Metabones released a new Mark IV “Smart” adapter for Canon EF to E-mount. With the new version they’ve addressed the internal reflection issue with the Mark III adapter, and also improved the performance with tilt-shift lenses.
You can get the adapter at BHphoto or Metabones.
P.S.: Thanks Richard!
0 Responses
Cool.
Haven’t noticed any internal reflection issues in the mk iii but the IS in my 200/2L IS behaves a tad differently to how it does on a Canon body. Not a big issue though.
The bigger opening should help with tilt shift lenses as they say. But again with the TSE 17L, TSE 24L II, TSE 90 I haven’t noticed any issues.
I have experienced some contrast reducing reflections on the Mark III version on occasion. I did add flocking material and no longer have an issue.
The review, cited here:
http://www.iso72.de/metabones-sony-nex-smart-adapter-mark-iv-vs-mark-iii-sealed-comparsionreview/
seems to suggest that a modified mark III exhibits less internal reflection than the mark IV – I have not tested the veracity of that claim but the reviewer’s claim seems plausible to me.
On the other advertised change – the larger throat – I have not experienced issues with the mark III and either of Canon’s wide TS-Es (17 & 24), at even extreme shifts, so it’s not clear to me what the improvement is.
A couple of strange behaviors with these Metabones adapters:
A colleague recently purchased the mark IV (I have the flocked mark III).
1) My Canon 50/1.4 will not autofocus on the mark III but will on the mark IV (it functions properly in all other ways on the mark III though).
2) His Canon 300/1.4 IS will not function at all reliably on either of our samples of the adapter.
I find the autofocus with these adapters to be so slow as to not be usable (for me). I also don’t care as I always manually focus with this camera/adapter combination.
I have version II. Purpose is to go on my FS700 camera, with Super 35/APS-C sensor.
Is there any improvement that awaits me if I take Mk.IV ? I don’t intend to go on a full frame sensor (namely an A7r/s)
Thanks.
Having a reflection issue on such an expensive adapter is ridiculous to begin with. They should offer to update them for free.
It’s startling how many of these high end adapters have problems in this respect, be it Metabones or Novoflex. The only reason people don’t notice is that only a small portion does closeups. The problem with insufficiently shielded adapters will be instantly visible using any macro.
Why Sony does not wanted to make this adapter for EF-E mount and probably sell it much more cheaper to hook those Canon based…
their own LA-EA1, produced for 4 years, isn’t cheap: about as 50/1.8 DT price…
Err… maybe because it promotes the use of another manufacturer’s lenses and not their own? Maybe because it wouldn’t be any cheaper because it’s a low volume product?
Just a thought.
There is already a review here : http://www.iso72.de/metabones-sony-nex-smart-adapter-mark-iv-vs-mark-iii-sealed-comparsionreview/ for some time… Not very impressive.
Raoul
Isn’t it amazing that an adapter costs more than some of the E mount bodies?
Not really, given the R&D involved, and the relatively low numbers they will sell. This is a niche product. Do the maths.
A low volume product in the same category is the Leica S adapter and some of them even allow real AF.
Not enough information to know exactly what adapter you are referring to, so I can’t respond to that.
Let’s hope Novoflex will do better… some day.
I have the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24, and with the MB III, I was getting internal reflections and loss of contrast under specific lighting conditions, which is mostly gone on the IV. Contrary to the review posted below, I am noticing better sharpness in shifted areas with the IV as well. Again, these improvements are with the tilt-shifts. With non tilt-shifts, I doubt there are any improvements.
Still find Metabones too expensive.
Honestly, the Metabones adapter is okay. I have the Mark III and it works, although it’s nothing to write home about…my opinion. The autofocus is useless. If I had the opportunity again, I, would have gone with a manual focus contender. Manual focus on the a7r is a pleasure.
The Canon version will support af with native Cannon lenses but not with Tamron or Sigma Canon mount lenses.