April 22, 20187 yr I am planning on selling my Canon 6D II and getting an A7III in the coming months and wanted some advice. I was considering getting the Metabones V but I rather use the native lenses (I will probably add the new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 once released and if it is good) so I'm thinking the MC-11 may be the better option. The reason for this is, the only lenses I plan to adapt is the 16-35 f/4L and 100L which both are used for static objects and don't require fast AF (long exposures, landscapes and still life) and would rather save money being that Metabones is twice the cost. I don't really shoot any fast paced action shots, just mostly landscapes, still life and the odd portrait. Does this plan seem logical and like a good idea?
April 24, 20187 yr No, I don't think it's a good idea. If you use adapters to cripple the native functions of a Sony mirrorless camera, it's just a sensor in a box. It won't perform a lot better than your 6DII. Sony only used to emphasise adapters back when their lens line was inadequate. It's not actually a realistic way of doing photography.
April 24, 20187 yr Author No, I don't think it's a good idea. If you use adapters to cripple the native functions of a Sony mirrorless camera, it's just a sensor in a box. It won't perform a lot better than your 6DII. Sony only used to emphasise adapters back when their lens line was inadequate. It's not actually a realistic way of doing photography. When it comes to IQ, how would I be crippling the A7III using adapters? If I am shooting landscapes I use manual focus so AF reliability isn't as issue.
April 24, 20187 yr Lens adapters cause misalignment, which can affect IQ. Even if the misaligment is microscopic, it can reduce sharpness in the image. Digilloyd and Lensrentals have tested it and written about it.
April 28, 20187 yr I have sold essentially all of my Canon glass because native just works better. Having said that I kept my Sigma 18-35 1.4 Canon mount with King adapter (was $80 years ago and actually out performed mc-11 and metabones III); but I don't think you can find the King available anymore. It was/is a great adapter for $80! The 18-35 works well, fast focus including fast eye autofocus. As a result I sold my Metabones III, and IV...the King was just better with the lens selection and needs I had. If you can find a King you will save $$$$.
April 29, 20187 yr ` "Lens adapters cause misalignment, which can affect IQ. Even if the misaligment is microscopic, it can reduce sharpness in the image. Digilloyd and Lensrentals have tested it and written about it." Link to the article mentioned above: https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/ Too many members of the forum will read that Lensrentals has written about how ... .... adapters are hugely and totally useless .... without comprehending that it says they are totally useless for use on an optical bench, but failing to realize what that means. The adapters absolutely failed to be precise enuf to serve as an integral component of an optical bench. BTW they are also totally useless as hockey pucks. Both these facts are equally meaningless to photographers. Lensrentals does a disservice to the photo community by discussing optical bench use. Thaz like saying the drugs that save your life ... chemicals that are USP phama-pure, have absolutely and totally failed to be pure and precise enuf to be used as analytical reagents by research chemists. BTW that is generally the case. That is why chemicals come in three grades: Reagent, USP, and Industrial. Do not put industrial in your body. But USP is for USE in your Body. Reagent is waaaaay too pure and precise and costly to waste on human consumption. It is for research analysts, and must be ultra perfect so as to have no tiny trace element that will bring error into test reactions. Likewise an optical bench is a TESTING device, and so every element of it must be 99.999...99% error-free. True, adapters are not that pure. An Optical Bench is not for making actual photographs. It's for ultra accurate testing. IOW it needs "reagent" grade components, waaaaay closer to absolute perfection than the USP quality that you use on your body, IOW on your camera body. Adapters are not good for the devices that TEST lenses. They are quite suitable for devices that USE lenses to record images. This all spelled out in the linked story if you know how to objectively READ it.
January 8, 20196 yr On 4/24/2018 at 8:17 AM, Guest Jaf-Photo said: No, I don't think it's a good idea. If you use adapters to cripple the native functions of a Sony mirrorless camera, it's just a sensor in a box. It won't perform a lot better than your 6DII. Sony only used to emphasise adapters back when their lens line was inadequate. It's not actually a realistic way of doing photography. Actually it's only the ability to adapt to such a wide variety of lens mounts that interest some of us. It's given me a wide variety of lenses to choose from for less than the cost of a single native lens. While the native lens line up has increased dramatically it still doesn't have options that match the capabilities of some of my toys. Coupled to a rangefinder lens a mirrorless camera will manage much better than a DSLR. Sony's longest lens is 400mm, I have 500mm, 600mm & even 1000mm options even without using teleconverters. There are a couple of native tilt shift lenses from 3rd party manufacturers, but they are fully manual too so don't offer much advantage over adapting with a tilt/shift adapter... I don't use AF when adapting lenses, but there's even an adapter that allows ANY lens to AF on later Sony bodies (the Techart Pro) Sony may prefer us to all buy their lenses but using adapted lenses is quite realistic and far more fun.
Create an account or sign in to comment