AF-C performance on EM1.2 with adapters

[zanydroid]

I'm thinking of picking up an EM1.2. One of the potential nice bonuses would be to get better AF performance on adapted glass, however I haven't been able to find many sample YouTube videos or posts on the forum to provide many data points on this.

In a perfect world, a $200 adapter would yield the same good AF-C performance as MC-11 adapter on Sony cameras, which I use all the time. However, I suspect that's asking a bit much . Per usual, Metabones has the most detailed release notes on this. However, LensRentals has all sorts of disclaimer tags on this adapter. Not planning to do BIF or count on it for an fancy photo trip, just want to know if I can reuse my L glass for casual dog park sports.

1. Does AF-C work?
2. Can I get at least a ~5 fps burst rate?
3. Do I have to pay Metabones tax? Or can I use one of the Chinese adapters?
4. If AF-C does not work, are there special EM1.2 features that can wrest more value out of adapted glass? I'm familiar with the standard mirrorless ones that I get on my EM10.2 (i.e., focus peaking, more accurate/smaller aperture focus because of CDAF)

 

[Reflector]

I wouldn't say C-AF is the most dependable on the E-M1II and it honestly depends on the lens, it doesn't stay "locked" (the focus will drift if you keep it held down and eventually lose track) and you want to pulse it for reliability. I use Metabones personally because I started with them before the other focal reducers got to an acceptable level of optical performance and I have an Ultra as well as an XL. I also have a plain tube Viltrox adapter but that thing doesn't play well with most of my lenses. The Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II NanoUSM doesn't play well with most adapters because the AF mechanism in it is too fast (yes... this is a real issue) and it sometimes will confuse them, especially when it comes to the Viltrox. My solution is to use a 1.4x TC to "teleneutralize" out the Metabones I have so it acts like a 70-300mm again (and to avoid paying $400 for a plain tube when a Kenko Pro 300 is around $150).

That being said, it never stopped me from nailing shots like this (Sigma 120-300 f/2.8, 2x TC + focal reducer = 180-420mm f/4):

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[zanydroid]

The Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 II NanoUSM doesn't play well with most adapters because the AF mechanism in it is too fast (yes... this is a real issue) and it sometimes will confuse them, especially when it comes to the Viltrox.

Wow, surprised about this. I actually rented this lens recently to see whether its OLED UI was actually useful, and to see how well NanoUSM works on Sony and M43 (usually faster motor = better adapting). Wasn't super impressed with its adapted performance adapted vs on a native Canon. In general, my rule of thumb is that the more regular a lens is, the more likely it'll work. E.g. Canon lenses with good ring USM work pretty well for me. While fancy new stuff like STM, ... are just another thing to go wrong.

My solution is to use a 1.4x TC to "teleneutralize" out the Metabones I have so it acts like a 70-300mm again (and to avoid paying $400 for a plain tube when a Kenko Pro 300 is around $150).

I actually just ordered another Viltrox plain tube b/c I wanted to claw back some weight, sharpness, and T-stops vs focal reducer + TC stack. Stacking a TC usually also slows down the motor. The one I used to have worked OK on a couple lenses... hope it works fine on the ones I want to use now. $100 for optical and handling improvement is a bargain, even if it only works on one lens (as long as it's one I care about). $400 on the other hand...

If you were to start over, what would you get? Would you still spring for a Metabones? Would you get focal reducer or plain tube? I assume you primarily shoot these lenses on a Canon body. When do you pull out the EM1.2, and when do you pull out the Canon?

The reducer vs plain is a tough call at Metabones prices. Having a permanent 2x crop significantly reduces the flexibility of lenses (from focal length and sharpness perspective), but canceling out focal reducer when you need it has the aformentioned issues. For me, I am leaning towards investing in a plain tube because I do most of my shooting in supertele. But I know that a bunch of the classic Canon L lenses that I want to use may not be sharp enough. I guess a good way for me to figure this out would be to limit myself to my plain tube for a while, and see how that works out.

 

[Reflector]

Wow, surprised about this. I actually rented this lens recently to see whether its OLED UI was actually useful, and to see how well NanoUSM works on Sony and M43 (usually faster motor = better adapting). Wasn't super impressed with its adapted performance adapted vs on a native Canon. In general, my rule of thumb is that the more regular a lens is, the more likely it'll work. E.g. Canon lenses with good ring USM work pretty well for me. While fancy new stuff like STM, ... are just another thing to go wrong.

It's an awesome lens. The autofocus is great when the camera is able to drive it (unfortunately it doesn't play along the best on most adapter-camera combos aside from the Canon one for RF...), it actually plays better on the E-M5 (due to the way the CDAF drives it) but I have yet to use it extensively on FW3.0/3.1 to see the changes on it. Honestly autofocus is really dependent on the lens-adapter combo. I have a Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro (APS-C) and it doesn't play well on an EOS RP at all (it gives up, no chance of even remotely AF) but my E-M1II drives it decently. It isn't the best autofocusing lens either. Meanwhile the EF-S 35mm Macro plays happily with the Metabones adapter. If you're looking at general semi S-AF or low motion stuff you're pretty much going to be alright with most lenses (the Tamron being the exception). Also the Tokina 14-20mm f/2 does not focus properly in autofocus and ends up front focusing (as far as I can tell it's just a property of the lens, it probably needs some adjustments but I use it near infinity anyways and manually focus it).

I actually just ordered another Viltrox plain tube b/c I wanted to claw back some weight, sharpness, and T-stops vs focal reducer + TC stack. Stacking a TC usually also slows down the motor. The one I used to have worked OK on a couple lenses... hope it works fine on the ones I want to use now. $100 for optical and handling improvement is a bargain, even if it only works on one lens (as long as it's one I care about). $400 on the other hand...

It doesn't work that well honestly. The T-stop loss is negligible realistically with modern AR coatings. Look at those versions of the Art lenses Sigma released for cinema that have a single AR coating and check how they go from t/1.6-2 to something silly as t/3.x+.

I have three teleconverters I use. A Sigma TC-1401, Sigma TC-2001 and a Kenko Pro 300. As far as I can tell those two Sigmas effectively impart very, very little to no degradation (look at the element count in them, they're pretty hefty). The Kenko Pro 300 is a non protrusive teleconverter which lets me mount it on the 70-300 NanoUSM.

If you were to start over, what would you get? Would you still spring for a Metabones? Would you get focal reducer or plain tube? I assume you primarily shoot these lenses on a Canon body. When do you pull out the EM1.2, and when do you pull out the Canon?

Yes I would definitely take both the Ultra and XL again in a heartbeat. I sat on eBay coupons for the XL booster and got it second hand. Nobody makes anything like the XL and as far as I can tell Metabones is the only choice you have if you realistically want corner to corner performance when you're shooting wide open on modern optics. If you don't care for that I'm pretty sure the Viltrox is fine. You can check Christopher Frost's video on Youtube to see what happens with UWAs + fast lenses on the Viltrox.

I consider the Metabones adapters to be worth every dollar if you want the optical performance and firmware updates. From what I've seen the Viltroxes are great until you start pushing beyond f/1.8 glass and you want a f/0.8 to f/1.0 output, which is what I get out of my lenses. I have a Tokina 14-20mm f/2, Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for my ultra high performance (and back hurting) setup of lenses. That's next to a Nikon 50mm f/1.2 and a few other somewhat exotic cases of Canon EF-S (with the little black stopper) removed glasses to give me an APS-H image circle using the XL focal reducer.

I don't actually use Canon bodies because I don't really care for Canon bodies (interface, etc) but I love their lenses. I consider myself extremely brand agnostic. Right now the E-M1II ticks off most of my requirements for me as a camera. I do have access to an EOS RP occasionally as well but personally the entry level features on it doesn't make photography as enjoyable (for work or hobby reasons) as the E-M1II makes it.

The reducer vs plain is a tough call at Metabones prices. Having a permanent 2x crop significantly reduces the flexibility of lenses (from focal length and sharpness perspective), but canceling out focal reducer when you need it has the aformentioned issues. For me, I am leaning towards investing in a plain tube because I do most of my shooting in supertele. But I know that a bunch of the classic Canon L lenses that I want to use may not be sharp enough. I guess a good way for me to figure this out would be to limit myself to my plain tube for a while, and see how that works out.

Cancelling out the focal converter is fine, just make sure you use good TCs so it won't hurt the optical performance too much. The Sigma 120-300 holds up great until you try to plain tube or 2x+1.4x it to get a 600mm lens out of it. My specific copy is the non OS, non DG version which means it's an optical stinker compared to the later variants but it's a pound and some lighter and I got it for under a thousand dollars. It glows a little when shooting wide open and stopping down 2/3 of an EV helps it. I suspect your Ls will be a better experience than what I have. I've even used the TCs on the Sigma 50-100 (which doesn't officially support them and it certainly won't make a Canon body happy at all if I mounted them on that way)

 

[zanydroid]

I have three teleconverters I use. A Sigma TC-1401, Sigma TC-2001 and a Kenko Pro 300. As far as I can tell those two Sigmas effectively impart very, very little to no degradation (look at the element count in them, they're pretty hefty). The Kenko Pro 300 is a non protrusive teleconverter which lets me mount it on the 70-300 NanoUSM.

I've used these as well in the past, currently only have the TC-1401in the rotation. I might consider the 70-300 NanoUSM again (although I'm pretty sure I would prefer a mechanical override in case the electronics flake out and I need a last resort)... I remember not being super impressed by it during operation, but being pleasantly surprised by the pictures in PP.

What's the reason for going with that one vs the 70-300L?

Yes and yes I would definitely take them again in a heartbeat. I sat on eBay coupons for the XL booster and got it second hand. Nobody makes anything like the XL and as far as I can tell Metabones is the only choice you have if you realistically want corner to corner performance when you're shooting wide open on modern optics. If you don't care for that I'm pretty sure the Viltrox is fine. You can check Christopher Frost's video on Youtube to see what happens with UWAs + fast lenses on the Viltrox.

I only use one UWA on the Viltrox, and only for video so it's a little less critical (that's the Sigma 10-20 3.5 on GH5). So the deciding factor would be focusing capability, which I'll have to rent to evaluate.

I don't actually use a Canon that much because I don't really care for Canon bodies (interface, etc) but I love their lenses. I consider myself extremely brand agnostic. Right now the E-M1II ticks off most of my requirements for me as a camera.

Yeah, that's basically me too. I'm building quite the collection, despite only every having shot Canon cameras for a total of 10 hours in my life. That's even with a concerted effort to convince myself to buy one for better price/performance reasons.

Why not shoot those with an A6x00 instead of M43? Several of those would probably perform noticeably better (esp the 18-35 and 50-100 Sigmas, which work great on my Sonys) from a AF perspective, although the EM1.2 would win in situations that benefit from Procapture, high burst, or IBIS, and general handling enjoyment.

 

[Reflector]

I've used these as well in the past, currently only have the TC-1401in the rotation. I might consider the 70-300 NanoUSM again (although I'm pretty sure I would prefer a mechanical override in case the electronics flake out and I need a last resort)... I remember not being super impressed by it during operation, but being pleasantly surprised by the pictures in PP.

What's the reason for going with that one vs the 70-300L?

I don't own a 70-300L and it's certainly outside of the range I'd be willing to shell out for it. I got the 70-300II as an inexpensive lens and so far I've been pretty happy with the performance of it. It acts like several lenses for me because I have several adapters: A 50-210mm f/2.8-4 (The PanLeica is a $1,500 lens, the Canon I paid $400 for), a 70-300 f/4-5.6 (The Panasonic 100-300II is >$500 and the Olympus 70-300 is slower as a f/6.7 on the long end (but they're both compact lenses) and is >$400...)

Equally, the Sigmas are great, for example the 50-100mm f/1.8 serves as three (arguably four) lenses with ease:
32-64mm f/1.1 "stupid fast" almost-normal to portrait lens
35-71mm f/1.2 for when I need it to be optically better when it's stopped down as the XL favors wide open performance. There's no 75mm f/1.2 PRO in existence either.
50-100mm f/1.8 which is a mild telephoto on Micro Four Thirds
70-140mm f/2.5 which is closer to the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8, minus the short end
100-200mm f/3.5 which gives me a short telephoto comparable to the 40-150mm with a TC

Since I already own the adapters (sub-$1k) and the teleconverters (sunk only $400 for all three), I'm able to take a lens I got for $800 and make it into a very, very flexible lens that goes from 32mm to 200mm. I'm actually pretty impressed by the output with it setup as a 70-140mm f/2.5 to the point I wouldn't hesitate using it that way with the TC-2001.

Just like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 was an easy add for me when I got mine for under $1k since it also acts like several lenses with ease:
77-192mm f1.8 which is a stupid fast lens given that it reaches out to almost 200mm. Again another "exotic" lens.
85-213mm f/2 which has better optical performance if it's being stopped down further (for more DoF and so on)
120-300mm f/2.8 which is a hell of a lot of telephoto given how bright the thing is, the only thing it's also a massive lens
168-420mm f/4 which is still less than buying an Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro (I'd love to own one however)
240-600mm f/5.6 which I don't recommend since it's pretty soft and it's pretty much pushing the non DG version of the lens I have

I only use one UWA on the Viltrox, and only for video so it's a little less critical (that's the Sigma 10-20 3.5 on GH5). So the deciding factor would be focusing capability, which I'll have to rent to evaluate.

Panasonics drive the lenses in AF for video, Olympus will not do it for non Micro Four Thirds lenses (a stupid move on their part, why they do this is beyond me).

Yeah, that's basically me too. I'm building quite the collection, despite only every having shot Canon cameras for a total of 10 hours in my life. That's even with a concerted effort to convince myself to buy one for better price/performance reasons.

Why not shoot those with an A6x00 instead of M43? Several of those would probably perform noticeably better (esp the 18-35 and 50-100 Sigmas, which work great on my Sonys) from a AF perspective, although the EM1.2 would win in situations that benefit from Procapture, high burst, or IBIS, and general handling enjoyment.

It was because I already own the E-M1II? I really don't care for the A6x00 family and only the A6500 was the relevant one with the IBIS. Sony doesn't want to bother making an A7000/mini A9 and gives their APS-C users the middle finger everytime that's brought up. The IBIS isn't as good either, realistically Micro Four Thirds is the place to go if you actually want reliable 1s exposures with IBIS. Sony UX is misery for me and it remains so to now. Sonys look great on spec sheets but they don't handle that well in the end.

The E-M1II is a more well rounded camera for my purposes. I own EF mount lenses because they're universally adaptable in the sense they're auto aperture and autofocus on any adapter, meaning if I felt like buying a Fuji X-H1 and sticking on adapter onto it, I could make the hop without really losing anything. Honestly I'm more impressed by the X-H1 than the A6x00 family for the reason that it's an actual nice flagship body with good usability. I bought into a system for the lenses, not the bodies and right now the current "donor" mount is EF mount so I'll stick by it. Maybe if Canon actually came up with an EOS R that had some of the features of the E-M1II I'd be interested but it'd probably be over $5000 which means I wouldn't be buying it for another decade until the used prices become more reasonable.

 

[zanydroid]

Equally, the Sigmas are great, for example the 50-100mm f/1.8 serves as three (arguably four) lenses with ease:

Since I already own the adapters (sub-$1k) and the teleconverters (sunk only $400 for all three), I'm able to take a lens I got for $800 and make it into a very, very flexible lens that goes from 32mm to 200mm. I'm actually pretty impressed by the output with it setup as a 70-140mm f/2.5 to the point I wouldn't hesitate using it that way with the TC-2001.

Just like the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 was an easy add for me when I got mine for under $1k since it also acts like several lenses with ease:

I hadn't considered the 70-300 as a way to get the 50-200 focal length at a lower price. That lens should be sharp enough to achieve that.

Love the results from the 50-100, and an IBIS body gets the post out of the lens. Every time I look at the pictures from my rental of it, I'm tempted to buy one. I personally get a little frustrated though if the adapted glass is both heavy and has some autofocus deficiency; that just extends the amount of time I have to hold the lens in shooting position, waiting for the focus to de-glitch, instead of bringing it back to resting position.

I got my plain tube Viltrox adapter and did some basic testing; even my sharp macro lens starts to get a little soft with that pixel density. So the focal reducer probably makes more sense for the majority of lenses out there.

Panasonics drive the lenses in AF for video, Olympus will not do it for non Micro Four Thirds lenses (a stupid move on their part, why they do this is beyond me).

Panasonic's video autofocus for adapted glass is pretty unreliable, and this applies to most adapting situations outside of Sigma MC11 lenses and Canon EF->mirrorless. I never autofocus adapted glass during a recording; only to acquire initial focus before hitting record.

It was because I already own the E-M1II? I really don't care for the A6x00 family and only the A6500 was the relevant one with the IBIS. Sony doesn't want to bother making an A7000/mini A9 and gives their APS-C users the middle finger everytime that's brought up. The IBIS isn't as good either, realistically Micro Four Thirds is the place to go if you actually want reliable 1s exposures with IBIS. Sony UX is misery for me and it remains so to now. Sonys look great on spec sheets but they don't handle that well in the end.

The E-M1II is a more well rounded camera for my purposes. I own EF mount lenses because they're universally adaptable in the sense they're auto aperture and autofocus on any adapter, meaning if I felt like buying a Fuji X-H1 and sticking on adapter onto it, I could make the hop without really losing anything. Honestly I'm more impressed by the X-H1 than the A6x00 family for the reason that it's an actual nice flagship body with good usability. I bought into a system for the lenses, not the bodies and right now the current "donor" mount is EF mount so I'll stick by it. Maybe if Canon actually came up with an EOS R that had some of the features of the E-M1II I'd be interested but it'd probably be over $5000 which means I wouldn't be buying it for another decade until the used prices become more reasonable.

I ended up getting an A7riii partly because I wanted to keep using my beloved 18-35 with a proper body (unlike A6x000), resolution, and IBIS, while also using the full lens for all my full frame Canon glass. I've also used it with the 50-100; both balance nicely on the lens. I also extensively tested the M50 to natively use that lens and some of the supertele lenses (you can push the autofocus about 1-2 stops beyond the DSLRs). They definitely focused quickly and I'm sure are a good solution for some people, but those cameras are so deficient in other areas that I felt I would rather deal with adapting to Sony or M43 and get better features.

 

[Reflector]

Love the results from the 50-100, and an IBIS body gets the post out of the lens. Every time I look at the pictures from my rental of it, I'm tempted to buy one. I personally get a little frustrated though if the adapted glass is both heavy and has some autofocus deficiency; that just extends the amount of time I have to hold the lens in shooting position, waiting for the focus to de-glitch, instead of bringing it back to resting position.

From FW 2.3 and whatever version of Metabones firmware I had at the time:

The Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 in the same environment as the 70-300:

 

[zanydroid]

Thanks, that's really helpful. The 50-100 AF performance looks pretty workable, w/o the glitches on my cameras.

It looked to me like the 70-300 and 40-150 had the same performance in that environment. I'm a bit surprised at how slowly the 40-150 focused (I've seen mine rack the full range faster than that), I guess the scene wasn't very well lit...