Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

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 post
Share on other sites

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 $$$$.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

`     

   

 

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I've been using this lens extensively without any sharpness issues. At long focal lengths, you'll have to factor in the need for a faster shutter speed (< 1/500-ish at 350mm) and other factors like atmospheric distortion, fog/dust haze, etc. All these factors contribute to a deterioration of image quality at longer focal lengths.
    • That's supposed to be a pretty good APS-C lens. Can you try it on a different camera just for the heck of it? Friend? Camera shop? The lens is noted for sharpness, so if you're having as much trouble as you say, you may want to look into a replacement or repair. 
    • Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community because I’m facing a persistent image quality issue with my Sony 70–350mm f/4.5–6.3 G OSS lens, and I’d like to know if this is normal behavior or if my copy is defective. Problem description: I’ve extensively compared the 70–350mm G OSS with my Sony 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 OSS, using a Sony A6700, under controlled conditions: • Identical lighting and background • Same subject and position (LEGO figure, consistent framing) • Tripod or steady support • Manual focus or AF with center point • Same shutter speed (e.g., 1/200s), similar ISO (ISO 4000–6400), RAW + JPEG • OIS turned on (and also tested with OIS off) My observations: • At 135mm, the 70–350mm G OSS delivers softer, flatter images than the 18–135mm, even when stopped down. • At 350mm, the sharpness drops significantly – the center is soft, and textures (like LEGO tiles or fabric) appear blurred or smudged. • Contrast and micro-detail are noticeably inferior across all focal lengths. • The 18–135mm at 135mm (even cropped) retains better edge sharpness and detail definition. • Both JPEG and RAW files confirm the issue – this is not just JPEG processing or noise reduction. Question to the community: • Have others experienced similar softness with the 70–350mm? • Is it possible I have a decentered or optically misaligned copy? • Is there a known issue with OSS introducing softness at long focal lengths? I wanted to love this lens due to the range and portability, but currently it’s unusable for anything where image quality matters. I’m considering returning or sending it for service. Thanks in advance for any feedback or comparison results you can share.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...