This is a guest post by Dierk Topp. Feel free to send me yur articles to be posted on SAR at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com. Thanks!
Why I use Canon mount DSLR lenses with Metabones smart adapter for my A7R
by Dier Topp
If you still have and use a Nikon DSLR, you may just ignore the whole post 🙂
If not, here are my experiences.
I have been Nikon DSLR user for about 25 years and sold all Nikon gear with one exception about two years ago. At that time I used NEX cameras for a while already and enjoyed the versatility of the small system. I could use my Nikon and Leica lenses with adapters (with the well known color problems with wide Leica lenses).
And I bought the fantastic Canon 17mm TS-E tilt/shift lens, for what I have always been jealous of the Canon shooters. Befor the A7 was available, I used my Leica M9 as my only FF camera with the 17mm Canon and used the trick described below with an old defective Canon body, that I got for free. After I got the A7R I used the 17mm on it with the Metabones smart adapter and have control of the electronic aperture.
I also got a F-E adapter from Metabones for my Nikkor lenses, all manual of course. I don’t know, if special G adapters where available at that time. The 24mm PC-E tilt/shift Nikkor could only be used, when mounted on a Nikon body, stopped down there and taken out while stopped down. This is no solution for practical use at all and I sold the 24mm too.
After the good experiences with the Metabones smart adapter for Canon ZE mount I decided last year to buy the new OTUS 1,4/85mm with this Canon adapter. Zeiss advised me, to get the new version of the Metabones IV too. When I got the OTUS and the new adapter, I was so exited of the function, that I ordered the Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100mm the same day. The Makro-Planar was my dream lens for a long time and the price was about the same as I payed for the legendary Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100/2.8 with manual aperture control. So I will sell it again.
I don’t have any connections to Metabones or Zeiss. I bought all gear on these page in normal stores for my personal use.
Why Metabones adapter?
from the Metabones page:
– “True electronic integration of aperture diaphragm – let camera automatically choose aperture in P or S exposure modes, or dial in yourself on the camera body in A or M modes.”
they say further:
– Autofocus is supported, with the following known limitations.
– Autofocus speed is very slow and inadequate for most moving subjects.
– The autofocus speed is unfit for professional use for sure, and it would disappoint most enthusiasts.
30.000 pixel wide!
this only makes sense, when you want the option for huge prints 🙂
On several sites and at youtube (for example this one) you find very strange arguments against the Metabones AF performance. They can’t even have looked at the Metabones page at all, otherwise they would not have expected perfect AF performance.
multi row stitch of 8 images, 170 MP
I don’t know, if there is any adapter out, that supports Canon lenses on the A7 with high AF performance and automatic aperture?
Why not for example Novoflex:
https://www.novoflex.com/en/products/adapters/adapter-finder/
for Canon they support only Canon FD!
for Nikon E-F adapters, Novoflex says:
– “The models …… are equipped with an integrated aperture control ring and can also be used with lenses that do not come with manual aperture control ring anymore.”
With this manual aperture control ring it is not possible to select an exact f-stop! How do you shoot portraits in a studio with flash, focus open and then stop down with a guessed aperture and keep the measured flash light correct: simply not possible!
In addition you need an extra tripod mount:
– “When combining larger or heavier lenses with mirrorless cameras on a tripod, we recommend the use of the adapter collars” the extra price is 99€.
My conclusion is, that I use the smart adapter from metabones and lenses with Canon mount and I am glad, that Zeiss offers their great lenses with Canon ZE mount :-))
Some examples of the use of Metabones smart adapter
Zeiss OTUS Apo Planar 1.4/85mm
my album with many more images on flickr
more on this lens in a previous post here at SAR
the lens on Metabones IV adapter
the adapter is mounted on the tripod and there is no weight on the mount of the camera
two soft boxes, test with f/2
Canon 17mm/4 TS-E tilt/shift
my album with many more images on flickr
more info on the use of this lens here at Steve Huff
thanks for looking and any critical comments 🙂
dierk
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/
118 Responses
Man, i want something similar to 100 f2 semi macro too. I want it to replace my 135 F2L as i know that 135 F2 can’t made to be small for FF.
But the zeiss one is out of my budget and also MF only.
Minolta?
I love the results, but IMO for architecture the ideal solution is the H-Cam Master TS 14-24mm (Nikon WA zoom lens with sawed-off hood), which provides shifting free from parallax (the camera shifts rather than the lens). This also provides tilt & shift with the full range of focal lengths from 14-24mm. It’s expensive, but still less than buying both Canon 17 & 24mm T-S lenses plus an adapter. https://www.facebook.com/122001131245665/photos/pb.122001131245665.-2207520000.1425265480./580181708760936/?type=3&theater
Correct for the pricing. Canon 17&24 TS plus Metabones is currently at 4.150 €; HCAM Master TS at 3.449 €.
The difference is obvious. You may use the Canons via adapter handheld – that is not possible with the Hartblei Master TS.
this is no alternative at all!!
The 14-24 Nikkor (I used one for 5 years) was made for the FF images circle and offers a tiny larger image circle at medium focal lengths. You can watch the same effect with the Sony 10-18mm on a FF A7 camera.
it says: “it can be shifted by up to 10mm at the lens’ 18mm setting, and a little
less below and beyond that setting due to the smaller image circle at
these focal lengths.”
A few mm shift at about 18mm focal length seams to be useless for this price and this 1kg heavy monster, at least for me.
That’s interesting, *if* it works. Are there any full size sample pictures or hands on reviews for this system? I don’t like to spend a few thousand bucks in something that won’t work well.
Sony makes an laea4 adapter for A mount to E mount that provides rekatively fast autofocus.
This can of course be updated to be even faster.
It would be a great addition for consumers if this type of adapter were made for Canon and/or Nikon to E mount.
You have clearly demonstrated the advantages of being able to use the vast selection of Canikon glass on E mount cameras, but the addition of fast autofocus would be so much more usefull to many of us.
Nice review and excellent photos. Much appreciated.
I too use the Metabones IV with both Otus lenses, along with the ZE135/2 APO. No disrespect, but I believe I’m getting sharper results than what you show in the 100% crops. It’s quite incredible. The Otus 55 and ZE135 are a little sharper than the Otus 85, if you can believe that. These lenses are so contrasty that magnification and focus peaking aren’t even needed for guilt free wide open shooting.
Some issues I have… first of all, the a7R lens mount is terrible. The plastic flanges have great difficulty holding onto the adapter and large lenses. Not a problem if using tripod on Metabones adapter. But handholding feels like a fragile toy compared to native mounting. Pros don’t like treating their equipment like delicate Faberge eggs.
Thankfully the Sony a7II has much more stable lens mount by far. All adapters fit snug and tight without any wobbles or flex at all. Now please Sony… man up and admit the a7R design flaw. Recall the camera to fit a proper lens mount. Good PR move to build loyalty amongst the pros.
Problem with the Metabones adapter is that the tripod socket is so small and low, making it difficult to get clearance on robust heads. I like the design of some of the cheaper Chinese adapters better, with taller tripod base.
BTW… I also own the ZA135/1.8 and Samyang 135/2. Comparison shows them both equal to sharpness of the ZE135/2. But that’s not the end of the story. The Samyang, although having absolutely ZERO CA, is not true f2.0 compared to the others. More like an f/2.6 even wide open. Big difference. Also, the Samyang color is terribly dark yellow, almost orange. Makes for difficult pure color when shooting under tungsten lighting. All the other Samyangs are very neutral. For some reason the 135/2 has ugly yellow color compared to its brethren, and especially compared to the other Zeiss. The Samyang is also a little shorter focal length compared to the others, seeming more like a 130mm… which a little rougher bokeh. But, it sure is sharp and free of CA no doubt. A pleasure to use with internal focus.
The ZA135/1.8 has more CA than either of the other two 135’s. Pretty much gone by f2.8 though. But… even at f2.0, it’s brighter than the ZE135/2 APO by about 1/4 stop and about 3/4 of a stop brighter than Samyang wide open. The ZA is even brighter still when fully open at f1.8, with even more bokeh defocus. The ZA focuses closer than either the Samyang or ZE 135’s.
By f2.8, all of the lenses seem to give nearly exact exposures. But the Samyang still has the ugly yellow orange color no matter what aperture used. It’s weird that the other Sammy’s don’t have that color.
The ZE and ZA have virtually identical color balances. Extremely neutral and contrasty. Pure whites and blacks, and are a great match for the other ZA’s and Otus lenses. Good color match for the Minolta 100/2 and 200/2.8 lenses too, which are practically just as sharp for all intents, but a little less contrast wide open.
I can’t wait for the day Canon releases high MP mirrorless with native EF mount. On that day I shall shed myself of E-mount toys and adapters, and go back to a world without wobbles with both Canon and my trusty Sony A-Mount.
Yeah, forget about using tripod on any lens adapter when vertical battery grip is attached to any a7 series camera. Terrible design.
It would work on my tripods without problems.
Show me please. I can’t get a tripod head into the small space between battery grip handle and lens adapter mount. Not with Metabones IV, or any LAEA 1 thru 4. Using small manfroto screw in ball head and/or Benro plate head.
I mean just look at the photo of camera above. Where is the battery grip handle supposed to fit in that?
Works fine for me, A7S with grip and Metabones.
Lovely captures with the 17mm! Looks like you’ve created a killer combo!
Now all he needs to do is become creative and leave the calculator at home!
Metabones Mark IV support ONLY APS-C format. No FF!!! For FF you have to search for other adapter. I don’t know where…..
Rubbish, where do you even get this nonsense? It clearly says on the website the IV version is especially updated for Fullframe use. I have been using it on my A7S for 8 months, autofocus is not fantastic and sometimes the stupid has a software crash but it works.
Metabones IV works great with full frame.
They sell the speed booster, which changes FF to APS-C, and another one that is directly FF, right? Are you getting them mixed up?
the images here made with the Canon 17mm are all made with the Metabones III adapter.
A truly dull article with (in my opinion) compositionally mediocre, but technically well executed images. Seems that the creativity got partly lost somewhere in the concentration on adapters, and over excitement about automatic apertures etc.
It is not really an article, just a summation to show off some pictures and flickr link, very much in the SAR style which usually has any bit of news as an excuse to post affiliate links 🙂 as for Dirk’s complaint about aperture and flash settings: hey how about this, how about you use a bit of creativity and shoot some test shots, see how it looks and go for it. Its photography, not maths.
….the work screams “Hobbyfotograf”
At least his hobby has something to do with photography, most peoples hobby here is trash talk whatever brand they don’t own.
I own a Sony A7R which is why I know the camera (or rather the photographer) is capeable of so much more. Regardless of the brand the creativity in these images is lacking due to pure mathematicsl concentration on maths, apertures, adapters, HDR, 1-1 close-ups etc. The article is nothing more than an effort to promote his work and Flickr page. Nothing wrong with that…but an interesting read it isn’t.
Care to share your works ABC?
Whether or not I choose to share my work is my decision. To avoid a backlash due to my perhaps negative, but honest comments it probably isn’t a good idea that I provide a link.
Technically the photos are good….but I’m missing interesting subjects, composition, lighting etc. They look like stilted images from a technical photography manual from circa 2001. That’s fine if that’s the style you are striving for, but what I’m missing is more creativity. That seems to have got lost beneath the technically mathematic science aspect of photography. Perhaps I’m asking too much, but more creative images would have made this guest post/article (call it what you will) of interest to far more peole.
ABC (who ever hides behind this)
if you miss creativity, why don’t you just sit down and write about your creative work and post it here.
It is of course a bit more work than just writing a view anonymous lines here and you expose yourself and your work to some critics of other posters.
German huh? You got criticised and you cannot take it. Loving it…
“thanks for looking and any critical comments dierk”
You invited them, actually, so don’t complain. Besides, writing a list of things you did the way you did it is about 10 minutes work. I don’t mind the photographs as much,I like the attention to detail. But I definitely think the writing is lazy and just an excuse to showcase your work, I know you can do a lot better.
p.s.
That Canon 17TS is one of their best lenses.
Dear Dirk
Firstly thanks for the reply. I am not hiding as you put it but choosing to use the “guest option” to log into the site as provided
You asked for criticism, the response I gave I feel was constructive and certainly not rude as some of the other comments posted here today could be considered to be.
If you want contructive criticism and feedback then you have to be prepared to accept that not everyone here will find your work “exciting” or “impressive” as perhaps your friends and family. Photography as an artform is very much subjective and everyone has their own perception of good, bad or even average. I felt the choice of subject matter and lighting in your images to be nothing I haven’t seen thousands of times before. I’m sorry if I offended you with my comments, but you asked for criticism and I replied. I felt somewhere in the photographic process your enthusiam for technical and almost mathematical accuracy very often hindered the creative output.
If I wanted to post my work for criticism as you have done then I would choose to write an article. However if I were to do this there would be two key differences:
a) I would select work which I considered to be creative and interesting and not necessarily those which were the most technically accurate, or mathematically executed.
b) I would accept both good and both bad criticism as long as it was constructive and reasonable.
You appear to be a very technically accomplished photographer. In my opinion those you could benefit from trying to explore your creative side more than you technical knowledge. I think your photography would benefit from it. You have the technical skills already….so get out there and enjoy your photography. The A7R is a fine camera
Kind Regards
Matt
Apologies for mis-spelling your name Dierk. That wasn’t intentional and I can no longer edit the post
If you read my comment below you will find I said exactly the same thing: “It is not really an article, just a summation to show off some pictures and flickr link, very much in the SAR style which usually has any bit of news as an excuse to post affiliate links 🙂 as for Dirk’s complaint about aperture and flash settings: hey how about this, how about you use a bit of creativity and shoot some test shots, see how it looks and go for it. Its photography, not maths.”
So I guess this is the end of SAR: two people agreeing on something.
Yes I agree 😉
Is your work “Hobbyprofessional” DEF? I’d like to see it.
Why don’t you start by showing your work?
Uh, I’m just an amateur bro. I don’t have “work” to show. I’m wondering why DEF is so judgmental. Now you too Bob?
Anyway, thanks dierk for posting this helpful article. Hope to see more, cause I’m surely not going to see anything from ABC, DEF, or Bob except judgmental armchair complaints… LOLosers.
Calling people you don’t know “losers” for voicing their opinions in response to someone who asked for criticism is pretty pathetic if you ask me…..
These are exactly the kind of photos I want to see when reading an article evaluating hardware. So while your opinion is fine, mine is the polar opposite.
Look at this weird ad I see on this page http://s12.postimg.org/lxcdakvgt/Screenshot_2015_03_02_18_49_50.png
I’ve noticed many ultra wide lens designs just don’t function as well with the a7r / metabones compared to a native Nikon or Canon mount. Usually the corners get smeary.
Alik,
the ultra wide lenses with problems are rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigltlander…).
No problems with DSLR lenses, they have a different construction. The only rangefinder lens, I know of, That works on the A7x is the Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21/4.
I know that’s what I thought, but I was having issues with that new Tamron 15-30. I think it has to do with a certain design. Because I notice on that Tamron the rear element sits further back than my Canon ultra wide.
lol… so this is an article that tells ppl you can get mediocre pictures even with some of the most expensive gears! heck~ nothing he posted can’t be done with either Canon, Nikon or Sony Alpha system. What a waste of time!
troll hard tolling
i totally agree… the pictures are boring, with badly managed colors… and i would have never guessed, that somebody abused a 55/1.4 zeiss on such crappy shots
“and i would have never guessed” – that somebody is posting here, who can not read, it is the 85mm OTUS 🙂
What did you expect? Those pics are boring and they cost a lot of money to take. I would advise you to buy “photography for dummies” but that would cause you offense, no doubt…
Translation:
I’m so jealous! I wish I had your gear. And a bigger willy!
Don’t project your own emotions on other people, the reality is great gear doesn’t make you creative or vice versa. dierk should leave all his fancy gear at home and go crazy with his phone for a few months.
The fact you need a 100% crop to show what is so special about the otus already means it makes zero difference online which lens you use, it is about creativity.
I enjoyed the crops very much.
Dierk, don’t worry about it man. These losers can’t post their own article because all they come here to do is complain. It’s obvious many of these commenters are the same person talking to their self.
I thought your post was well done and helpful. Keep up the good work!
Great article!
I’m just an amateur learning everyday to become a better photographer and recently bought an A7 II.
Expensive
lenses are not “yet” something for me but I understand professional
photographers need those high end lenses and adapters.
I bought a 100 Euro Vitrox II adapter together with a 300 Euro Tamron 70-300 and I am very, very satisfied with the result!
I
just want to say that it does not always need to be expensive stuff to
get good results. This set is of course not usable for moving objects
with AF but the metabones isn’t any better in autofocus in combination
with EF lenses.
Strange thing is I get best results with lens
stabilization on and on the A7 II using stabilization on, manual setting
at 70mm even if I use 200mm zoom.
Attached a picture of this combination and an example.
F 6,3, 1/400, iso320, 161mm
I am using a Commlite Canon EF-E Mount adapter with my A7II. It supports both AF and electronic aperture control. It also records correct EXIF data, and adjusts the IBIS focal length automatically. I use it with my Canon 200L f/2.8 II.
I bought it from Amazon for $99.
What a waste of gear…
Do you say the same thing every time someone drives past in a Porsche doing the speed limit?
Driving the speed limit is being sensible and not the best example of what the driver can do. This is a selection of highlights dirk picked to show off his work, so this is the best he can do. Do you always try to be clever with terrible examples?
unless he’s doing the speed limit around a tight corner?!
I always drive the speed limit around tight corners, is there a problem with that? Perhaps it is too creative? 🙂
Hhahaha no you dont!! you’re actually 12 years old!!!
You mean it makes me feel 12 years old? I wish, when you get your drivers license and step away from the playstation II, get a job and get some money to buy a real car you will find out it is easy to do a 50kph hairpin turn, not with the terrible passat diesel your dad drives
Ah shit! I have no come back for that one. You win this fight Bob! I’ll be back….(when i get my license)
haha what a stupid example, you drive at the speed limit because you have to, not because it is all the guy in the Porsche can do. This is all dierk can do with the camera, most people can do the same with their iPhone.
Now pls show what you can do with either the Sony A7R + good lenses or your iPhone! Thanks for a portfolio URL.
Why do you ask for other people to show their portfolio when you don’t show one yourself?
You’re the one who complains about “a waste of gear” and that “most people can do the same with their iPhone”. You should prove to be in the right position for such harsh comments or be more more polite. Not everybody is interested in shooting styled models on a beach, or whatever you prefer.
Not every opinion has to be validated by a portfolio, but then again if you knew anything about art of photography you would know that. Give me your phone number and I will call you and tell you the URL.
no but I say this when I see someone driving in a Porsche 20 mph BELOW the speed limit and doesn’t know how to use a stick shift.
yet just another metabones advertising. glad there’s BETTER and A LOT CHEAPER alternatives.
Without actual names or links this is not really helpful? What ARE those LOT CHEAPER alternatives?
your IQ isn’t enough to make a web search? 🙁 poor boy, anyway, I use Commlite. Bought it for 70€. I compared head to head with the metabones. same speed. no difference whatsoever except metabones had a pricetag for retards. but there’s many more alternatives.
Well I googled “A LOT CHEAPER alternatives.” and all I got was a picture of your mom which said BJ’s $3
Oh good, more attitude and non info, “Compared head to head with the metabones. same speed.” What are you talking about? The electronic EF / FE adapter? The Speedbooster? I know it is hard for you to write a complete sentence, but maybe you try instead of posting dumb reactionary crap. If your Image Quality can handle such a thing.
What is wrong with Pisso’s Image quality? What kind of Image quality do you need to do a web search and why is it so hard for you to actually post some real information instead of some general capslock nonsense?
Try this one:
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-lens-mount-adapters/
thanks Dirk,
this a great compendium about adapters. But I missed the described advantage of the electronic aperture. I missed that in all the posts about adapters, that I found. That was the reason, why I decided to write about it (but got misunderstood from many).
There are no cheaper alternatives that perform as well unless you have crap lenses to begin with. I’ve tried one of the cheaper alternatives and if I just stuck the junkie kit lens on it then yes it was pretty much as good as a metabones speedbooster… but when you stuck on better glass you saw that wasn’t as it made everything softer than it should have been… If you are just talking adapters then I might agree…
yes there’s a lot cheaper alternatives. I’ve tried it side by side. you work for metabones?
Name one… The only specific alternative I’ve seen mentioned was not a speedbooster type lens it was simply an adapter with electronics which as I mentioned is no better or worse than a metabones adapter… but with speedbooster the knock-offs are not as good… if you think the knockoff speedbooster are as good then I question you vision.
do you lack the basic ability to perform a web search? I use commlite. costed me 70€. Don’t know why the admin keeps deleting it.
Because the last version started with, “your IQ isn’t enough to make a web search? 🙁 poor boy…”
Because the commlite is not a speedbooster it is just an adapter can you not read what I wrote? I was talking about the speedbooster type adapters that use lenses to make a crop lens into a full frame lens… as I also noted if you were simply talking about adapters which apparently you are then I agree there are other options beyond metabones and none really have any advantage over the other since they do not have any optics involved.
…kinda nice and reassuring to see that money can’t buy ‘magic’ or ‘talent’. This clearly shows that even the very best lenses and most expensive gear won’t be able to cover for any lack of photographic talent. Actually the opposite is the case, it only amplifies how mediocre and dull these photos are. There’s not one that is good. Sorry to be so direct, and normally I don’t comment when a photographer simply tries to do the best he can. But since this post comes across as a super expensive gear show-off disguised as technical lecture that is apparently about why he sold all his expensive Nikon gear, I felt inclined to write this comment.
How about you feel inclined to write something helpful to others, rather than just pass judgement. Yes you are entitled to express your opinion. But your opinion doesn’t help anyone except yourself to feel better. Dierk’s post helps others who are considering this equipment, and has potential to inspire people to get out and actually shoot, like he is.
thanks!
My main goal with this article was, to make people think twice before buying a lens with a lens, that can not control the aperture! Not more than that.
As said, I tried to select some images, that can illustrate this advantage.
This was not intended to be a picture exhibition.
dierk — if someone posts 20+ images, carefully frames each photo in black and white borders, titles them, lists multiple flicker links of himself, then, yes, it is a picture exhibition and self-promotion.
It certainly looked like an online gallery — which is okay, but it is a bit unusual on a rumor site. And you have to understand, if you do this, you open yourself to criticism. Something about your post obviously backfired, as it drew such widespread criticism. Not sure what it was, but maybe it was simply too obvious that the thin metabones angle was only secondary. Your whole post comes across – and i believe this was not intentional – as a rather complacent lecture of an arrogant photo snob who ditched his Nikon gear to go mirrorless and now brags about using the world’s most adored and expensive lenses with an adapter. Each of these lenses are legendary, capable of producing astonishing results, and most of us dream of owning only one of your lenses one day — and yet, with all these lenses at your disposal somehow you managed to show us 20+ photos that are uninteresting, flawed and mediocre at best. Next time if you post 20 of your images on a rumor site, be a bit less complacent, reduce your flicker links, tone down your self promotion and please show us some great images that inspire. Good luck!
You hit the nail bang on the head with that summary. That’s exactly how I read this post. Dierk did himself no favors with his responses on here either. Bragging about 9 million viewers on Flickr (mostly due to such posts on sites like this) just confirmed the “arrogant photo snob” image.
Seems if you own a Canon TS 17mm, Otus 85mm, and a Zeiss 100mm f2 macro for kicks, that invokes a lot of jalousy around here.. :D. Nevertheless, I think Dirk knows how to use them well.
Next time hope to see some Leica examples on a Sony A7xy here as well..
Always the same.
People assuming the right to unsubstantial judge somebodies work being bad.
Instead of presenting the opinion clearly indicated as your personal impressions, you are limiting your post to an affront.
First of all arts is something individual. So is photography. Images are supposed to tell a story. And Dierk is telling his story.
If you don’t like it – fair enough to post your opinion. But as many here are not that addicted to perfectionism as you indicate to be – please share your reasons, why these pictures are mediocre or dull for you. It may help some.
Hey Dierk, thanks for posting this man. Really helpful and I enjoyed your images. Good to see someone out in the field actually shooting with the gear and getting great results!
And I’m really sorry SAR has been overrun by so much negativity. I remember when photography didn’t suffer such narcissistic attitudes, and the community was built upon helping others by sharing knowledge. We’ll have to look elsewhere for that now.
Should be obvious that many of the comments below come from the same person, or two. Folks who would do well to go out and get some exercise. Not good for the mental health to sit behind a computer passing judgment upon a world that they don’t ever see beyond their keyboard. Keep posting Dierk. Your example might get someone inspired. And others less fortunate can enjoy real photo experiences through you. Woe to the mental health of one who teaches them self to sit around and complain all day.
Hope to see more soon Dierk!
Admin made a mess of the disqus settings, the trolls have the option to voted down so many serious registered contributors that they now get auto deleted for spamming whatever they post.
The result is almost all unregistered users trolling because it is easier then being serious.
This is the real problem on this site, and because the @ holes have the upper hand a lot don’t really care anymore about posting sensible info.
…So you too don’t understand the meaning of constructive criticism. If people can’t accept anything but positive comments then they really shouldn’t post their work here and ask for feedback. Positive and negative feedback are equally as valuable.
I’m sure I’m not alone in my opinion that whilst the choice of images shows a great deal of technical aptitude and skill, the choice of images is somewhat banal and unoriginal. I mean at least three of those images are almost identical self-portraits!!! Whilst they might show the quality of a particular lens, it’s not exactly a true indication of someone’s creativity or the best way to show the breadth of someone’s photographic portfolio is it?
I sure hope that if we are to see more of Dierk’s work that he takes some of these comments onboard……..
You’re really talented at telling people what they don’t understand ABC.
self portraits is funny!
A self portrait with f/1.4 or f/2 with exact focus seems to be very difficult (I did not use my tablet for remote control!)
OK. Then please replace the word “self” with “repetitive” portraits if they aren’t of you. Were you asking us to judge the quality of your selected images or just the quality of the lenses? What was the intention of this article?
Egal, die von Ihnen ausgewählten Bilder mögen technisch gut zu sein aber wie der Artikel wirken sie leider etwas banal.
ok. one more answer.
I tried to explain it several times. With no word I was asking for any judgment of the images. The images are there as examples of the use of these lenses under different conditions. It seems, that most readers did not understand this and I did not make it clear enough.
That is also the reason, why I used the two portraits with both lenses to show the different effect of the lenses.
with “any critical comments” I was expecting more comments on the use of adapters, but that is not the case.
Could have been an interesting conversation 🙁
I don’t have to apologize, that I am in the lucky position of owning such fantastic gear – after dreaming of things like this for almost 60 years now!!
I really don’t understand so many aggressive comments. Why do you not just click away, if you don’t like the images?
Almost no comment on the main topic, the use of automatic aperture with adapted lenses!
Do you feel better, when you comment on images or posts, that you don’t like? I feel sorry for you.
My main message is, that the use of an adapter, that supports automatic aperture is a big advantage over manual aperture, this is, what I wanted to share – not more. And instead of writing just this I tried to illustrate it with some examples for the three Canon mount lenses, that I
own. The selected images shall illustrate, what I am writing about and not the best creative image, that you can do with this lens (I love the f/2 close ups of the fruits!)
If you think, you have much better examples, why just not sit down and offer SAR your work!
It is a bit more effort than just write a few lines of unfriendly or
useless comments – and you expose yourself and you work to the public
and may get unqualified or rude comments too.
One last comment: I have almost 9 million views on my images on flickr and really don’t need any extra from here.
dierk
9 million views achieved in part from writing poorly structured articles with the sole purpose of promoting your photographic “talents” on Flickr.
If you can’t accept criticism then you really should think again before submitting such an article and uninspiring images on this site.
I question the inclusion of such articles by Andrea (Admin)….this is neither an informative review, nor a rumour nor a particularly interesing example of creative photography and clearly if you have no interest in engaging with any constructive conversation regarding criticism voiced here then what really was the point of asking people for your feedback?
Sorry to be so blunt and sorry if you think I am being unfair, but otherwise there is simply no chance the message will get through.
You’re not being blunt, so don’t be sorry. But you are being ridiculous. So just be gone and take your narcissistic attitude back to the friends you once had and apologize for it. Really ABC… Go out and meet some people. Say nice things to a few of them and be more supportive. You might actually leave this world with somebody who liked you.
“.” clearly you have no concept of what “narcissistic” actually means. It means someone who loves themself…the only person I see who meets that description here is Dierk whose self-obsession with his own work and inability to accept anything other than praise and attention (which surely was the real reason for this “article”) is a clear example if this.
He is clearly blinded by this narcissitic mentality that he simply can’t accept anyone who questions the quality of his photographic output. Clearly the appreciation of 9 million Flickr viewers has gone to his head.
This is my last comment. I don’t normally make a habit of this, I have real friends, and I am in real life a nice person believe it or not. But I had to respond and provide my opinion. Quite simply I’m astounded that no one sees that someone who can’t take any form of criticism and posts such rushed-out and not particularly informative guest “artcle” is waisting his (and my) time here.
You love hearing yourself speak your own opinions that nobody but yourself cares about. Ever heard of gaslighting… when the narcissist is called out, then points to others as being narcissist. Clever devil ABC.
By your standards, everyone who shares their photo knowledge in public is a narcissist. But those who complain about it are performing a public service. Nice try psycho.
Now let’s see if you can keep your promise of “This is my last comment”… Of course you could revive one of your other user names to trick us all again. Think of it more as a personal challenge to move along quietly.
Hey give ABC a break! He/She is entitled to have an opinion. I agree with ABC. Just look at the rest of the Flickr photos. They are mostly boring – lots of photos of the same thing lacking color and flair. I expect more because it is expensive gear he is using. This user report isn’t written very well either. But perhaps it’s a language thing as Dierk is not a native speaker. But hey, everyone is entitled to have an opinion….it seems you all think the images are great 😉
Oh but Dierk, that’s the point, ABC doesn’t have anything better to do except steal your attention away from everything you’re good at and planning for future. Don’t mess with ABC no more. She’s just not worth the attention. But she’s obviously decided that you are worth her attention. Probably has a crush on you dude. Player!
Hi,
I spent some time looking at your images Dierk. I like most the photos of the festival in Reinfeld. Amazing low light performance from the A7R. Well captured and manually focussed too.
I was also suprised by the negative comments here, but be honest getting Flickr hits is the reason you are here right?
I checked out your stats album on Flickr…. looking at the stats It’s no coincidence the increased Flickr clicks coincide with the date of one of your first posts on this site early in 2014. 6 or 7 million of those clicks are because of your postings here. Perhaps if I were retired I’d have the time to do the same and increase interest for my photos. Hey I don’t blame you…but you are here to get more attention aren’t you? Thats how it looked to me. Lol
Anyway keep taking the great photos and don’t take the negative comments too seriously
Graham
honest answer:
anybody, who uploads images into the web is expecting a positive resonance, I assume. That applies for me too. But images are a matter of taste and that is very good. Otherwise we all would make the same type of images – and that would be very boring indeed!
I take any serious and constructive serious!
But comments like “all images are boring” or “a wast of money” are more than unqualified and don’t bother me too much. They speak aginst the writer, who hides behind a pseudonym most of the time.
If I take and process a picture and it comes out like I visualized it before, I am happy – simple as that. If others enjoy looking at it, even better.
OK. “Boring” was perhaps not the best description. I’ll explain: You often take a series of images of the same thing where a single (the best) image would do. The subject is often very ordinary and nothing in the photograph such as color, lighting, composition raises the quality of the photo above average. Many images seem to be heavily processed – I assume some are HDR? Fine, but I don’t enjoy those images.
Be happy honest pal, it’s all just a sloppy effort to get more hits? Your article didn’t add much to the discussion – too little content and too much “copy and paste” from manufacturer websites!
So you show your work that we get oh so impressed about. I enjoyed Dirk’s shots very much. And the tomato f2 macro thingy was just ultra cool. Also liked the portraits as well as the general lenses infos… Thanks Dirk!
Unfortunately the comments section of SAR is almost entirely populated by trolls. Any post will automatically attract comments complaining about RAW compression, lens size, the lack of FE lenses, lack of firmware updates, opinionated ranting and/or general insult slinging and complaining. If you were after constructive criticism, this isn’t the place to come.
That said, you’ve got some nice shots there. I particularly like the B&W architectural shots. But I do find the colours a little too subdued in a few. Though I’m viewing this on a terrible monitor so that may just be me.
Don’t read too much into the comments you get here. As a beginner to photography the quality of comments on SAR made me want to have nothing to do with the photographic community. This really is the single worst comment section on any site I frequent, including cesspools like youtube.
Quite an interesting article, thanks for posting it. Always good to get different perspectives – I had always thought that Canon lenses were less desirable in terms of future proofing / adapting because of the aperture issue (compared to say ZF lenses, old Rollei and Contax lenses, M mount lenses etc) so it’s good to see how others make it work for them. Being able to use the 17mm TS lens is obviously a huge advantage for Sony shooters.
Many people seem quite angry about it from reading the comments! It was clearly an article addressing a fairly dry technical question so I don’t see anything wrong with the photos posted; it wasn’t an article about finding amazing light etc. My only complaint is I wish the photos were a bit larger – the Brenizer panorama of the tree looks lovely and the last panorama too. The photos are technically well shot though my preference for TS lenses is not to correct buildings quite so much. I find the lighting of the portraits a bit flat (the one exception being the window-lit scene which is lovely – I think with strobes and softboxes there is too much temptation to light the person’s face so well and so evenly that we lose the drama and contrast) but that’s just down to everyone’s taste being different.
Check out Ken Rockwell and see the photos of his kids that he takes with $10,000 of gear that are no better than the photos others get on iphones. Or visit diglloyd – has anyone ever seen a single great photo he has made? They are extremely bland and uninteresting but then people visit because while he might have no artistic talent and flair he understands the technology and tests things well. Compared to those two the photos here are great. So thanks Dierk, I enjoyed your article.
Yes… I enjoyed it too. Thanks Dierk… I’ll be looking for more of your posts in the future.
thanks very much, Jimmy!
Somehow the links in the article got mixed up.
Here is the OTUS:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/sets/72157648057411871/
and here is a direct link to “Brenizer” tree in the uploaded size:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/15556830202/sizes/o/
and to make it complete, here are the two other album links.
the Zeiss Makro-Planar:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/sets/72157648269906615/
the Canon 17mm TS-E:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/sets/72157633127554716/
Dierk,
With so much experience and fine lenses at your disposal how are you able to get past Sony’s 11+7 bit compression and 20% loss of resolution due to astigmatism?
Honest question looking for an honest answer.
Anton
a bit OT:
I don’t own a D810 and can not compare. I read, that you can see it only in extreme monochrome areas, for example in the sky.
Where did you read about “20% loss of resolution due to astigmatism”?
to my knowledge astigmatism is a problem of the optical system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astigmatism
Lloyd Chambers, Roger Cicala and others have documented it to sensor glass thickness. I quantified it at 19.8% with Imatesting recently with the 135mm Apo Sonnar and prior Imatest results with Zeiss Otus 55, 85 and Apo Sonnar 135mm.
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2015/20150116_0838-SonyA7R-sensor-glass-thickness.html
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54411950
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses
My 2 cents – https://sonyvnikon.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/zeiss-apo-sonnar-135mm-imatest-on-sony-a7r-and-nikon-d810/
thanks Anton!
now I kenn you wedder :-))
this FM thread is helpful
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1267511/2
And yet there are so many FM’ers producing excellent work on A7R’s. Where do you think you are going wrong with your approach/working method here?
Whilst I am always grateful for people who spend so much time on detailed analysis and I also consider it important that these things should be monitored….to be honest though, I really struggle to find this noticeable. Even in your tests you only show graphs. Can you show some examples where this is actually noticeable in practice rather than theory?
Thanks