Sony A7R3 users - THROW AWAY YOUR CANON LENSES!

[Asmundma]

On 1/25/2018 at 11:37 PM, Andrew Reid said:

Right just tried it. And it seems to be total crap.

VIDEO mode.

Set advanced mode on Metabones adapter V0.57 (Mk IV) - latest firmware

Tried Canon 35mm F2.0 IS (new-ish one with STM AF)

Even with AF responsiveness and speed both set to their fastest on the A7R3, performance is dismal compared to the Sigma lenses on the Sigma MC-11.

It's laggy, unsure, unreliable and noisy.

This is not in bright sunshine, it's inside. Maybe it is better in very bright light?

But the Sigmas were in dim light as well and did much better.

It's just about usable for a slow focus rack in bright light, but I wouldn't challenge it with anything else... Better to swap out the lens for a Sigma and MC-11.

Now in STILLS mode with Advanced mode set on Metabones... Oh dear. It's even worse. C-AF seems not even to use phase-detect AF and hunts around never really acquiring focus with any certainty!

Will do a bright light test tomorrow but doubt it is any better.

I have also tried Metabones for video with Canon glass (both modes), it does not work properly, so I agree. These videos fool people mostly. Can use metabones in green mode for stills with center AF for stills for not to fast photos shooting. Landscapes are ok. 

The problem with Sigmas is that they make noise when your AF works hard e.g. sports. A lot of Canon glass also make quite some noise. 

The best lenses are Sonys, most of them are quite when AF for video. 

 

[the_brotographer]

10 hours ago, Asmundma said:

I have also tried Metabones for video with Canon glass (both modes), it does not work properly, so I agree. These videos fool people mostly. Can use metabones in green mode for stills with center AF for stills for not to fast photos shooting. Landscapes are ok. 

The problem with Sigmas is that they make noise when your AF works hard e.g. sports. A lot of Canon glass also make quite some noise. 

The best lenses are Sonys, most of them are quite when AF for video. 

 

To say that my videos fool people is outlandish. I find it tough not to get upset by statements like that. Performance varies greatly depending on what lens you're putting on it. The 35L II for instance, performs much better than the 35L mark 1. And yes, you can use them for relatively quick moving subjects, but only at a max of 3fps.

You can't just make blanket statements that it "does not work properly". Your definition of properly might vary compared to someone else's. For me, achieving center point is during video is a big step forward, and I'm fine with that. I find that for certain situations, it is "proper". However, I choose to use native glass in other situations for faster results that can be counted on a little more. 

But seriously, why would I take the time to test the lenses and adapters, only to try to fool people? Nonsense.

[Andrew Reid]

On 26/01/2018 at 8:49 PM, conurus said:

Hi Andrew I wonder if the A7R3 got any faster than A7R2 in video AF with MC-11 and a Sigma lens?

Yes it does indeed seem faster, although I only had a few minutes with the A7R2 next to my A7R3 last week - it appears to be quicker when both are set to their fastest video AF setting and less liable to jump to the background like the A6500.

[evero]

This is a very good topic - It's a huge deal if it's possible to use our precious canon glass reliebly with AF on Sonys for video.  

It's very important that we factor in all variables here, and if Andrew tested the Metabones IV, it would be great to know how the latest fifth gen Metabones performs. According to the most helpful positive review on B&H the reviewer points out an important AF performance improvement between gen. 4 and 5 in photo mode. Very interesting if that also comes into play in video mode?

[teddoman]

The focus racks in Andrew's video seem a bit on the abrupt side. The focus rack on the Metabones/Canon 35 1.4 L video seemed a little smoother.

Andrew's video is close up, so that probably makes the transitions more noticeable. In the Metabones/Canon 35 video, he's not shooting very close to his wife.

Also possible that the AF tracking sensitivity and AF drive speed settings have an impact on focus racks using Sigma and Metabones adapters. If so, might have affected these 2 videos.

 

 

[Asmundma]

On 1/27/2018 at 11:04 PM, the_brotographer said:

To say that my videos fool people is outlandish. I find it tough not to get upset by statements like that. Performance varies greatly depending on what lens you're putting on it. The 35L II for instance, performs much better than the 35L mark 1. And yes, you can use them for relatively quick moving subjects, but only at a max of 3fps.

You can't just make blanket statements that it "does not work properly". Your definition of properly might vary compared to someone else's. For me, achieving center point is during video is a big step forward, and I'm fine with that. I find that for certain situations, it is "proper". However, I choose to use native glass in other situations for faster results that can be counted on a little more. 

But seriously, why would I take the time to test the lenses and adapters, only to try to fool people? Nonsense.

Actually I hope for another firmware update from Metabones giving you right. I moved from 5D3 to Sony A7S1, UNFORTUNATLY I soon found  out Canon glass did not work to well. To give you my standard w.r.t. Video AF, I have 1dx2, c200 and A7r3, that why it does not work properly. Its fair to warn people that there is chance to be disappointed.

[Robert Collins]

I can see that the adapted Sigma lenses work incredibly well with the A7riii with 'center focus' but how about 'wide af'?

[Grégory LEROY]

I I understand the topic, the biggest advantage of using Sigma glass with Sigma MC-11 adapter is to have video focus while having the possibility to manual focus physically (I mean no focus by wire)

it's also cheaper than Sony native.

Sony glass in the other hand tend to be smaller (like the 28mm f2, 85 f1.8, I don't need f1.4 shallow depth of field) and you can autofocus effectively both in video and photo but focus by wire.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ideally for my need, Sony would produce small primes, not as fast and over corrected like the big sigma, with a manual focus clutch like in some Olympus lenses.

[jonpais]

@Grégory LEROY Sigma lenses are fbw

[Grégory LEROY]

53 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@Grégory LEROY Sigma lenses are fbw

Really? I knew that Sigma E-Mount were focus by wire but  even the Sigma ART lenses Canon and Sigma Mount are fbw? I didn't know that.

Why all this hype for sigma art lens for video then? 

[jonpais]

What hype, @Grégory LEROY ?

[Grégory LEROY]

6 minutes ago, jonpais said:

What hype, @Grégory LEROY ?

hype =  lenses sold, talk on forum etc...

It doesn't seem to me those heavy ART sigma lens are fbw, are you sure about it?

[jonpais]

?

26 minutes ago, Grégory LEROY said:

hype =  lenses sold, talk on forum etc...

It doesn't seem to me those heavy ART sigma lens are fbw, are you sure about it?

A set of seven cine primes, all manual focus, will only set you back $25,000. 

[Grégory LEROY]

I  I talk about sigma ART Canon mount used by Andrew for his test. You said they were focused by wire lenses and I think you made an error.

[jonpais]

Maybe this will help answer your hype question. This is from a review of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 over at dpreview:

How did the Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art compare with the G Master? The answer, in short, is that the Sigma beat out the Sony in nearly every category. Sharpness, vignetting, distortion and the handling of lateral CA (though not LoCA, in harsh lighting situations, wide open) all went to the Sigma. It simply outperformed the Sony across the board. In terms of lens character the Sigma does an excellent job in subject isolation and overall bokeh presentation, but so does the Sony. In fact, it's really difficult to see any majordifferences in this respect. 

The Sigma is also much cheaper than the Sony equivalent.

[Grégory LEROY]

Dpreview is about photography, my question was about video use.

[jonpais]

3 hours ago, Grégory LEROY said:

Dpreview is about photography, my question was about video use.

Sorry, I was confused. The ART lenses are photography lenses. For filmmaking, you want to use cinema lenses.

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, jonpais said:

A set of seven cine primes, all manual focus, will only set you back $25,000. 

 

"only"!

For half that price you can get a set of Sony PL lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/906631-REG/sony_scl_pk6_f_cinealta_4k_six_lens.html

[Robert Collins]

10 hours ago, Grégory LEROY said:

Really? I knew that Sigma E-Mount were focus by wire but  even the Sigma ART lenses Canon and Sigma Mount are fbw? I didn't know that.

Why all this hype for sigma art lens for video then? 

I think you are taking the original post rather out of context (it doesnt say throw away your Sony glass.) A lot of video shooters using Sony are coming from Canon and have a lot of Canon glass including Sigma EF which they are adapting to Sony. The point of the post is that the Sigma adapts better. Others use multiple cameras and like Canon glass because it can be adapted to M43, Sony or used with Canon - Sony lenses cannot be adapted to other formats.

Sony lenses are pretty much certain to work better for af than adapted glass because they are designed for both cdaf and pdaf and for Sony. Sigma lenses are considerably cheaper but if I was looking to buy Sigma lenses new for Sony FE, I would certainly wait until they make their announcement of Sigma Sony native art lenses later this month. Sony lenses work great and can be smaller but they are all fbw. On the A7riii image stabilization works better in video if the lens also has OSS (which Sony then uses for 2 out of 5 axis). 

[Grégory LEROY]

14 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I think you are taking the original post rather out of context (it doesnt say throw away your Sony glass.) A lot of video shooters using Sony are coming from Canon and have a lot of Canon glass including Sigma EF which they are adapting to Sony. The point of the post is that the Sigma adapts better. Others use multiple cameras and like Canon glass because it can be adapted to M43, Sony or used with Canon - Sony lenses cannot be adapted to other formats.

Sony lenses are pretty much certain to work better for af than adapted glass because they are designed for both cdaf and pdaf and for Sony. Sigma lenses are considerably cheaper but if I was looking to buy Sigma lenses new for Sony FE, I would certainly wait until they make their announcement of Sigma Sony native art lenses later this month. Sony lenses work great and can be smaller but they are all fbw. On the A7riii image stabilization works better in video if the lens also has OSS (which Sony then uses for 2 out of 5 axis). 

I was answering Jonpais  stating "Sigma lenses are fbw"   (I was surprised)

My question was about focus by wire. Andrew doesn't seem to posses any Sony lens (at least expensive ones). So I was wondering if for video grapher possessing an A7RIII, sigma art lenses were providing the best of both world: video autofocus and physical manual focus. Nobody talk about manual focus, but it seems to be a big advantage over sony native lenses (or not if nobody talk about it, i don't have your experience with mirrorless)

There's no lens, even sony native with such characteristics: video autofocus + classic manual focus (not by wire). I don't like sigma lenses. the only lens I've broken is a sigma but in that (video) scenario it's seems wiser to invest in sigma art lens, canon or sigma mount instead of Sony ( I only have a nikon camera, so no adapting for me)