Do you want to use your EF lenses on NEX?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by yakim_peled|1, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. Well, in a short time you'll be able to do so, and with AF! IIRC this is the first MILC-EF adapter that allows AF.
    Of course, the AFD motor in the 50/1.8 isn't Canon's best AF motor, to put it mildly. I wonder how it will perform with Ring USM lenses like the 28/1.8 and 85/1.8.


    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  2. Interesting. Not impressively fast AF and no indication of how accurate it is. The non AF adapter is $250, so I presume the AF version would cost more.
    If Canon would get their act together with their MILC camera, we wouldn't have to look to Sony!
     
  3. I find the whole MILC concept actually quite appealing. I like the idea of a compact camera system with interchangeable lenses. Once the whole thing becomes a bit more mature, I could well imagine buying into it. But to use EF lenses on a MILC? Not that I don't admire the feat in reverse engineering, but if you can buy a used Canon APS-C body for half the price of the adapter, I fail to see the point.
     
  4. I suspect that EF lenses will be rather big on the NEX. I have a m4/3 body and many of my FD lenses feel out of place
    on it. My Leica and Contax G bodies and lenses feel well matched but I suspect EF lenses (especially the big ones) will
    just feel wrong on a mirror less body
     
  5. Yes, they will be bigger on the NEX. I don't care. Currently I'm focusing most of my photography efforts on Canon EOS and Sony NEX systems and the more they work together, the better as far as I'm concerned. My big, old FD 400mm F/4,5 does feel out of place on the NEX...and works fabulously! I can only imagine that having my good EOS AF lenses working can only improve on that experience. Lenses are heavy enough. I'll put up with the issues of a less substantial body, if I don't have to lug a full size DSLR out into the field. I'll be fresher on hikes and enjoy the outdoors, and the photography, more.
     
  6. Completely pointless in my opinion. If you're going to drag a hulking great EF lens around then why bother using it with a compact mirrorless body? You may as well just use the Canon DSLR it is designed for.
     
  7. If Canon would get their act together with their MILC camera, we wouldn't have to look to Sony!​
    +1

    I wish for XP1 or GH3 or NEX6/7 with EOS M mount. Then again, Canon said they wouldn't do EOSM with VF, which pretty much kills it for me.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  8. Completely pointless in my opinion. If you're going to drag a hulking great EF lens around then why bother using it with a compact mirrorless body? You may as well just use the Canon DSLR it is designed for.​
    +1
    For me, also, the ergonomics of an EOS M and similar cameras are horrible. Holding a camera with extended arms does nothing for me, and makes it even more difficult for me to see the image on the LCD. Give me an eye-level viewfinder any day!
     
  9. I agree with Larry, I have a 7D with liveview and hardly ever use it. I like eye-level viewfinder - I want it because it is easier to see (glare, etc. issues in daylight) and I can look around the frame to check composition and for disatracting objects. Outside of that I have fairly large hands so smaller is not neccessarily better for me.
     
  10. I'm with Jamie and Larry. With a little pancake style lens, the result is basically a higher quality P&S, which is fine if you're looking for small and light. With anything else the body is engulfed by the lens and the total package looses any size and weight advantage, if one sees small and light as an advantage. Other than doing it simply because it can be done, I can't think of anything in the world of photographic tools more pointless.
     
  11. Yes, but not all EF lenses are hulking great things are they? 24, 28, 35/2, 50/1.8, 40mm, 85/1.8 come to mind. And the longer their focal length, the more they will approximate any NEX-native lens obviously.
     
  12. Yes, but not all EF lenses are hulking great things are they?​
    No, but even small mid-range primes can be smaller for a MILC system. That is pretty much the whole point of designing such a system!
    Canon said they wouldn't do EOSM with VF, which pretty much kills it for me.​
    The other big deal of a MILC system is the assumption that electronic viewfinders at some stage will be so good that you won't need an optical viewfinder. OK, I am a great fan of optical viewfinders, and for me that's a good enough reason to shoot an SLR most of the time, but the electronic viewfinder in cameras like my wife's Lumix DMC-ZS7 is better than I had thought possible a few years ago, and there is no reason to believe further improvements won't be made.
    I like eye-level viewfinder​
    As far as eye-level viewfinders go, the SLR has clearly turned out to be the superior concept. Just look at how many SLRs Nikon, Canon and others have sold over the years, and the tiny niche market Leica's mirrorless rangefinders occupy in comparison. The only way that balance can be tipped in the digital age is by further improving electronic viewfinders to reduce glare and other daylight issues to the point where they are competitive with SLR viewfinders. For me that hasn't been achieved quite yet, and I expect to continue shooting SLRs for a while, but who knows.
    As a side note, there is no law saying that you have to hold a camera with electronic viewfinder at arm's length. I virtually never do. The whole idea that you have to hold a camera at eye-level was introduced only with SLRs. For example TLRs have always been held at waist level, and waist level finders were quite popular with early pro level SLRs that had interchangeable finders. With modern digital cameras and their swivel screens, your imagination is the limiting factor how you can hold these cameras, and being able to shoot from different perspectives adds new creative possibilities. Now with my T1i, I virtually never use life-view, because the whole camera is designed around an optical eye-level finder, but that doesn't have to be so for future generations of MILCs!
     
  13. I've never felt the desire to mount up an EF lens, but I'm so happy with the NEX-7 and FD lens combo, that sometimes I question the need for my EOS system entirely. I'm also encouraged to see that Sony is expanding their own lens line for the NEX; hoping for a tele in the 300-400 mm range in the future. I carried the NEX-7 and 3 E-mount lenses to the US Open this year, and I think the whole kit weighed less than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS that I usually carry, let alone the rest of my EOS kit. I might be exaggerating a little...but not much.
     
  14. Completely pointless in my opinion. If you're going to drag a hulking great EF lens around then why bother using it with a compact mirrorless body? You may as well just use the Canon DSLR it is designed for.​
    -1
    1. What fits one does not necessarily fits others.
    2. Not all DSLR lenses are big. many primes below 100mm are rather small.
    3. Most importantly, at least IMHO, is that it's always nice to have options. Who knows? There might be times you'd want to use them.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  15. 2. Not all DSLR lenses are big. many primes below 100mm are rather small.
    Yes, but not all EF lenses are hulking great things are they?​
    But the EF lenses need to be used with that rather large adapter. That means added weight and bulk that wouldn't be there if you used them on a Canon DSLR. A Canon 650D with a 28mm prime is no less pocketable than a Sony NEX complete with EF 28mm and EF adapter. Not only that, the 650D will almost certainly have better AF, an optical viewfinder and far better ergonomics. For the anticipated price of one of the new adapters you could probably buy a half decent used Canon DSLR like a 350D to throw in your bag just in case.
     
  16. You are absolutely right, but that's the nice thing about options: You can choose if and when to use them.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  17. The greater the range of options, the better. I like to do macro with my Tamron 90mm on my Canon and a 50mm Leica Summar on extension tubes with my NEX 5n (two totally different looks). It would be great to be able to leave the larger body at home.
     
  18. or how about this senario: Go out shooting with your regular DSLR but use the NEX body as an emergency back up body! It weighs nothing and takes up little space. If your 5D craps out or takes a dive out in the field, you have a way to keep shooting with your EOS lenses. This sounds like a great idea!
     
  19. Indeed so.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  20. The demonstration video in your link doesn't impress. The sample lens on the SONY showed how the lens hunted in good lighting prior to locking focus. Therefore, this would be a huge fail for me.
     
  21. I think a big heavy camera is absolutely critical, for ergonomics, stability, and general usability. I can't shoot with a digital rebel for the life of me.
     
  22. I can't shoot with a digital rebel for the life of me.​
    Me too but try the GH2 and you may be surprised. This is why I seriously consider the GH3, which looks even better.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     

Share This Page