bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

One of the better "balanced" lenses on the A7R II. A Sigma 150-500mm shown extended to 500mm and mounted on the A7R II with a Metabones III adapter:


Autofocus is actually quite good with this combo; about the same as using the lens on my Canon 60D. Good enough for wildlife; probably not birds on wing, although birds on a tree are ok :). Works quite nicely in low light conditions both on a tripod and handheld. For handheld I normally push the ISO to the 800-3200 range, although I've used 12800 with the combo with acceptable (at least I captured a picture) quality.

All EOS to E-mount adapters, however, are not created equal! The Metabones III has been the best one I've tested todate; works with all of my Canon, Sigma and Tamron EOS mount lenses. I have a Metabones IV on order.

The Kenko 1.4x teleconverter also works with the Metabones III and passes lens info from all my Canon lenses but only works in manual mode with my Sigma and Tamron lenses.

I've also tested a few other adapters. The Commlite adapter does not pass any Sigma lens info to the camera and does not like my older Canon lenses but works reasonably well with new Canon lenses. The Fotodiox adapter, my newest, sporadically hangs with the Sigma lens and older Canon lenses but works quite well with newer Canon lenses. The King adapter, the first one I acquired, works well with my newer Canon lenses but does not like Sigma, Tamron or older Canon lenses. Strangely the Commlite & King adapters work better with my A7S & A7 II than they do with the A7R II?

When an adapter/lens combo is working well the autofocus is about the same speed as (a touch slower than) native lenses on the A7R II. This is a HUGE improvement over adapted lenses on the A7S, A7R and A7 II, where autofocus was slower than manual focus!

Just a few notes/comments...

bwa

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

:thumbup:

teesquare Loc: USA

Good info on the various adapters bwa! Thanks!
T

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

A few other adapters (or variations thereof) I own and like/dislike:

- manual Pentax K, Canon FD, Minolta, M42, T2 -> E-mount adapters; $15-$20. All adequate; most with tripod shoes. The T2 is available in a shorty and long version for use with telescope nosepieces.

- an excellent manual Fotodiox (Vizelex) variable density / ND throttle EOS-> E-mount adapter; $100. You want to give those waterfalls the "flowing" look w/ an EOS mount lens on an A7 series body? This works!

- Hawk's manual helical focuser EOS-> E-mount adapter; essentially turns any EOS mouont lens into a macro. Fun adapter!

- an inexpensive manual EOS -> E-mount adapter with built-in adjustable aperture. Really handy with automatic lenses that don't have manual apertures and don't work with automatic adapters, i.e.: a few of my old Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses and a couple of dead EOS automatic lenses...

- manual Zhongyi Lens Turbo (Speed Booster) "adapters" for EOS, FD, Pentax K and M42 -> E-mount. Work very well with the A7R II's Crop/Super 35mm video/stills mode setting and full frame lenses. Originally meant for APS-C sensor cameras and full frame lenses; however, they're a good match with the A7R II's Super 35mm video mode. Metabones also manufactures a Speed Booster... I couldn't justify the cost for my limited usage!

- E-mount -> 2" male nosepiece for telescope usage. Expensive but good fit and solid; CNC machined in USA (this is a compliment to my US neighbors!).

- two "cheap" manual no-name (made in China) adapters off eBay; $9.95+/-; lose fitting, basically terrible quality! You get what you pay for (in most cases)...

A few ideas/thoughts for what's available...

bwa

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Well you certainly have a wide cross-section of gear. :thumbup:

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I've been adapting Sony A7 series cameras to various lenses since Nov. 2013... and having a lot of fun doing it. I have lenses going back to the '60's and I'm retired so I have the time to play :):)

It's very much a hobby but it is a lot of fun!

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Good on you! :thumbup:

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

There are two books due out for this camera (I'm a Sony user, by the way,): the first is by a Brian Matsumoto, The Unofficial Quintessential Guide, debuting on Oct. 30 (I'm not familiar with this author,) while the other is, in theory, due out Feb. 12 next year by the venerable David D Busch. My skepticism is due to the promised release date of book for the Sony a6000 camera. IT WAS DELAYED ~9 MONTHS from when it was supposed to be released! I like his books, though.
- lev29

lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.

I own the Sony a6000 camera but was dismayed to discover post-purchase that it doesn't have IS, unlike all of the A-mt cameras. So I'm thinking of buying the a7 II. So far, I've only bought 3 E-mt lenses, all primes, no teles. Regarding your opinion of the Sony FE 70-200 f/4, have you actually tried it out? If so, how exactly does it disappoint you vis-a-vis a 70-200 f/2.8 lens? I know it's a stop slower, but doesn't changing the ISO compensate? Or is it that the Autofocus on the f/4 is slower as a result?
Thanks,
lev29

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Tradeoffs of a small size I'm afraid.

The second generation A7/A7R with Steady Shot inside are bigger and heavier than first gen A7 cameras. Same with faster lenses. You can't build a full frame E mount telephoto zoom in the 70-200mm range at f/2.8 and keep it within the smaller form factor of the A7 family. And if you all have noticed, the native E/FE mount lenses ARE considerably smaller to fit that form factor.

Besides... if you want a fast 70-200mm f/2.8, you only have to buy the LA-EA4 adaptor and toss on a Sony lens.

Or buy a Metabones and use your Canon L glass. ;)

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

lanooc, if you're still following this thread, I have advice for you. I read to the bottom of the first page and saw who came to the party (whenever Mark shows up to a Sony thread it becomes a hellstorm) so I'll understand if you quit following it.

Sony normally puts out more than one user manual for its cameras. It'll put out a basic one, then another, smaller one for advanced features. This is the one you want to read to get the most out of your camera.

I just took a quick look, and sure enough, Sony has two manuals out for the a7ii, as I expected. It's a bit misleading, really, but it puts out a simplified "Instructional Manual," which is like "a7ii for Dummies," but also a "Help Guide" that goes into the more complex and useful features of the camera. For me, I moved up from the a77 to the a77ii and was puzzled why the instructions manual told so little about the new model's features, but then I heard about the Help Guide. Anyway, here's the link to where you can download it:

http://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=ILCE7M2&LOC=3#/manualsTab

Now I'll wade through the b.s. I'm likely to find in the rest of this thread. Might have to sling a little mud myself being a Sony fan in the presence of one with an anti-Sony agenda (I just wish he'd get over his denial and admit he really is jealous of us Sony owners! tee hee)

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Those beercan lenses have quite a reputation. I haven't tried one but I have a dozen or so legacy lenses, and one stands out that you might like on an a7 series: Minolta 75-300 "New." It has to be the New, not the II or any other of the five or so in that length, except maybe the much-heavier beercan. Have you ever looked this Sony/Minolta lenses site?

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

I've taken some amazing pictures using this lens with excellent sharpness, fast & accurate AF in challenging conditions (of course, I used it on an a77 which helped the focus, but the lens kept up) and overall, a great experience. I will often use this lens in place of my 70-400G lens when I'm going to be hiking or shooting handheld.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

DG, you should get a Beercan. The original... not the restyled version which has different optics.

The Beercan is an EXCELLENT portrait lens with the right mix of resolution and those creamy Minolta 1st generation AF colors.

And you can buy a copy in excellent condition for less than $100 because the lens was so popular in the '80s and there are 10's of thousands of copies in circulation.

That is a lens you HAVE to have in your bag... it'll go great with the "Big Beercan" 75-300mm. :thumbup:

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Cholly makes a good point here. Sony has a comprehensive line of a-mount lenses which includes a huge assortment of world-class G glass it acquired with its purchase of Minolta. Why would it then deviate from its course of a-mount bodies & lenses to produce a sister line of e-mount, full frame bodies that even its own line of 100+ a-mount lenses wouldn't fit without an adapter? It's like Cholly said, to enable the use of hundreds upon hundreds of lenses from dozens of manufacturers. By removing the mirror, Sony is able to use the extra space to adapt lenses precisely to the required distance from lens to sensor, a feat not possible with a flapping mirror in the way. But now that Sony's making some of the best bodies of any manufacturer (consider the a7rii), lenses are a more important consideration. And now Sony's a-mount, and Canon's lenses can be adapted with full function, so the tired old refrain of "not enough lenses" is just absurd.

And in reply to another post about the small size looking garish on a big lens: Really? Couldn't you come up with something substantive? How do you think my full-size a77ii looks mounted to my Sony 70-400G lens, especially pushed all the way out with the hood on? I'll tell ya - not unlike a smaller a7-series body mounted to a big zoom. So? Notice I didn't say lens mounted to camera because that's not how this works; I mount the camera to the lens, and the lens to a tripod or monopod. The lens is the central component, as most long pro lenses are. Care to retract your inane statement now? Or are all pro sports shooters just getting it wrong?

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Red herring, Mark. Nice images, but they are not the point. I've wrestled with you and your ilk before. You twist things to your liking, and when you see you've lost you'll pull this crap of trying to discredit someone's knowledge because he hasn't posted an image, or otherwise throw out some other red herring. I, and countless others are laughing at your shameful attempt to steer a losing debate, Mark. What a joke.

What really drives you? Are you jealous of all of us happy Sony owners? Me, I'm okay with you owning a Nikon and being, ahem, content with it (I doubt you really are, but you should be.) To each his own. But whenever the topic of Sony comes up you show up spewing your vitriol. Why is that?