Canon L zooms on Sony A7ii

<p>Currently using a 5Diii but getting tempted by IQ reports on the A7ii. But I'm quite heavily invested in Canon L zooms 24-105; 70-200f4, and 17-40. Not sure I could justify changing over the lenses,so---</p>

<ul>

<li>How could I go about using the A7ii body with my current lenses?</li>

<li>Would I lose material functionality on the lens/body combination.?</li>

<li>Do you reckon I'd see material quality improvement, or would I lose a lot of what the A7ii is capable of because the lenses aren't good enough?</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

<p>1. You need an adapter<br>

2. Generally speaking you loose AF unless you get an AF-capable one like the Metabones ($300)<br>

3. You could replace them with Sony 16-35/4 and 70-200/4 and 24-70/4 for lots of money with dubious or zero image benefit - except you would have 42MP of resolution for all those times you want to print 20-30 inch prints. Oh yes, of course, you will have more dynamic range, which will immeasurably improve all of your photos (this is me being snarky).</p>

<p>The recent firmware upgrade to the A7ii adds full AF capability with Canon lenses via a Fotodiox adapter.</p>

<p>I have no Canon lenses for comparison, but the best native Sony lenses have much better image quality than the comparable Nikon lenses, which can be used with an adapter, but without auto focus. Nonetheless, DSLR lenses do not suffer from smearing in the corners like lenses shorter than 50 mm for rangefinder cameras. This smearing is due to the thick glass covering the Sony sensor, together with the close proximity of RF lenses to the sensor. DSLR lenses have a long back focus distance from the need to clear the reflex mirror.</p>

<p>What do you expect to gain moving from a 5D MkIII to a Sony A7II?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>except you would have 42MP of resolution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would require the A7RII - David is talking about the 24MP A7II. For the price of a A7RII he might as well consider the 5DS.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Picking up Dieter's point, I might well be interested in the A7Rii if I could achieve worthwhile better image quality and/or functionality with my Canon lenses. </p>

<p>The problems you face are similar if you were to change from Canon to Nikon gear. There is always a sense of gain and well as loss. With the Sony the sense of loss is lessened by the fact one can use adapted lenses. I tested my 70-200 f/4 L zoom against the Sony version. No perceivable quality loss. I bought the Sony to have fast better Af. The new Metabones adapter is suppose to be the best with USB upgradability as firmware improves. My original 1st generation Vittrox adapter auto focuses but not quickly.</p>

<p>I don't have the Canon 24-105 L but I found the 17-40mm L to work excellently on the A7. Since most of my use of this is landscape work, I saw no need for an expensive adapter nor the Sony version lens. I focus this manually. Like all adapted EOS lenses, you still have electronic aperture control through the camera body. Try that with a Nikon switch. This also comes in handy when I use my Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens on the Sony. Again AF is rarely important for it's use (for me) and it yields excellent results. All things being equal, it's not strange to expect that native E-mount lenses will work more smoothly with the body they were designed for. I ended up with a mixed bag of Sony FE and Canon EF lenses with a few fine Nikkor AI-s and Canon FD primes.</p>

<p>That said, I have the latest Metabones IV adapter on order coming with my new A7RII body. I will be testing my Canon wide L zoom as well as several L primes, 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 II, with it in the near future. I have completely switched my camera use to Sony bodies after being an EOS user for decades. I simply prefer the smaller size and lighter weight and I will <strong>never</strong> buy another camera without an EVF or articulating rear screen. Oh, and a small thing, but the actual images from the Sony sensor look better to me. I print large often so more MP is a good thing. How these issues play in your work is a variable only you can decide. On a practical note, it's a good idea to handle the body before buying as the compact, lightweight form factor is not suitable to everyone's taste. (this is me being helpful)</p><div></div>

<p>Stick with what ya got. Adapted lenses are never the way to go for best results possible.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>That would require the A7RII - David is talking about the 24MP A7II. For the price of a A7RII he might as well consider the 5DS.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well my error, and I agree with you. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Adapted lenses are never the way to go for best results possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. While I maintain using lenses native to the mount provide an advantage in autofocus and smooth operation, and state that in my reply above, that does not, ipso facto, have any bearing on results-"best" or otherwise and certainly not the dismissive "never". The actual pictorial results in using Canon L, as well as select vintage prime lenses on Sony A7 series bodies is often excellent as I can attest from direct experience.</p>

<p>One must consider the type and focal length of the adapted optic, the type and quality of the adapter and the style of working in which one is comfortable. Manual focus lenses of high quality are still currently produced and made available for all major camera brands. AF adapters do vary in quality but that is changing with the latest round of tools now touting performance nearly equal to native mount lenses.</p>

<p>Louis, I've adapted lenses and stand by my statement firmly, as do loads of other guys who've written gobs about it on the web.<br /><br />There are a lot of concerns about adapted lenses, more stray light coming in because of much larger image circle (on µ 43, or using MF lenses on regular format DSLRs and such), the inability to AF (and sometimes fully meter) as you mention, the fact that the camera and lens now don't communicate, etc. If you're shooting totally still objects that never move in a controlled situation... I guess... but really...?<br /><br />Virtually every user is better off just using the mount your camera has. Chasing around really high end bodies to use with other camera brand lenses is, in almost every case, folly.<br /><br />Besides, the OP has a Canon 5D3. How much better IQ is he REALLY gonna get with something else. This reads like measurebating to me.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>No worries, Peter, you are free to have your opinion along with gobs of others. However:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are a lot of concerns about adapted lenses, more stray light coming in because of much larger image circle on µ 43, or using MF lenses on regular format DSLRs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which has little to do with the discussion in this thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Virtually every user is better off just using the mount your camera has.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree in concept with this, as stated, however David, an experienced photographer, is asking about the specifics of using Canon L lenses with a Sony camera. I don't know why this question is seemingly impolitic to some. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Besides, the OP has a Canon 5D3. How much better IQ is he REALLY gonna get with something else. This reads like measurebating to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a misplaced value judgement, for one, and OT for another. If you have an opinion from your experience with this equipment please share it. If not, concocting a disparaging opinion of someones motivations is not helpful given the questions posed. I own a 5D3 and the Sony images are superior, to my eyes, and the Sony bodies offer significant technical advantages to my work and their ergonomics are friendly to my hands.<br>

<br>

I don't know if my information shared will be useful or not, I don't care what camera people use, but it is given honestly and directly and not shrouded in snarkiness or hyperbolic misrepresentation. </p>

 

<p>Louis Please be assured that you've provided exactly the type of input I was hoping for when I made the post. Clearly someone with 2 of the 3 lenses I use, and the body I'd probably get, has information I'm going to find useful- rather more so than an opinion based on adapters in general and a generally discouraging stance when lots of others, and plenty of reviews, are indicating positive quality improvement from the type of change I'm contemplating. <br>

And the more I read about my current body and lenses, the more I'm understanding that whilst they were towards the top of the pile a few years ago, todays reviews don't tend to share those opinions; things have moved on and it may be that I can do materially better. The image quality has to be better to justify a change in body- the reduction in body size and weight isn't that material after I've added in an adapter. </p>

<p>This isn't definitive, but is useful information if you are considering a Sony A7R II. There is nothing about image quality, but gives you some idea about compatibility. http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/</p>

<p>Thanks John. Reassuring about the A7R II and the 17-40L and 70-200 f4L in combination with the latest Metabones. Not so good about the 24-105L though, which happens to be the lens I use about 70% of the time. "Slow to acceptable AF" on a lens that I don't find quick to focus manually , not helped by the lens barrel marks being all over the place. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"tempted by <strong>IQ</strong> reports on the A7ii" & "Do you reckon I'd see material <strong>quality</strong> improvement?" <em><strong>David H.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As can be seen by your purchase of expensive upper level "L" zooms, "Quality" is a major concern.<br /> So even if we're speaking about the higher megapixel Sony A7RII, it's pretty clear from all the testing that's gone on,<br /> that the IQ <strong>isn't appreciably higher</strong> than that of the wonderful Canon 5DmarkIII camera body.</p>

<p>But maybe for others, considering that the Sony has such versatility as to be able to mount virtually any lens made to it,<br /> and the fact that Auto-Focus isn't prohibited to only it's native glass,<br /> and that it has the amazing benefit of a Real-Time EVF that can express so many great qualities,<br /> one should not discount it's role as a great <strong>2nd/back-up/redundant</strong> digital back in a small package...</p>

<p>Just as a follow up. I just tried out the Sony A7rII with the new Metabones T IV adapter with two of my L primes mentioned above. I also A/B'd them with the Canon 5D MkIII body for focusing accuracy and speed. I focused them on subjects in a room with good window light and a room with dim light. Here is what I found:</p>

<p>In good light the Sony with the EF 50mm f/1.2 L and EF 85mm f/1.2 L II focused just as fast and accurately as on the Canon body. If there was a difference I could not perceive it. In dim light, the 85mm focused the same on both bodies. This is not a fast focusing lens to be sure in any case but they seemed quite similar. On the 50mm in dim light, it seemed to focus small, but noticeably, quicker, and a hair smoother on the Canon body. This was a very small difference but I could see it and repeated the experiment twice to confirm. With both lenses, the EVF of the Sony was <strong>much</strong> better to use, especially in dim light. I seemed to get about two more stops of hand holding steadiness from the Sony on-chip IBIS in the dim light shot. This is a real boon with these lenses which don't have native IS.<br>

Overall, I am encouraged that for my use of these two lenses, mostly for portraiture, that they will perform well enough to be used on Sony bodies without issue. Frankly I'm a bit amazed given my previous adapter experience with the early Vittrox model. Things have changed for the better. Of course I'll learn more as I use them more. I'll also try out my other L lenses going forward. For now, It appears the EF L prime lenses will stay in the bag unlike the Canon bodies which will stay at home. It will be <em>they</em> that serve as back up duty.</p>