That’s the conclusion I have come to, for the reasons that you cite and understand. I _could_ stay with Canon, and if I end up feeling that Canon provides me with what I need as effectively as other manufacturers do, I would prefer to continue with Canon.
But I’m relatively brand-agnostic, and when I’m in a situation where virtually everything would get replaced it would be silly to not take a good look at alternatives.
This is the reasons that I did not jump on the R system bandwagon. (To be clear, I think that the R cameras offer a lot of value to many users.) Fortunately for me, I’m not rally held back by continuing to use the gear I have for now… as I watch the market evolve and learn more about alternatives.
- - -
It is possible that I’m mixing up two separate issues. It seems that while 3rd party lenses cannot use the RF mount on the new cameras, old third-party lenses that worked with the EF mount will work with the EF-RF adapters. Do I have that right?...Show more →
Not 100% sure if this accurate, but I think that any lens that can take an EF adapter can be mounted in a Canon ML (R) with an EF to RF adapter. Now, AF and infinity lock might be an issue along with MFD. Since the lenses I tried that were non-EF native and MF, previously possible issues I mentioned are non- existent or simply I did not become aware of them.
My 2001 model Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX works perfectly with my R6. The 150-600 Sigma C I have had the focus wandering that others describe (see Duade Paton) but only at closer distances and after taking a burst I always got at least one good sharp shot.
Not 100% sure if this accurate, but I think that any lens that can take an EF adapter can be mounted in a Canon ML (R) with an EF to RF adapter. Now, AF and infinity lock might be an issue along with MFD. Since the lenses I tried that were non-EF native and MF, previously possible issues I mentioned are non- existent or simply I did not become aware of them.
The adapter gives the EF lens the exact same distance from sensor (or film) to mount it was designed for, so there are no issues.
The adapter gives the EF lens the exact same distance from sensor (or film) to mount it was designed for, so there are no issues.
I figured that had to be the case — about the distance — but I was wondering if the lens electronics in 3rd party lenses communicated correctly with the R cameras via the adapter. Sounds like it works?
I figured that had to be the case — about the distance — but I was wondering if the lens electronics in 3rd party lenses communicated correctly with the R cameras via the adapter. Sounds like it works?
A R body with adapter emulates an EF body so 3rd party EF lenses will work as well (or not) before. The adapter is basically an extension tube with electronic pass-through so compatibility is between the body and lens as always.
I still have and use several ef lenses. just actually added a new one (70-200 2.8 vIII refurb). My sigma and other 3rd party EF gear works great. In fact better as focus at f 1.4 is way more reliable.
I have added some RF stuff as well. 14-35, 24 1.8, 24-105. But really don't see much of a difference in performance other than the newer IS systems are notably better.
I use my Canon dslrs often. The 5DSr is my most used and all my Canon EF lenses. I have a Fuji MF mirrorless body that I use until Canon gets with the program of a high IQ and mpx body.
Yes I do have a Fringer EF-GFX adapter and have tried multiple EF lenses with the Fuji body. Some with good success and many with poor success.
I will not fault the adapter or EF lenses for my poor success. The learning curve for the Fuji MF body is HUGE for me.
Dan
Danpbphoto wrote:
Some with good success and many with poor success.
I will not fault the adapter or EF lenses for my poor success. The learning curve for the Fuji MF body is HUGE for me.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I figured that had to be the case — about the distance — but I was wondering if the lens electronics in 3rd party lenses communicated correctly with the R cameras via the adapter. Sounds like it works?
I have just 3 Sigmas to test, but they all work well. Two modern (50Art and 100-400 DG OS Contemporary) and one older (50/2,8 EX Macro) and they all work as if on EF camera. The 50Art needed MFA to focus correctly on DSLR and here works out of the box.
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
What happens? Just inconsistent results?
YES!!!!
I am not ready to blame the equipment until I am sure I am not the problem. The macro images, using the adapter, are posted here on the "Macro or Fuji" thread. and I am very pleased with those results. When I mounted the Canon 100mm IS macro..the results were crap and had the camera making all sorts of noises...
Dan
Rainbow Chaser wrote:
Do some Nikon Z-mount bodies work better than others when adapting EF-mount Canon glass?
No idea. The AF would probably be better with the more expensive bodies, just like it would when using any lens.
BTW the Fringer EF-NZ adapter has got a firmware update that fixes two of the issues that have been annoying me for some time now: first, the lens IS and IBIS were not exactly cooperating (now, if you switch on the in-lens IS, IBIS is turned off, and vice versa), and second, there were overexposure/underexposure issues when shooting fast bursts, as if the aperture couldn't keep up. So I wager it's now as close to native as it gets, again (and I don't get why using Canon EF lenses on RF bodies would be somehow better, since it's still adapting, and the EF-NZ seems to have gotten the protocols and whatnot sorted out well enough).
I wonder which is better, using in-lens IS or giving IBIS a shot? (most of my lenses have IS/VC) Also wondering which would be better, IBIS of the Nikon Z9 body or the first-generation IS of the Canon 100-400mm lens I have (the push-pull one...)
I have the first generation Fringer adapter, not the newer one, but judging by the fact that they share the same firmware, they're identical internally, and the only difference between them is probably the weather sealing added with mark 2.
I have the second Fringer EF-NZ and used it on ZF/Z6iii/Z8 with EF 70-300L. The lens was super on all these bodies except for the IBIS at times did not seem to function on the lens. I turned it off and got better results but later after reading something here, I started using lens IBIS again and got better results.I have not upgraded the firmware but should try it.
The latest firmware, 2.10, sorts out the IS/IBIS behaviour, it seems. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to test it because the camera had to be sent away to the repair shop. Once it's back (should be in a week or so), I'll be able to tell more conclusively.
Interestingly enough, of the EF-mount stabilised lenses, not all have been exhibiting difficulties cooperating with IBIS, only the older ones. The Canon 16-35mm f/4 and the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 did not seem to suffer, but the old, first-generation white teles did (and same for the Tamron 70-300mm VC). Not sure about the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 though, since I've been using it with less frequency.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
I wonder which is better, using in-lens IS or giving IBIS a shot? (most of my lenses have IS/VC) Also wondering which would be better, IBIS of the Nikon Z9 body or the first-generation IS of the Canon 100-400mm lens I have (the push-pull one...)
The longer the focal length, the less effective IBIS becomes because it has a limited range of movement that cannot cover the distances needed to effectively stabilize larger vibrations/movements projected on the sensor by telephoto lenses.
I can't give you a definitive answer of which is better because the older optical IS systems were maybe effective for ~2 stops of shake reduction. At the short end of the 100-400, the Z9's IBIS might be as good or better. At 400mm my gut instinct is that optical IS will be better, even if only good for a couple stops. The better solution is probably the 100-400 v2 and the best solution would be a native mount 100-400.
Definitely something to check once you have the camera back.
Thank you. I'll definitely try this in the field with the new firmware once the camera comes back in.
Buying the native lens is out of question due to $$$ (though I might spring for a Tamron 50-400mm...) and getting the Canon 100-400mm II is also unlikely because I'm not super keen on getting more EF mount lenses since I'm on the verge of getting out of the system. Though ofc I'll have to make a choice sooner or later anyway. :-)
My only experience using EF lenses is with the EF 600 4.0 L IS II USM and the adapter on an R5, R3, and R5 II. I have four RF lenses including the RF 100-500 L lens, and I find that the 600 F4 works just as well as my RF lenses on those cameras. I like to photograph birds in flight and I think the 100 to 500 focuses a little bit faster than the 600 F4. It’s really hard to judge focus speed since they’re both so fast. I love the 100 to 500 but nothing matches the pristine images I get with the 600 F4. The IS works perfectly too.
I just sent it to CPS for a cleaning and they serviced the AF system so I hope to use it for many years to come. I would love to buy the RF version of the 600mm, which supposedly focuses faster, but only with the R3 and R1. I can’t justify the $10,000 price difference for my hobby, so I’m happy with my old EF big white.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
No idea. The AF would probably be better with the more expensive bodies, just like it would when using any lens.
BTW the Fringer EF-NZ adapter has got a firmware update that fixes two of the issues that have been annoying me for some time now: first, the lens IS and IBIS were not exactly cooperating (now, if you switch on the in-lens IS, IBIS is turned off, and vice versa), and second, there were overexposure/underexposure issues when shooting fast bursts, as if the aperture couldn't keep up. So I wager it's now as close to native as it gets, again (and I don't get why using Canon EF lenses on RF bodies would be somehow better, since it's still adapting, and the EF-NZ seems to have gotten the protocols and whatnot sorted out well enough).
I wonder which is better, using in-lens IS or giving IBIS a shot? (most of my lenses have IS/VC) Also wondering which would be better, IBIS of the Nikon Z9 body or the first-generation IS of the Canon 100-400mm lens I have (the push-pull one...)
I have the first generation Fringer adapter, not the newer one, but judging by the fact that they share the same firmware, they're identical internally, and the only difference between them is probably the weather sealing added with mark 2....Show more →
IS on the 100-400 v1 actually seemed pretty good, although probably not as good as V2. Seems like 1/250 fairly easy, IIRC, 1/50 probably ok for most things using USM etc, not perfect looking close though. Still pretty good, you're not likely to get 1/250 hh on the 400/5.6 imo (although i suppose it's possible,) unless you've got some kind of technique or get lucky
Better than 70-300 v1 IS (different lens than 75-300 IS,) which may be 1 stop. Original 55-250 IS a great lens, but I couldn't get 1/250 out of it, even at 250mm. 100-400 v1 beat those
Thank you Mike.
I've had that 100-400 for close to 8 years now, and I thought the IS was pretty decent, probably around 2 stops worth of assistance. I've never done any tests approaching formal, though (because I don't know how). I felt that the stabilization on the 70-200/2.8 was better, though (probably closer to 3 stops), and on the newer lenses like the 16-35/4 and the Tamron twins, probably closer to another stop more (though the 45 has had issues initially that required repairs). The Tamron 70-300mm was somewhere in between, but also very good in my experience, even though it's a dirt cheap lens).
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Thank you Mike.
I've had that 100-400 for close to 8 years now, and I thought the IS was pretty decent, probably around 2 stops worth of assistance. I've never done any tests approaching formal, though (because I don't know how). I felt that the stabilization on the 70-200/2.8 was better, though (probably closer to 3 stops), and on the newer lenses like the 16-35/4 and the Tamron twins, probably closer to another stop more (though the 45 has had issues initially that required repairs). The Tamron 70-300mm was somewhere in between, but also very good in my experience, even though it's a dirt cheap lens).
Can't wait to test the new firmware now. :-)...Show more →
Oh, ok, I think it's thought you had picked it up recently. Something like 1 out of 150 turned out really sharp at 1/50 but IIRC quite a few probably had good enough sharpness though. I think 1/125 might have been pretty good, can't remember though
This lens came out 1999 or so, IS rated 2 stops i believe. But I'd probably be around 1/1000 or close on a non IS 400mm so 1/250 or 1/125 is a big improvement
You mentioned issues on the adapter adapting EF to Nikon, I don't think the EF-RF Canon adapter had those
