If I use an adapted lens on a Sony A7II ...?

I don't yet own a Sony A7II. I borrowed one yesterday with the Sony 28-70 and I like the camera and lens combination. I can buy the camera for a good price but it doesn't include the lens, the lens I used didn't belong to the seller. I have the following Canon L lenses and I'd like to know if adapted lenses cause image degradation? My lenses are the 28-80 f/2.8-4.0 L, 24-105 f/4 L IS mark I, 70-200 f/4 non IS L and lastly I've got a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS. I also have the Canon mark I version of their 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters and the 50 f/1.8 STM and 85 f/1.8 USM. I'm using the 6D and 70D.

I use the Metabones EF-to-E t-adapter with my Canon lenses and my a9 and a7RIII bodies, with no issues with the shorter lenses. With my EF 500mm f/4L IS II, autofocus can be challenging, but possible, in certain conditions. I'm keeping my EF 14mm f/2.8L II for astro-photography, taking advantage of the faster lens vs. my FE 12-24mm f/4 G.

Caveat, the body that you're considering is not the latest generation. I would guess that Metabones firmware updates have not excluded the combination that you're considering, but I don't know for sure. Maybe someone will chime in here with direct experience. Lacking that, I'd call up Metabones and ask them.

Caveat, the body that you're considering is not the latest generation. I would guess that Metabones firmware updates have not excluded the combination that you're considering, but I don't know for sure. Maybe someone will chime in here with direct experience. Lacking that, I'd call up

Rather than the A7ii, I recommend the A7Rii or A7Riii.

 

Metabones and ask them.

My first Sony Alpha was the A7ii, moving away from a Nikon D3 system and a Leica M9 in the interim. I was able to use both Nikon and Leica lenses on the A7ii with simple adapters (e.g., Novoflex), at least in the manual focus, aperture-priority mode. I was excited that a digital camera could utilize the corner-to-corner sharpness of Leica lenses could achiever on film. Sadly, that was not the case for 35 mm and shorter lenses. The shallow angle of impingement at the corners of the sensor interacted with the thick glass covering the Sony sensor, causing unsharpness and an unpleasant swirling effect.

Nikon wide angle lenses have a much longer back focus distance, in order to clear the swinging mirror. They are affected very little by the sensor cover glass, but sadly, weren't very sharp, even in the center, worse in the corners. They were designed, after all, for film and 12 MP cameras. Lenses designed specifically for Sony cameras assume that cover class is there, like a final element in the lens. This is born out by LensRentals, who insert a 1.5 mm glass at the focal plane when testing Sony lenses. Even then, the simulation is not perfect, but that's all they have to use for testing purposes.

I have no experience with Canon lenses for comparison. However you will find them to be limiting, and eventually replace them with native Sony or Zeiss lenses. You don't have to do it all at once, and other than inconvenience, won't suffer in the transition.

There was never a problem using 90 MM lenses and longer, Leica or Nikon. Even though the focusing is manual, the Sony cameras make focusing easy, and only a button push away. That's more than enough for landscapes, but leaves much to be desired for action photography.

I had owned the A7ii for about 6 months when the A7Rii was introduced. The silent shutter option, extreme dynamic range, and 42 MP sensor without an AA filter, prompted me to upgrade, keeping the A7ii as a spare. In the ensuing two years, I only used the A7ii on a handful of occasions, as a backup or for HD video. The difference in performance was vast. Even now, with an A9, I still use the A7Rii about 30% of the time, for its superior resolution and dynamic range. There is not enough difference between the m2 and m3 versions of the A7R to interest me at present. Starting anew, the A7Riii is more bang for the buck. With an high speed silent shutter, you can handle action, weddings and events better than with the A7Rii. Did I forget the larger battery, with nearly 5x the charge life as the m2 version?

ED, I'll grant you your bad experiences with your Nikon and Leica lenses, but the out-of-hand dismissal of Canon lenses is undeserved. My experience with my Sony a9 or my a7RIII, combined with my L-series Canon lenses, connected via my Metabones EF-to-E T-adapter MkV gives excellent results. It doesn't matter whether I'm using my 14mm or my 500mm. Oh, BTW, the AF works extremely well. When there's in-lens IS, that works, combined with the IBIS.

Here's a shot with the a9/Metabones combo, with the EF14mm f/2.8L II attached:

Sunset Over Cherry Creek Reservoir by David Stephens, on Flickr

I do agree with Ed about the a7III being a much better choice than the old body, for all the reasons that Ed cited.

I believe I deferred judgment on Canon lenses, with which I have no experience. That said, they are not completely integrated with the Sony, with features like OSS, Manual focusing (including DMF) and lens data recording. IBIS still works, but the longer the lens, the more OSS contributes to image stabilization. Auto focusing is said to be as fast as with a Canon DSLR, and you are not limited to aperture-priority.

My Nikon lenses are generally older than 2005, and probably don't perform as well as newer versions. It would be silly to buy new Nikon lenses for a Sony, and I have no plans to move back to Nikon bodies.

In general, I prefer the colors of the A9 to that of the A7Rii, although the latter produces much finer detail, plus the convenience of the controls.

Sony A9 + 24-70/2.8 GM

Killary Harbour, Ireland

I believe I deferred judgment on Canon lenses, with which I have no experience. That said, they are not completely integrated with the Sony, with features like OSS, Manual focusing (including DMF) and lens data recording. IBIS still works, but the longer the lens, the more OSS contributes to image stabilization. Auto focusing is said to be as fast as with a Canon DSLR, and you are not limited to aperture-priority.

...

I think that you're mistaken about the integration of the Canon EF lenses with the latest Sony bodies, such as the a9 and a7RIII. If you click on my image above, you can see full EXIF data. Using the Metabones EF-to-E t-adapter MkV you loses absolutely nothing, in my experience. The Canon IS systems on my 24-105mm, 100-400mm and 500mm all work as intended and can be supplemented by Sony's IBIS. I own both Sony and Canon lenses and notice little, or no, operational difference between them. The native Sony lenses tend to be smaller and lighter for the same size lens.

Programmable buttons on Sony lenses provide a convenient means to employ eye focus. If you turn OSS (IS) off on a Sony lens, IBIS is disabled as well - one stop shopping. I use DMF (Delayed Manual Focusing) regularly for landscapes and general photography. Manual focusing is enabled once auto focus lock is achieved, for fine or selective tuning. Focus magnification can be used for native and non-native lenses, but the latter require manual activation. Smaller, lighter is a good thing, but not something I obsess about. There's hardly any difference in long primes, which is moot because the Sony doesn't have one above 135 mm (a 400/2.8 is not available yet).

Does IBIS sense the Canon focal length, or must it be set manually?

Programmable buttons on Sony lenses provide a convenient means to employ eye focus. If you turn OSS (IS) off on a Sony lens, IBIS is disabled as well - one stop shopping. I use DMF (Delayed Manual Focusing) regularly for landscapes and general photography. Manual focusing is enabled once auto focus lock is achieved, for fine or selective tuning. Focus magnification can be used for native and non-native lenses, but the latter require manual activation. Smaller, lighter is a good thing, but not something I obsess about. There's hardly any difference in long primes, which is moot because the Sony doesn't have one above 135 mm (a 400/2.8 is not available yet).

 

Does IBIS sense the Canon focal length, or must it be set manually?

Since I'm mainly shooting BIF and wildlife, I almost never MF. I do it for astro-photography. I'll need to try my EF 14/2.8L II in MF mode, with magnification, before I get on the firing line some night. (Thanks for the potential heads up).

The Metabones MkV adapter has a separate switch for IBIS and, of course, the EF lenses have their separate IS on/off switch. They work independently. I've tried my IBIS with my 500mm with the IS turned off and it is indeed working. As to whether it senses focal length, I know for certain that it reads and records the FL; however, I have no idea how it adjust the IBIS to the various FL that it could have to correct. I make no manual adjustment for FL.

Just to repeat, what was earlier up in the thread, these adapters are not just dumb spacers. They have microprocessors that report data, respond to camera commands and control the camera/lens interactions. If the firmware is not designed to mate your camera/lens combination. When I was trying various adapters with my Sony-body/Canon-lens combos, the MkIV Metabones worked some, but was very inconsistent. The Sigma didn't work at all. When I bought the MkV Metabones, with the July 2017 firmware, my problems were mostly resolved. Since summer of 2017, I've heard that Sigma has updated their firmware and it's working like a champ. So, the message is that the adapter/body/lens interface includes all-important firmware in the adapter, that can make or break the system.

As to weight and bulk, it's very important to me because I often walk miles with two-bodies, a 500/f4 (with TC) on one body and a 100-400mm on the other body and a small bag with 12-24mm and 24-70mm, along with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. Every ounce becomes important. My Sony 100-400mm is smaller and lighter than my Canon 100-400mm. Since the IQ is equivalent, I sold the Canon and carry the Sony.