A7R/Metabones III/ Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6

[tashley]

A little handheld trial while I try to see what is worth selling and what is worth keeping... two shots at 200 and 400. Not disgraceful by any means though AF is very slow and uncertain and seems to miss about 1/3rd of the time.

Useable at a pinch, maybe even a nice slightly soft look for certain landscapes, but probably not really worth keeping.

50% of original size here

50% of original size here

I also tried the 24-104 F4. Sloooow AF (sometimes about a second, often several seconds, sometimes just refuses. Seems better a the edges than the Sony 24-70 at the wide end, notably worse at 70mm. Overall the Sony seems better but I'll need to do some more rigorous tests... but the 100-400 is better at 100 than the 24-105 is 105...

 

[krugorg]

Thanks for this, Tim.

I have been noodling on the Metabones and a Canon 35mm f2 USM IS for my A7. I thought I could go manual and at least have the electronic control and IS.

 

[mazor]

are these 100-400L shot taken with aperture wide open?

 

[tashley]

Sorry, should have said: 200 at f8 and 400 at f5.6 - I chose the marginally sharpest from one shot at each aperture at each focal length.

 

[mazor]

image looks impressively sharp at 400mm! My copy of the 100-400 seems quite soft at 400mm. It as not like this when new !0 years ago, but Now it seems to have ghosting unless I stop down to f6.3 or f8 at 400mm

 

[MikeEvangelist]

A7R/Metabones III

Tim, how to you like the Smart Adapter? Do you get full exif data from the lens? (aperture, focal length, name?)

 

[mazor]

I have the older EF to NEX smart adapter version one and Speed booster EF to NEX, and both adapters gives full EXIF data from the lens, including zoom focal length, aperture etc.

If the EF lens has image stabilization, this too will work with the Metabones adapter.

 

[Thomas Fallon]

You would use a 400mm handheld? That is not a lens test.

 

[philip_pj]

It's worse than that. I just read you get better handheld results from the a7 than the a7r. 'Testing' shows this, apparently.

 

[tashley]

I didn't say it was a test. If I test something, I test it! Having said that, I and many people do use long lenses handheld as well as on tripods, so I was interested to see how it would do, being familiar with how it performs on Canon cameras under those circumstances.

 

[tashley]

Tim, how to you like the Smart Adapter? Do you get full exif data from the lens? (aperture, focal length, name?)

Mike, you get the same functions as if used on a Canon, but the AF is a lot slower and seems more uncertain...

 

[tashley]

Here are some more:

Link to gallery with 50% sizes here

 

[tashley]

I tried the Canon 1.4x on the combo today - no go. AF doesn't work and it's a pig to focus manually accurately, at least handheld. No surprise but I thought I'd share.

 

[Mark Gowin]

Dang you Tim. I had convinced myself that it wasn't worth buying the Metabones III adapter. I still have a few Canon EF lenses hanging around, including a 100-400mm, but figured it wouldn't be any good on the A7R. Now you have gone and showed me otherwise. I am gonna be out another $400.

Thank you for opening my eyes to this combo.

 

[tashley]

Honestly Mark, I only got the metabones so I could use the TSE 24, which I have yet to purchase. But it gives perfectly good results with the 100-400. However, the 'hit rate, with handheld use is quite low due to the glacial and recalcitrant AF. You need to use some Old School skills for anything approaching action. I wonder if Sony will offer a tele converter for the new 24-70 F 4...

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Didn't know you were a London man Tim.

 

[tashley]

I move with stealth between London, Cornwall, Sussex and the Caribbean. You never know where I might crop up.