Sony a7R III

Justinsmnz wrote in post #18601251
I'm keeping an eye out for a Sigma 150-600mm Sport to try out with the adapter, because I'm hoping that the focus speed will be one of the main features of using the MC11 with longer Sigma glass (plus I already have both of the newest Sigma teleconverters, so I'd love to try those out with the adapter.)

I'm using the Sigma 120-300/2.8 Sport, MC-11, and sometimes Sigma TC-2001 on the A7rIII. It works and seems to track, but I will be able to give a much better overall assessment as we get further into softball season.

Bianchi wrote in post #18601232
Going through the same process presently with my 5DIV for wildlife and A7rIII for Landscape. I have a MC11 inbound, what can I expect from the MC11 using Canon Glass. I know you weren't happy with your long lens, but how about the rest of your glass. What firmware are you using with your MC11?

BTW I spoke with with Sig rep, and he told me not to expect the MC11 to work in continuous with the long glass

Justinsmnz wrote in post #18601251
I'm glad you asked! I actually got a chance to flex the MC11 over the weekend and used it on three Canon lenses and one Sigma Art. I made sure to update it to the latest firmware (and also updated the 24-105 Art)

16-35L F/4 IS - For my use, it was totally fine. The auto focus is very accurate in both wide and flexible spot mode. However, the focus speed is easily half, if not less, than on any Canon body. Because I rarely use this lens for anything other than tripod mounted shooting, the auto focus speed isn't an issue. However, if I planned to start shooting the 16-35 focal length for any run-n-gun or quick-use situations, I would definitely find a copy of the Sony version (and I may end up doing that anyway just for curiosity's sake.)

100L Macro - Slower to auto focus than any Canon body, but very accurate and I didn't notice any more hunting than I've experienced on Canon. I can't imagine hesitating to use the adapter with this lens any time soon.

50L - I was actually blown away by the function of the 50L with the MC11. I'm hesitant to say it functioned better than I'm used to on Canon bodies, but in the several hours I walked around with it mounted, it definitely felt just as quick and accurate as any Canon body. When I got back and reviewed the pictures, I can say that I probably had more keepers from the adapted Sony body than I would have with any Canon body.

Sigma 24-105 Art - This one kind of shocked me actually. Perhaps I just got a bad copy of the lens, but the auto focus was horrible (in both speed, accuracy, and ability to lock on.) Additionally, even when I manually focused images, I was definitely unhappy with the sharpness at the edges and the CA was absolutely terrible. I may have been doing something wrong, or had my settings wrong when I shot with it initially, but the results from the first day made me leave it in the room for the rest of the trip.

As I mentioned before, the performance of the 400L DO Mk I was unusable for me. It technically retained continuous focus capability, but the speed was painful and the accuracy made it practically useless (inconsistent with random, but severe back focusing at times.) I'm keeping an eye out for a Sigma 150-600mm Sport to try out with the adapter, because I'm hoping that the focus speed will be one of the main features of using the MC11 with longer Sigma glass (plus I already have both of the newest Sigma teleconverters, so I'd love to try those out with the adapter.)

In the mean time however, I'm absolutely in love with the Sony 100-400 GM. It's easily as quick, accurate, and sharp on the A7rIII as the Canon 100-400II is on a 1DxII. I'll buy a Sony 1.4 teleconverter as soon as I see one for less than $550 they're asking for new.

.

Thanks! Yeah it was pretty busy during the days, even despite the crappy weather for most of the time I was there. Would be happy to get together, but I'm unfortunately already back home up north. Enjoy a few more days of the blossoms before the wind takes them all away!

Thanks much for the intel , if your 24-105 art doesnt work out for you , consider the Sony 24-105, just make sure you get a well centered copy, its quite good, as Sony lenses is playing the lens lottery. I'm think I am going to wait to see what the A9 II brings for wildlife.

Bianchi wrote in post #18601620
Thanks much for the intel , if your 24-105 art doesnt work out for you , consider the Sony 24-105, just make sure you get a well centered copy, its quite good, as Sony lenses is playing the lens lottery. I'm think I am going to wait to see what the A9 II brings for wildlife.

For Sony-shot wildlife, I’ll take megapixels over speed every time until something changes with their lens lineup. Right now, 400mm is the longest reasonable FL one can natively achieve, so cropping at 10fps is a better option in my opinion than too-few pixels at 20fps.

I’m loosely keeping my eye out for a Sigma 500mm Sport to use with the MC11 but I doubt I’ll Find a reasonable price on a copy any time soon. Even then,
I’m not sure how the performance will be.

Justinsmnz wrote in post #18601681
For Sony-shot wildlife, I’ll take megapixels over speed every time until something changes with their lens lineup. Right now, 400mm is the longest reasonable FL one can natively achieve, so cropping at 10fps is a better option in my opinion than too-few pixels at 20fps.

I’m loosely keeping my eye out for a Sigma 500mm Sport to use with the MC11 but I doubt I’ll Find a reasonable price on a copy any time soon. Even then,
I’m not sure how the performance will be.

have you considered the 100-400 and 2x convertor? Apparently no IQ is lost

Justinsmnz wrote in post #18601681
For Sony-shot wildlife, I’ll take megapixels over speed every time until something changes with their lens lineup. Right now, 400mm is the longest reasonable FL one can natively achieve, so cropping at 10fps is a better option in my opinion than too-few pixels at 20fps.

I’m loosely keeping my eye out for a Sigma 500mm Sport to use with the MC11 but I doubt I’ll Find a reasonable price on a copy any time soon. Even then,
I’m not sure how the performance will be.

I am with you on more mega pixels, thats why I said I am waiting to see what the A9 II brings. For me the present A9 does not offer that.

As xpfloyd mentioned, there has been positive feedback on the Sony 100-400 with the 2X converter.

xpfloyd wrote in post #18601723
have you considered the 100-400 and 2x convertor? Apparently no IQ is lost

IQ is always lost however, it would be interesting to see if 400 with a 2x is better than cropping.

gjl711 wrote in post #18601842
IQ is always lost however, it would be interesting to see if 400 with a 2x is better than cropping.

I should have wrote IQ loss seems to be negligible

xpfloyd wrote in post #18601847
I should have wrote IQ loss seems to be negligible

Agree with Eddie, from the images I viewed on the internet using the Sony 100-400 + 2X

Justinsmnz wrote in post #18601251
I'll buy a Sony 1.4 teleconverter as soon as I see one for less than $550 they're asking for new.

I haven't checked to see if still available, but at one time Best Buy was doing a combo discount deal - 3 Sony accessories (of which the teleconverters were part of that group) gets you a discount (significant). At one time I had the 2X converter, a screen protector, and one other small item in my cart for $440. Couldn't pull the trigger because I wasn't sure about the 2x (I already have the 1.4x), but that was nearly an impossible deal to pass up.

EDIT: I just checked. The 1.4x is sold out, but I can still get the deal on the 2x. Here's the deal (copied from elsewhere):

The deal is basically buy 3 accessories, and get 25% off each one. If you have less than 3 accessories to buy, you can always add cheap items to satisfy the requirement.

Prices below are after the 25% discount. Add 3 accessories to cart and sale prices should show up.

Vertical Grip:
- VG-C3EM: $263

Power:
- NPA-MQZ1K (adapter plus 2 batteries): $300
- BC-QZ1: $67.50

Flash:
- HVL-F45RM: $300
- HVL-F60RM (preorder): $450

Converters for 28mm:
- SEL057FEC (Fisheye): $225
- SEL075UWC (21mm): $187.50

Teleconverters:
- SEL14TC (1.4x): $412.50
- SEL20TC (2x): $412.50

Misc (good for fulfilling the 3-accessory requirement):
- FDA-EP18 (eyecup): $9.75
- PCK-LG1 (screen protector): $22.50

I believe multiple Sony camera bags and Sony SD cards are also part of the deal, though were not specifically listed in the post I copied.

Beautiful photo thank you for sharing

I stood in the cold surf for an hour or so this morning. I'm just grateful I didn't dunk the camera.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GCK4​Fn

^^^^Really like the motion of the water in this one.....Great choice of SS!^^^

idsurfer wrote in post #18609010
^^^^Really like the motion of the water in this one.....Great choice of SS!^^^

Thanks! Although I hesitate to take credit, as I always "spray-n-pray" when it comes to water texture. I probably shot 15-20 shots from this exact spot at varying shutter speeds and picked from the scraps once I got back to my computer. That said, I'm definitely glad I stuck around long enough for the sun to get pretty high above the horizon. I thought I had enough pretty decent shots that I could head home for the morning, but once the sun got high enough, the orange light started to really compliment the blues in the shadows (like the one below) that just wasn't there during the earlier half hour.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/26hy​UNH

More wildlife with the rIII and 100-400GM:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/26kK​2ao

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/253u​WL4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/26sv​k8H

Guess I'll just keep the trend moving, since I've been trying to really put the rIII through its paces.

I've noticed that there's a distinct difference in how the Sony RAW files work for pulling shadows vs. how any of my Canon RAW files worked. With Canon, I used to be able to pull essentially 2-3 stops out of the shadows and, although this often turned up quite a bit of noise, it was still very usable. With the Sony files however, I'm finding that I can barely pull 1 stop out of the shadows, even with the shadows and black slider in Camera RAW cranked all the way to 100. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and the 1-stop that's pulled is basically noise-free. However, I'll definitely have to keep it in mind when shooting landscapes, since I tend to err on the side of underexposed.

I picked up a copy of the 16-35/2.8 GM and received it yesterday. I only used it for a couple hours, so I can't pass judgment yet, but I was a bit disappointed to find that I can't use it anywhere past 24mm or so with my LEE 100mm filters. With a wide-angle adapter ring, it literally shows the round edges of a 105mm CPL (not just vignetting) anywhere wider than that. On my 16-35L IS, I could get down to 18-20mm before seeing significant vignetting.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/23LC​uxq

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/26sS​zgb