well ... fully as well as it was engineered 

to work ... I can't trust AF's discernment for placing the

focus plane exactly where I want it when the dearth of 

DoF demands extra careful placement.   

   

Yet I can state that the optical qualities of the adapter 

shown above are very good. Given that these things 

cost a few bucks, I do check out the IQ in a practical 

manner. If the corners look decent at one-stop-down   

thaz very good. I check for curvature of field and if it 

holds very near to center focus across all, or at least

nearly all, of the frame, thaz very good. I also check 

for reflections and veiling, and for vignetting. Oddly,  

the particular adapter above seems to actually "cure" 

vignetting. The corner illumination is noticeably better

than the lens alone [lens alone checked on FF]. I'm 

aware that sounds dubious, but thaz my observation.   

   

  

   

 

`

[Username]

`    

    

  

Just in case you may doubt I have any realistic 

point of reference for the look of "sweet spot" 

images, I do wanna point out that I also have a 

nonoptical version of that adapter but it's for EF 

and EF-s lenses to M43. Canon makes a lovely 

10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-s that is nearly permanently 

attached to my Pen-F. It's a non-IS lens but the 

Pen-F has IBIS and can read the FL data from 

the zoom. As the lens is designed for Canon's 

1.6X APS and since M43 is "more square-ish", 

the Pen-F uses almost 80% of the image from 

the lens. Acoarst the missing 20% is the "least 

sweet" regions of a lens that happens to be a 

real sweet lens all around [according to results 

from my APS Canon].   

  

So I am aware ... and, technically speaking, I'm

impressed by the sweet spot phenomenon. But 

practically speaking, I mostly never experience 

it due to my "style" :-) Even that "sweet spot rig" 

... the Pen-F with the fine Canon zoom ... sees

mainly situations where the IBIS contributes far 

more to overall IQ than any sweet spot effect. 

   

  

`

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Fair enough. Boosters were a fad a few years ago but I always thought they gave a bottle glass look to the photos. I only found a Ken Rockwell review of this adapter. I was a bit concerned by the look of the images. Although, in that case, there may be more than one source of that.

[Username]

Fair enough. Boosters were a fad a few years ago but I always

thought they gave a bottle glass look to the photos. I only found

a Ken Rockwell review of this adapter. I was a bit concerned by

the look of the images. Although, in that case, there may be

more than one source of that.

    

Per my remarks, no image I'm likely to make with a focal 

reducer is likely to intrigue any IQ fanatics. High ISO and 

wide open with auxiliary optics in the path ? Kinda like an 

old f/1.2 lens, it does a specialized job, and that specialty 

is certainly NOT the attainment of maximal IQ. What that 

specialty is would be the attainment of images that might 

be otherwise unobtainable. And if obtaining them needs  

quite high ISO, then "top rated" optics just go to waste.    

    

FWIW the resulting optics I'm recently enjoying for APSC

via my new Kipon are 14/2.0, 25/1.4, and 13-25/2.5-3.2, 

all derived from EF lenses already on hand. I can't really 

recommend anyone plan his system around an adapter, 

and then go out and acquire EF lenses for such a system. 

Thaz are reeeeally stoopid idea. Too bulky, too expensive   

and you'll almost certainly forfeit OIS and AF.  

   

Focal reducers are basically video equipment, thus all the 

expense and compromise involved in using them for stills.

   

   

---------------------------------------------------------------------   

    

  

   

I had been using a Mitakon, early version. Even with no 

intentions of pursuing IQ bragging rights, the upgrade to 

the Kipon is noticeable and welcome. I'm not saying that . 

the Kipon is any sorta optical nirvhana ... I'm saying that 

the early version Mitakon was visibly "IQ challenged" :-)  

   

BUT !!! The Mitakon plays nicer with some lenses than 

with others, and with the more compatible lenses it does 

deliver the goods. Not all images need even illumination, 

or quality in the corners. In such situations, if the central 

region has all the sharpness that high ISO will allow you 

to record, then better optics won't improve anything. So 

the Mitakon is pretty a niche item like the Canon 50/0.95 

while the Kipon invites broader use. Just as there are the 

quality TCs and there are the doggy TCs, same with the 

focal reducers.