MC-11 or Metabones for my Canon lenses ?

I will make the switch to Sony soon and I still have following lenses :

-Canon 24-70 2.8L MKI, 70-200 2.8L MKII
-Sigma 50 Art & Sigma 85 Art

4 questions :
1-Which adaptor would be the best for me seen my lenses, the Sigma MC-11 or Metabones ?
I read the Metabones is more expensive and for mixed brands (but camera can freeze/reset)
And the MC-11 (despite that it's from Sigma) would be better for Canon lenses and not the Sigma lenses themselves strange enough ?

2-Is the MC-11 the same adaptor with usb updates? (there was no precious MC-9 or next MC-12?)
The metabones seems version IV & V, so for this you need to sell/rebuy new ones, next to the software updates ?

3-I read somewhere that lenses older than 2006 would not work, the 24-70 2.8L is my only one, but I think I read it does work?

4-On which lenses will the face / eye recognition work with the adaptors?
Pity that the G Master lenses are unaffordable in comparison with Canon, and not much cheaper second hand on the market either.
This obliges most photographers to stay with their Canon L lenses.

Metabones IV, IV-T, or V

a tie when it comes to canon lenses, metabones is better with the Art lenses than the MC-11.

MC-11 is just the model number, not to be confused with firmware number.

most, if not all lenses will work. I've got some really ancient stuff that works fine, good luck finding anything that wont work.

face detect works with any adapter, eye detect depends on camera model: A9, A7riii can do that on adapted lenses.

So Eye AF only works on the lousy contract detection with both MC-11 & Metabones adaptors.
Not in phase detection on both with an A7R II ?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18546160
So Eye AF only works on the lousy contract detection with both MC-11 & Metabones adaptors.
Not in phase detection on both with an A7R II ?

Yeah eye AF works with PDAF on the a7rIII and a9. No such love on the a7rII.

Your 24-70mm f/2.8 L will work on the MC-11. Just keep in mind that video AF isn't PDAF, but for photography the MC-11 is an excellent adapter. Your Art lenses will work as native lenses with the MC-11 .

I have never used the MC-11, but I have the Metabones IV and could I swear by it. It works with all the Canon stuff I have + Sigma lenses. The latter were of particular concern to me, but the adapter works like a charm. MY Sigma 12-24mm (Mk. I), Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (non-ART), Sigma fisheye 15mm (noisy though) all work much like native lenses on A7R II. It also works with the Yongnuo 35mm f/2 for Canon

I ordered the Metabones V, normally the eye-AF will work on my Canon & Sigma lenses.
Hope there comes no Metabones VI on the market now

Something I'd like to add to the thread:

If you want to use a gimball, I do NOT recommend the MC-11. I just tried to balance a Beholder EC-1 with an A7II+MC11+24-35mm f/2 and it was a mess. The problem is that the MC-11 doesn't have a screw mount, so the quick release plate must be screwed to the camera and that is so unbalanced because the center of mass of the whole system is right in the adapter and it's impossible to balance it.

I guess the Metabones would do a better job here, because it has a screw mount. You made a wise decision with the Metabones .

MC-11 has a new FW that reports indicate the AF has been improved. Check out details before making a decision.

I was actually told by a Sony rep to buy the Sigma instead of the metabone. Extensive A7iii testing has proven to "him" that the AF speed is noticeably better with the cheaper sigma adapter.

Just tested this theory myself today at a sony demo. I tested both adapters and indeed the Sigma was faster with Canon adapted glass.

AlanU wrote in post #18582469
I was actually told by a Sony rep to buy the Sigma instead of the metabone. Extensive A7iii testing has proven to "him" that the AF speed is noticeably better with the cheaper sigma adapter.

Just tested this theory myself today at a sony demo. I tested both adapters and indeed the Sigma was faster with Canon adapted glass.

I was told the same by a Sony rep at The Photography Show in Birmingham, when I bought the A7III, the reason given was that Sigma was given the code for Sony E-mount whereas Metabone had to reverse engineer it. Not sure how true that is but we do know Sigma is making E-Mount lenses so there may be some truth to that.

Raymond Lin wrote in post #18599645
I was told the same by a Sony rep at The Photography Show in Birmingham, when I bought the A7III, the reason given was that Sigma was given the code for Sony E-mount whereas Metabone had to reverse engineer it. Not sure how true that is but we do know Sigma is making E-Mount lenses so there may be some truth to that.

This is actually true. E-mount is a controlled open source.... So you certain companies like Zeiss and Sigma are given the E-mount spec. This is why the batis lenses exist

My experience with the MC-11 is that AF with my canon lenses is basically non functional. I've got the latest firmware. Tested with 70-200 F/2.8L v2, 16-36 F/4L and 24-105 F/4L. The first time I noticed this was with the 70-200 and in a somewhat dark situation where I was trying to use AF to track a mountain biker moving towards me. The results were terrible, none of them were in focus except the first frame or 2.

When I got home I tested each of my canon lenses with a very simple test. In a well lit situation I had my wife walk towards me while I used AF to track her. I tried different AF modes as well. I got the same results, AF basically wasn't working.

I only have 1 native Sony lens at the moment, a 55mm 1.8. Doing the same test with my wife walking towards me with this lens almost every frame is in focus.

I see quite a few people saying that with the MC-11 that AF doesn't work so well for video but it does work for photo. I'm wondering if these people are not using it for sports or for tracking moving subjects? Either that or maybe I'm missing something.

dfinn wrote in post #18712803
My experience with the MC-11 is that AF with my canon lenses is basically non functional. I've got the latest firmware. Tested with 70-200 F/2.8L v2, 16-36 F/4L and 24-105 F/4L. The first time I noticed this was with the 70-200 and in a somewhat dark situation where I was trying to use AF to track a mountain biker moving towards me. The results were terrible, none of them were in focus except the first frame or 2.

When I got home I tested each of my canon lenses with a very simple test. In a well lit situation I had my wife walk towards me while I used AF to track her. I tried different AF modes as well. I got the same results, AF basically wasn't working.

I only have 1 native Sony lens at the moment, a 55mm 1.8. Doing the same test with my wife walking towards me with this lens almost every frame is in focus.

I see quite a few people saying that with the MC-11 that AF doesn't work so well for video but it does work for photo. I'm wondering if these people are not using it for sports or for tracking moving subjects? Either that or maybe I'm missing something.

MC11 is a great adapter for static to slow subjects. We shouldn't expect miracles shooting adapted glass but it does work.

Captive bird show and a lumberjack show at Grouse mountain.

This shows that you can land some shots with an adapter with 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2.

Not defending this use of the adapter as it is NOT anything like using native.

If you think an adapter is fantastic......you probably use it for a certain type of application that does not require fast AF.

I know I wouldn't rely on adapters for any hired event. That is just asking for trouble but some have the courage to do such things.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.