Kipon EF-M43 AF Adapter Performance

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by ijm5012, May 12, 2015.

  1. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I found some videos showing the AF performance of the new Kipon EOS-M43 AF adapter, and I'm quite surprised at how good it is.





    This is particularly interesting for telephoto users, because it greatly increases the number of fast telephoto options available to us. The three lenses I'm really thinking of are the 70-200 f/4 L, 200 f/2.8 L, and 300 f/4 L IS.

    If you do a comparison of size and price between the 70-200 f/4 L and 40-150 f/2.8 + 1.4x, we get the following:
    • $285 (Kipon Adapter) + $650 (Canon 70-200 f/4 L) = $935
    • $350 (Olympus 1.4x) + $1500 (Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 PRO) = $1850
    Granted, the Olympus combo gives you a bit more on either end (56mm vs. 70mm on the wide end, and 210mm vs. 200mm on the long end). But at a difference of more than $900, I don't think it's worth it.

    If we take the above combo, and look at weight, we get the following:
    • ???g (Kipon Adapter) + 705g (Canon 70-200 f/4 L) = ???g
    • 170g (Olympus 1.4x) + 880g (Olympus 40-150 PRO) = 1050g
    While we don't know what the Kipon Adapter will cost, you would think it would have to weigh less than the Oly 1.4x TC, since it contains no glass. The lens weight difference is 175g, plus the weight difference from the adapter, and you've got to be close to a 250g difference.


    So while the Canon combo will likely be a couple of inches longer, it'll be $900 cheaper (even more if you pick up the Canon lens used) and likely 200-250g lighter, all while delivering what appears to be acceptable AF performance.


    I'll definitely be keeping my eye on this, as it could give m43 users a gateway to some nice fast telephoto options that currently don't have in native lenses.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. MarkoPolo

    MarkoPolo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Mark Brown
    Well, I will find out soon. I ordered this from Adorama and I have the Canon 400 mm f/5.6 and the 300 mm f/4.0. It is (of course) on back order, but I am really interested to see how competent the auto-focus is. At least it might be a reasonable stop gap while waiting for the Oly 300 mm f/4.0.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. maritan

    maritan Mu-43 Veteran

    388
    Oct 30, 2014
    Video seems to indicate decent if not good performance. I'd love to see reports on this adapter when you get it, @MarkoPolo@MarkoPolo. :)
     
  4. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    @MarkoPolo@MarkoPolo , could you please report back about AF performance? If this adapter performs as well as it appears to, I'm going to have a serious look at picking up a 70-200 f/4L IS to use on my GH3 & GH4.
     
  5. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Why would you get a 70-200L over 40-150 and TC?
     
  6. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    It's approximately 200g lighter, and $900 cheaper (going off of new prices, USD). Also, the bokeh from the Oly combo can be quite harsh based on a number of samples I've seen, something that wouldn't be the case with the 70-200 f/4 L. It also gives Panasonic users and option to get the copy with IS, giving then an option for stabilized lens.
     
  7. MarkoPolo

    MarkoPolo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Mark Brown
    Not sure how long it will take to receive the adapter, but I will let folks now my impressions. I really need some way to have an easily repeatable moving target to check auto-focus and improve my tracking skills. Some of the suggestions seen on this forum, such as a carousel, are not available here. I am reluctant to set up and shoot cars on a highway, I can only imagine what complaints would come in to the police department about the strange man pointing a long tube at cars:rolleyes-38:
    I guess I need to hire a couple of teenagers to throw Frisbees back and forth while I practice!
     
  8. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    Shooting cars at highway speeds is definitely a good way to practice your panning technique. Plus, with 300 or 400mm lens like you have, you won't be all that close anyways.

    I see you have an E-M1. I'd be curious to see if the lens+adapter combo could deliver the full 6.5 FPS in "L" burst mode when shooting with C-AF enabled. That will really be the ultimate test IMO to determine if I can use this combo to take to the race track with me.
     
  9. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I wonder if IS would work?

    I also wonder if the bokeh difference is just more blur at f4 on the larger sensor.

    Good points otherwise.
     
  10. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    As much as I want this to work as well as the video's show, I am not believing it. You have a lens designed for PDAF and a camera which is CDAF, I would expect focus to work about the same as my 50-200 SWD on my EM5. They also use all focus points and it appears the camera just focuses on what ever it detects that is close to point that it has already focused on. It seems to me to be a very clever video to show what they want and not a real world use of it. But................we will see when some real reviews by real photographers show up.

    If it even works close to as well as my 4/3 lenses do on my EM1 I will be going to into the poor house as I order a Canon 400mm ƒ2.8, which is my dream focal length and speed for a lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. MarkoPolo

    MarkoPolo Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Jan 25, 2014
    Greeley, CO
    Mark Brown
    One thing I have learned using the Canon 400 mm f/5.6 manually, is that Oly's IBIS is at least as good as Canon's IS. You won't miss it!
     
  12. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    Very interested in this with the Canon 400 5.6. If it works as well as the 43 lenses and MMF3 on the E-M1, it will open up a lot of possibilities.
     
  13. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I would have a hard time believing IS wouldn't work. Metabones has an electronic adapter for EOS-M43 that enables electronic aperture control as well as IS, but doesn't support AF. This adapter from Kipon does the same thing (in theory), while also supporting AF.

    As for bokeh, I wasn't talking about the amount of blur, I was talking about the quality of the blur. Some of the photos I've seen of the 40-150 + TC have very harsh, distracting OOF renderings. This is typical when using rear teleconverters. The benefit of using the 70-200 f/4 L is that you get basically the same FoV, but the bokeh should be smoother because you're not using a TC like you are with the Olympus combo. Plus, Panasonic users like myself could pick up the copy with IS and have a stabilized 200mm f/4 lens with fantastic optics, an option not currently available with native lenses.
     
  14. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I wish they could make an adapter that works with Nikon lenses. I know it's possible because the Nikon 1 system has the FT-1 adapter that can focus with any AF-S lens.
     
  15. sesser

    sesser Zen Master

    490
    Mar 10, 2015
    Portland, OR
    randy
    Damn it! I had the 70-200 f/4L when I had my first Canon DSLR and that lens is short of amazing. I have the 50-200 SWD now and focusing, even on the E-M1, is nothing like native lenses or like the 70-200 was on an old Canon. If the Kipon works better than than the 50-200 + MMF3, I might be inclined to dump it in favor of a nice used copy of the 70-200. It might not be much shorter than the 50-200 + MMF-3 (currently ~ 13" with lens hood), BUT, the Canon doesn't extend when zooming and the lens hood is slightly smaller. :) Same filter size on both (67mm), but the 50-200 has a little more girth to it. IQ is probably pretty comparable but I'm betting the Canon renders better bokeh even on 4/3 sensors. The 50-200 can be quite harsh if you're not careful.
     
  16. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I don't think it will focus any better then the 4/3 lenses, probably about the same.
     
  17. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    I see why you're hesitant, but the videos show the AF speed to be pretty damn impressive on the CDAF-only GX7. Granted I wasn't thrilled that they used all the focus points, and I think it would have been better if they only used the central point to demonstrate AF speed & accuracy, but if it works the way it appears to in the videos, then it'll be damn impressive.

    I guess we'll find out since MarkoPolo is ordering one. Real world tests are the true tests of how effective a product is. I just hope this one lives up to its expectations.
     
  18. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I don't think I'd have much interest in using a big L zoom on my GX7, but I could see something like a 100mm f2 or 135L to use as an indoor sports\dance lens (Assuming tracking performance is reasonable).

    Canon also has some interesting macro options that would be attractive. I'm also thinking maybe this adapter plus some of the better old zooms could be a good combo. 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM for example.

    Unfortunately at $340 for the adapter, it's not really practical for one cheap lens.
     
  19. ijm5012

    ijm5012 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 2, 2013
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Ian
    @tkbslc@tkbslc, the adapter is $285, not $340. And depending on the lens you plan to use, it may be more cost effective (see my OP about the 70-200 f/4 L vs the 40-150 PRO + 1.4x TC).

    I think the big question is seeing how good the tracking capability is.
     
  20. JudyM

    JudyM Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 5, 2010
    Westminster, MD
    I'm very anxious to see if it works with the EF 400mm f5.6L at all. Metabones and other adapters have not been able to work with this lens. It's a shame, because it's such a terrific lens.