-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nokishita confirms the Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM will be announced soon
- Thread starter amonsul
- Start date
sigma set the bar really high with the 135/1.8 art lens, and it has xlnt stills af on my a9, even with the mc-11 adapter.
if sony can maintain that p.q., in a lighter package, or at least with a monopod mount, it could be very interesting.
if sony can maintain that p.q., in a lighter package, or at least with a monopod mount, it could be very interesting.
Cam Eralens
Well-known member
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 372
The EF mount really has become a standard for mirrorless cameras. I keep seeing Nikon owners wanting an EF adapter. Fuji too. Sony has half a dozen, and Sigma said the L mount will have one. mFT also has them. And the RF mount uses those lenses too.
If you only own EF lenses, it is interesting that in the near future they may work on every mirrorless camera. Nothing else is like that.
How many EF lenses do you own?
Last edited:
I own one ef-mount lens, the tamron 45/1.8, because it was a good deal at $400 new.
ef-mount is facing a lot of competition these days... canon is on the verge of dumping a bunch of eos-r lenses on the market, and some of the best r.o.i. in the current fast 50 range is the Nikon 50/1.8s, depending on what the max fps rate is.
here is one list of 121 sony fe lenses:
will there be an ef to l-mount adapter, that has dfd functionality?
ef-mount is facing a lot of competition these days... canon is on the verge of dumping a bunch of eos-r lenses on the market, and some of the best r.o.i. in the current fast 50 range is the Nikon 50/1.8s, depending on what the max fps rate is.
here is one list of 121 sony fe lenses:
will there be an ef to l-mount adapter, that has dfd functionality?
Last edited:
Cam Eralens
Well-known member
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 372
Did you sell the 135 or borrow it?
"the 135/1.8 art lens, and it has xlnt stills af on my a9, even with the mc-11 adapter"
From what you said it looks like you have the MC-11 adapter too. So do you borrow or rent those other EF lenses like the 135?
Cam Eralens
Well-known member
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 372
It is nice having that MC-11 adapter so you can use EF lenses, How do you like the MC-11 adapter?
Have you used a lot of lenses with it?
If you build a collection of EF lenses, you can almost use any mirrorless camera these days, right?
I don't see how you can get full af functionality with ef-mount on l-mount, because historically dfd has been proprietary, for Panasonic lenses only... we'll have to see how that shakes out with the new l-mount.
the mc-11 works really well for stills, on the a9... it's a great option for people who own ef-mount glass, that want to move to sony.
but mc-11 can only be as good as the lenses allow it to be... dslr lenses were for the most part never designed to be used at 15-20fps, like sony fe lenses are:
http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp...ilce9/continuousshooting/en/index.html?id=spt
I also have the laea3, which also works well on the a9, and the laea4, so i'm not limited to just the mc-11.
the mc-11 works really well for stills, on the a9... it's a great option for people who own ef-mount glass, that want to move to sony.
but mc-11 can only be as good as the lenses allow it to be... dslr lenses were for the most part never designed to be used at 15-20fps, like sony fe lenses are:
http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp...ilce9/continuousshooting/en/index.html?id=spt
I also have the laea3, which also works well on the a9, and the laea4, so i'm not limited to just the mc-11.
Last edited:
Cam Eralens
Well-known member
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 372
Speaking of limited functionality.
I always wondered why Sony never fully supported their own lenses. If you have an A9 you must get really PO-ed when the laea4 disables highly touted A9 AF. I used to own an A33 back in 2011 and that is the AF you get get on your A9. KInd of funny that you paid over $4000 for a camera and adapter and your AF is the same as what I used back in 2011. The laea3 is better, but 98% of A mount lenses don't have motors.
No matter, the mc-11 is the only adapter which will give you near full functionality with the Sigma global vision lenses. If I owned an A9 I would never pay $2500 for a Sony 70-200/2.8 when the new Sigma is near or just as good and $1000 less.
I think Sony owners are really lucky. They can fill out their whole line-up with EF mount lenses. They have options for lenses Sony doesn't provide, and at any time can switch to a different mirrorless camera or at least use a dual system. I could see anyone into video using Panasonic for that and Sony for stills.
Well, good luck, enjoy your MC-11, and may try out some more of those Sigma EF lenses. Maybe some day Sony will update the laea4 to work like an a9ii. I know a lot of Sony owners have been begging for that.
putting an laea4 on the a9 would be silly, lol
I use it with the a7r, and even then not very often.
I paid $729 for tamron 150-600, in a-mount, it rocks with the laea3/a9.
the mc-11 with fully supported lenses is the better choice these days, because it looks like native glass to the 3rd-gen camera bodies.
you get all of the af modes, without the a-mount limitations.
Cam Eralens
Well-known member
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 372
I tried the Tamron on an A7Riii. It was limited to only 2 or 3 FPS. The A9 I know is different, but the A9 sensor is not good compared to the A7Riii, and neither are the video options. I rather be limited to 10 FPS and have more resolution, better video options and greater dynamic range. After all the A9 has the dynamic range at ISO100-400 of an mFT camera.
I am not paying $4000 for that. I'll settle for the A7Riii and save a bunch of cash and get better images and video. My only problem is my Sony A mount lenses were not fully functional, so I had to get rid of them.
A7Rii DR vs. A9 (red) vs. mFT camera (yellow)
the mc-11/sigma combo would be 10fps on the a7riii; no a-mount limitations.
you really have to get the 3rd-gen sony bodies, to get the best adapter performance.
no, that's not accurate, because the stacked sensor in the a9 is optimized for high iso shooting.
it matches a7riii d.r. curve from iso640 on, but it has better low-light iso/low-light ev numbers.
even the best m4/3 cameras are a joke there, not sure why you included it, lol
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II,Sony ILCE-7RM3,Sony ILCE-9
CameraModel MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV
Sony ILCE-7RM3 11.65 5787 10.85
Sony ILCE-9 10.47 6612 11.05
E-M5 Mark II 9.32 2174 9.44
Last edited:
Cam Eralens
Well-known member
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 372
Nope. Only with the Global Vision lenses. All otheres are 2 or 3 FPS.
Only the A9. Even my A7Riii does not work well. Lenses over 300mm are espcially poor, even the Sigma Global Vision lenses .
Google Sigma 100-400mm AF and Sony. It is shocking how bad it is.
It is made for higher ISO, but at low ISO it as good a mFT.
Then the A9 is a joke at ISO 400 or ISO 200. Dynamic Range is no better than a sensor 1/4th the size.
That is why I passed on the A9. Do you really want to pay $4000 for camera that at ISO 100-400 is no better than mFT at less than 1/2 the price. I would like that 60FPS mFT has for some applications, but I can live without it.
nope:
"Sigma 150-600 Contemporary/MC-11 on a7III
79 Shot burst at HI+ 10fps
Every shot in focus. I stopped when the buffer was full. The tiny dancing squares remained on target throughout."
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61105435
wrong again, see above.
the a9 is much much better at high iso; you are trying to compare apples to oranges.
would you use a screwdriver to hammer nails? apparently so, lol
no, that's wrong, as I already proved... 10.47pdr is much better than Olympus 9.32pdr
CameraModel MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV
Sony ILCE-7RM3 11.65 5787 10.85
Sony ILCE-9 10.47 6612 11.05
E-M5 Mark II 9.32 2174 9.44
the a9 has the best d.r. curve of any camera in it's class; it's the d5 that is a joke at low iso ranges, see below.
I explained it to you in the last post, but even after that, you still don't understand what you are looking at with these cameras.
60fps m4/3 is useless for real work, because it can't autofocus at anywhere near that fps rate, and the p.q. is really weak sauce.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark II,Nikon D5,Sony ILCE-9
Last edited:
yes cam say its better at high ISO ,,,you agree with him then ....but campering 2 cameras at the same iso is a apples to apples comparison
the panny G9 has almost identical DR under 500 ISO as the A9
so why did you post a chart of 2 cameras that Cam never mentioned ..which i see the canon is about the same or has an edge at low ISO with its old sensor ..clearly the DR curve of the A9 is not a stand out metricCameraModel MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV
Sony ILCE-7RM3 11.65 5787 10.85
Sony ILCE-9 10.47 6612 11.05
E-M5 Mark II 9.32 2174 9.44
the a9 has the best d.r. curve of any camera in it's class; it's the d5 that is a joke at low iso ranges, see below.
I explained it to you in the last post, but even after that, you still don't understand what you are looking at with these cameras.
60fps m4/3 is useless for real work, because it can't autofocus at anywhere near that fps rate, and the p.q. is really weak sauce.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark II,Nikon D5,Sony ILCE-9
here you clearly see the M43 about matching the A9 at low ISO....as Cam say
--
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me its bad i know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
..........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
...........................................................................................................
Political correctness....somebody being offended on someone else's behalf....who that someone doesn't give a damn in the first place ....David Appleton
..................................................................................................
quoting irrefutable facts may get you branded a racist ..even if no race is involved .......David Appleton
.....................................................................................................
The word ‘racism’ is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a ‘racist.’”........Thomas Sowell
no, he posted a silly cropped pic of just the low end of the iso range, which was meant to infer that mft is better.
you should try reading threads before replying next time.
then according to you I am right, because I said that the a9 is much better at high iso.
see above.
the g9 is weak sauce.
why? what did the thread say... try reading before posting next time.so why did you post a chart of 2 cameras that Cam never mentionedCameraModel MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV
Sony ILCE-7RM3 11.65 5787 10.85
Sony ILCE-9 10.47 6612 11.05
E-M5 Mark II 9.32 2174 9.44
the a9 has the best d.r. curve of any camera in it's class; it's the d5 that is a joke at low iso ranges, see below.
I explained it to you in the last post, but even after that, you still don't understand what you are looking at with these cameras.
60fps m4/3 is useless for real work, because it can't autofocus at anywhere near that fps rate, and the p.q. is really weak sauce.
http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark II,Nikon D5,Sony ILCE-9
clearly the a9 has the best pdr of the class, which by definition makes the a9 numbers the stand out metric of the class... try reading before posting next time:
CameraModel MaximumPDR LowLightISO LowLightEV
Sony ILCE-9 10.47 6612 11.05
1D X Mark II 10.46 5189 10.70
Nikon D5 9.42 7178 11.17
here you clearly see that m4/3 fails at medium to high iso ranges, as I already proved.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum