Thinking about going to the A7iii from 5Diii. What to do for a 70-200.

I have been wanting to go to Sony for over a year. They only thing that has stopped me is the cost of a 24-70, 70-200 and how well mine would work while being adapted. Now my friend has the 28-75 tamron on his Sony and after shooting it I really like that lens. But unlike him I just cant see spending the $2400+ for a 70-200 2.8. How well will the my 70-200 do adapted or are there other options?

The Tamron I will sell because I will get the 28-75 with the Sony body. Will the others adapt ok or will I need to be looking for replacements?

LENSES:
Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS USM
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM


Thanks Folks

There isn't a lot of harm in adding the A7III and the 28-75 to start, and then trying out the Canon 70-200 on it for a bit before deciding if you will keep that lens or move to the Sony lens.

My guess is that you will move to the Sony lens. The fact that Sony adapts other lenses well has been amazing but can be oversold. It's not for demanding situations.

I found some Canon lenses adapted to my A7rIII very well. Notably, the Canon 24-70/2.8L II works almost flawlessly. My EF-70-200/2.8 IS II works fair, but it can hunt and refuse to lock on in low light or with bad contrast. It's situational.....some people are working in good light and will be happy. But come time for low light any you can have a bit of frustration.

I planned to keep my Canon 5D3 with three zooms, and I have. But I also added more Sony lenses faster than I'd originally planned for because they work so reliably. But I didn't add an FE 70-200. I use my Canon. If the Sony+EF lens are not working and I really need a 70-200/2.8, I use my Canon body.

But for shots like this example.....it works fine. Good light, but also notably I used eye-AF and the camera found the eyes and nailed the shot instantly. Same kind of work in a dark studio basement with strobes.......nope. I'd rather use my FE 70-300 or FE 85 in that kind of situation.

I recently made the switch from Canon to Sony A7iii and there is a slight learning curve. I was so used to the colors for Canon (which you will hear from a lot of switchers) that it took me a few weeks of learning quick adjustments in post to actually obtain a better than Canon color. It is not actually better. The switch pushed me to experiment and learn my colors better. If I wanted to hit the out of camera Canon colors i could do it in post shooting with the Sony.

Sony glass is expensive but work so fast (with the A7iii - my current Sony body). With the A7iii in body stability on, my 70-200mm gm is very clear.

I do run the Metabones V EF-E mount because I do have some of my other Canon lenses still and am slowly switching to Sony glass. Of course the metabones is not as quick as sony glasss on the sony body but not to bad as Jeffery mentioned. Would I use it to shoot sports, no. I do use the canon 24mm ts-e and its great but it is also manual focus . My shoots are 99.9% static so its nt a problem. I do love my sony 12-24mm g for real estate shoots but also use a canon 16-35mm 2.8 L for some shots when I need to cpl filter.

I do love the 70-200mm GM. It is very fast and crisp

OP,

If you're wanting to shoot fast action with adapted Canon glass you may get frustrated.

Tracking will not be a "perfect" combo.

If your doing landscape and portraits the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 will do just fine.

In Canada the GM 70-200 is $3300 bucks so that's even a bigger ouch!! But if you a demanding fast action shooter you'll appreciate native glass.

Unfortunately, for 70-200 f2.8 enthusiasts, Sony is the worst brand due to price.

If it were me, I would adapt with the MC-11 specifically. 135A will be near native, and sigma has a 70-200 f2.8 due to release in December. Chances are, that will be the lens that will approach near native with the MC-11.

I've read that the A9 works better with the 70-200's, but I havent tried it myself. I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, which is pretty good, but no intentions on using the 70-200 unless I really need it, not my style. The 28-75 is probably even better than their 24-70vc, it's so good everywhere.

Thank you so much folks.

I should have been more clear with what I shoot. I am strictly hobby and spend my time shooting free photos for rescue groups/shelters to give their animals a better chance at adoption. The fastest moving things I would shoot would be puppies playing and donkeys having fun.

I use my ef 70-200 2.8 L version II metaboned for sports and really have few complaints. Is it as fast on the Sony as it is Canon, probably not. But I have had no issues with it at all getting the shots I need. A lot of it is in setup. I also shoot all manual exposure since moving over since I can see exactly what I am getting, so that also takes off a lot of the processing for the camera, which may be helping too. I see little benefit in the auto modes with EVF.

Other Canon lenses are hit and miss - but the 70-200 canon on a sony hasn't let me down yet.

But if you are committing to Sony, their lens on that body is a lot better, and a lot more expense too.

I moved to Sony and shoot a lot of youth sports so the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II wasn’t doing it for me when I tried adapting it to the A7iii in April on the MB V. For static subjects and portraits it’ll work fine, but with action I t hunted and wouldn’t track very well. I sucked it up and bought the 70-200 2.8 GM and it’s fantastic on the A7iii and A9 I own. I haven’t sold the Canon lens yet, so I may give it a shot with the newest firmware versions of the MB V and the MC-11. Sony also has the more economical 70-200 f/4 if you can get by with that.

Charlie wrote in post #18759427
Unfortunately, for 70-200 f2.8 enthusiasts, Sony is the worst brand due to price.

It seems like Sony operates somewhat like sellers of printers, where the printers are sold and a tiny profit margin or even a loss, to gain more money later by means of ink cartridge sales. As a means to lower body costs.

But regardless of what Sony is doing to carve-down their body costs to boost sales, wouldn't it seem a safer bet for Sony body owners to stick with Sony glass in the long run even if the lenses are somewhat expensive.

mdvaden wrote in post #18760906
It seems like Sony operates somewhat like sellers of printers, where the printers are sold and a tiny profit margin or even a loss, to gain more money later by means of ink cartridge sales. As a means to lower body costs.

But regardless of what Sony is doing to carve-down their body costs to boost sales, wouldn't it seem a safer bet for Sony body owners to stick with Sony glass in the long run even if the lenses are somewhat expensive.

The lens costs are hit and miss.

12-24g, IMO just about as good as the canon 11-24, in that respect, it's a pretty good bargain only giving up 1mm.


85mm f1.8 is simply fantastic for $600, well worth 2x the street price of the canon's inexpensive 85 f1.8.

24mm f1.4 GM, while 1400 is a bit high, seems like it's totally worth it if you're the type to shoot a fast 24. Substantially smaller than anything on the market, with good optics, a great package.

many of the other lenses are competitively priced, it's just that Sony's confusing lineup of sony-zeiss partnership, sony only, G, GM, batis, loxia, there's bound to be some confusion.

GM lenses are usually the outliers, the 24-70gm, while expensive, not really more than what the 24-70ii came out for (still think it's overpriced). The 70-200 f2.8 GM and 100-400 GM look to be 10-15% more. Again, just 2 outlier lenses, and based on reviews, the 100-400 GM seems to be worth it for the ability to do true sporting with a 2x. Not easy getting 800mm in focal length and being usable.

The X factor are third party lenses. The tamron 28-75 f2.8 is practically as good as the 24-70ii, costs only 800, a sub 500g lens, fast and silent AF for stills and video. Like the 12-24, a marvel of a lens. Samyang offers dirt cheap 35 f1.4 and 50 f1.4, that have ok AF ability (not stunningly fast like sony-zeiss version). Voigtlander makes among the most compelling MF lenses on the market if that's you're thing. It's a shame they dont make AF glass, because I'de pay premium prices for them. 40mm and 50mm f1.2 with good optics, in a 400g package? where do I signup?

Tokina has some lenses, will make more, laowa has some really compelling lenses (but no exif, so pass). Sigma has a bunch of lenses, but DSLR design, so pass.

I'm all for scalping deals, in fact I have a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 that does an OK job adapted. I bring it on shoots that I'm uncertain of the location, and also have primes when I'm familiar with the area. The lens cost me in the 500 range a while back, and unless you shoot sports, you can get away with less for less. I've used it once or twice this year? Definitely dont want 2500 tied up in a lens that is so infrequent. Eye focus and slower tracking works fine, fast action at 200mm..... aint happening.

I'm not readily handing over thousands to Sony (and any brand for that matter), and the nice thing is that there are long term native options. Like the 28-75, will I EVER need to consider another standard zoom? I've used many many 2.8 zooms, and this is by far my favorite, and not a sony lens, works just as good. Too many options to be tied strictly to Sony or one lens brand. If I shot all sony zeiss with comparable 21, 35 f1.4, 24-70gm, 70-200 gm, I'de be set back $7K. with the CV 21, SY 35 f1.4, Tam 28-75, 70-200 alternatives, I'm only out $2.5K with 3/4 native performers that work near as well as first party, and the third with below average performance. Saving $4.5K, I can live with, and there are also advantages with the kit I chose, which is size and weight on a few of the lenses. Sine they are native mostly, I wont have to chase upgrades in the near term. In fact I've ran a past tamron to the warranty limit of 6 years, and I absolutely plan on doing the same with this version. It's far from a black and white relationship with Sony, and like every company, they have outliers.

Sony lenses (the new ones) are all built to resolve to higher resolutions than most of the current crop from Canon. In the 20-40 mpx range, the canons do just fine, which is what most people are shooting in. But Sony is building lenses for the new generation of sensors. Most people will not see the benefit from them with the current crop of cameras out there. But as we begin to push limits, many of the current crop of Nikon and Canon lenses were never built with the need to resolve for 50,60, even 90 mpx cameras. The future is wide open.

Again, for current shooters, not the big of a deal. That is why I shoot with mostly Canon L glass right now. I have only 2 G-master lenses.

But there is more to it than the whole ink cartridge scam the printer manufactures are playing. It's such a stupid game they are playing. Just went to OfficeMax to buy a Epson 99 M Cartrige for my office printer. They only offer it as part of a Kit that sales for about $100. The printer didn't cost that much. So I ordered from Amazon, yet again. Want to buy local, but they make it hard sometimes.

Lyndön wrote in post #18760565
I moved to Sony and shoot a lot of youth sports so the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II wasn’t doing it for me when I tried adapting it to the A7iii in April on the MB V. For static subjects and portraits it’ll work fine, but with action I t hunted and wouldn’t track very well. I sucked it up and bought the 70-200 2.8 GM and it’s fantastic on the A7iii and A9 I own. I haven’t sold the Canon lens yet, so I may give it a shot with the newest firmware versions of the MB V and the MC-11. Sony also has the more economical 70-200 f/4 if you can get by with that.

The MC11 with Canon 70-200 f/2.8mk2 just lags for fast action.

OP for voluntary work in your shooting style you may get away with using adapted Canon glass. Investing in a GM70-200 is a personal decision but if you are wanting the best performance from a Sony system you will be required to go native glass.

I've been pushing hard against getting the GM 70-200 but I just cannot due without....

I'm about diversity for different render and colours.

Sony just released a firmware update that makes the bodies work even better with 3rd party glass - including eye focus with Canon Glass via metabones and MC-11. Haven't downloaded it yet, but I think it is totally cool that Sony is upping their support of competitors lenses on their bodies. See DPReview up complete update on what the firmware upgrade does.

Croasdail wrote in post #18762288
Sony just released a firmware update that makes the bodies work even better with 3rd party glass - including eye focus with Canon Glass via metabones and MC-11. Haven't downloaded it yet, but I think it is totally cool that Sony is upping their support of competitors lenses on their bodies. See DPReview up complete update on what the firmware upgrade does.

Just released? If you’re talking about FW 2.0 that was released on 10/10/18. That firmware update had no intention of improving third party glass performance. Here’s the official statement from Sony regarding adapters for FW 2.0:

“Adds support for Zone, Expand Flexible Spot, and Lock-on AF focus areas when using the LA-EA3 mount adaptor.
Note: Focus Area options added : Zone, Expand Flexible Spot, and Lock-on AF.”

As a side effect though, the EF adapter manufacturers have exploited the extra functions enabled by Sony for their own adapter when using A-Mount glass. The MC-11 seems to have taken advantage of this better than the MB V at this point (I have both). I’m pretty sure Sony has no desire to make all of your Canon glass work as good as native FE lenses, or they’d just make their own adapter.

As to the 70-200 II on an adapter, it still sucks on the MB V for action. For stills it’s usable IMO, but still hunts and pulses more than I’d like. That’s why I bought the 70-200GM, but I also shoot sports with it primarily. I have since purchased the MC-11, but haven’t tried it with the 70-200 II. I know the MC-11 performs much better with my 300 2.8 IS than the MB (especially on the A9), so I wouldn’t be surprised if it works better on the 70-200 II as well.

"This includes the subject-tracking Lock-on AF modes on the a7 III and a7R III (our favorite and most recommended AF mode on Sony cameras), as well as Zone and Expand Flexible Spot. Sony specifically mentions its Sony Alpha A-mount lenses in its press release, but we've tested it with adapted Canon mount lenses as well and can confirm it works with EF lenses via a Sigma or Metabones adapter. "

Now DPReview might be lying.... but this is what they reported.

"As to the 70-200 II on an adapter, it still sucks on the MB V for action."

Again.... not sure how much you have actually used the lens but I have about 10,000 images from this seasons football season the say otherwise. I'll be shooting with it at the ACC championship game in a few minutes. My 1DX2 will have the Canon 400 2.8 L on it, my Sony will have the EF 70-200 2.8 L II on it. Both my MB normal adaptor and speedbuster have not been updated in over 6 months, so there is no way Metabones knew of this release and pre-engineered fixes in months ahead of the official release of the update. Have there been updates to the MC or MB firmware since the Sony update?

I haven't done the firmware update on my Sonys yet - I don't make changes to my gear mid season. So can't attest to the new focus capabilities.... but then again I am not having any issues. I shoot manual, keeping things really simple for the camera. Maybe that is helping me. I don't have eye focus yet.. but look forward to having it as an option.

If Sony wanted to make it hard to used adapted lenses.... they could.... easily. Fact is they haven't introduced anything to prevent or cripple their use.