DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
B :smoke3
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Micro Four-Thirds (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter JGobeil
- Start date
B :smoke3
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
Now, to continue this comparison.... what happens in the "real world"? The above test was done inside with no air movement or distortion, artificial light, and at a relatively short distance, though 9-10 meters is not unusual outside. Here is what happens in bright sunlight, at a distance of about 25 meters, slightly windy and the ground warming up a bit. 90/600 (three elements) vs. Canon 400/5.6 + 1.4x Extender III (14 elements!... the new 100-400 II + TC has 28!!)
View attachment 562802 View attachment 562803
So which is which? (Hint: the one with slightly more CA is the Canon...)
See what a little too much air can do to a 0.97 Strehl scope?
Now, lets pretend it is a bird hopping around looking for its breakfast. Here the setup that can get the job done quickly wins, and that is the E-M1+Canon/Metabones! The AF is quick and absolutely accurate. There isn't a hint of front or back focusing. I cannot get it better taking lots of time and using magnification and/or peaking. That is the one nice thing about the on chip PDAF/CDAF. When I read about all the trouble people are having with focus (front, back, sometimes one way, sometimes the other...) with the Canon 7DII I think, OK, AF speed great to have, but what good is it if it is inaccurate?
Does this mean I am going to send my scope into retirement? Nope! Not yet... Pop the EC-14 on it and it pulls away again from the Canon.
Here a single shot with both:
and to top it off, a stack of 6 from the scope:
View attachment 562802 View attachment 562803
So which is which? (Hint: the one with slightly more CA is the Canon...)
See what a little too much air can do to a 0.97 Strehl scope?
Now, lets pretend it is a bird hopping around looking for its breakfast. Here the setup that can get the job done quickly wins, and that is the E-M1+Canon/Metabones! The AF is quick and absolutely accurate. There isn't a hint of front or back focusing. I cannot get it better taking lots of time and using magnification and/or peaking. That is the one nice thing about the on chip PDAF/CDAF. When I read about all the trouble people are having with focus (front, back, sometimes one way, sometimes the other...) with the Canon 7DII I think, OK, AF speed great to have, but what good is it if it is inaccurate?
Does this mean I am going to send my scope into retirement? Nope! Not yet... Pop the EC-14 on it and it pulls away again from the Canon.
Here a single shot with both:
and to top it off, a stack of 6 from the scope:
Last edited:
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
Hmm... tried twice. I'll try again:
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Dan,
It is getting interesting. What is the effect of the EC-14 on close and infinity focus with the Metabones adapter between the 2 ?
Which is best: Canon or Oly TC ?
Also, have you tried BIF yourself ? If so, how does it work ?
How would you compare focus speed (with and without TC) to other M43 lenses you own, 75-300 and others ?
Have you tried the 400mm with a 2X TC ? Not ideal of course but much lighter than a SW80ED ! 1600mm EQ and taping the first 3 pins should allow auto focus in good light.
There is a 400mm available locally at a decent price... I may very well decide to try it.
It is getting interesting. What is the effect of the EC-14 on close and infinity focus with the Metabones adapter between the 2 ?
Which is best: Canon or Oly TC ?
Also, have you tried BIF yourself ? If so, how does it work ?
How would you compare focus speed (with and without TC) to other M43 lenses you own, 75-300 and others ?
Have you tried the 400mm with a 2X TC ? Not ideal of course but much lighter than a SW80ED ! 1600mm EQ and taping the first 3 pins should allow auto focus in good light.
There is a 400mm available locally at a decent price... I may very well decide to try it.
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
Hi Jules,
Can't use the EC-14 with the Metabones adapter, only the Canon. It is Canon EF to mFT. On the scope, the EC-14 is substantially better than the Canon and a LOT better than my TN. The TN was somehow better on the old scope, or at least I thought so. On the newer one it kills contrast and ins not that sharp.
It is hard to compare the ocus speed with mFT lenses because it is only using the PDAF. I have not had great luck with the 75-300 for BiF. It spends a LOT of time searching. It is best compared with FT lenses, and there it holds up well. It is not a speed demon, but it gets there. It would have no trouble at all with Gannets! There are some BiF shots here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/42162009@N04/albums/72157659863679710
The first 7. Un-cropped so you can see what the AF was up against.
One nice feature is that you can use all 37 central AF points, even with the 1.4x Extender. Canons only give you ONE!
There hasn't been much flying around but I have been trying to get the crows that sometimes fly back and forth. Difficult situation as the back and foreground are very busy and very tempting for the AF. Here is a crappy shot that shows that it does work however, full and cropped:
ISO 800, 1/250th. The light was anything but advantageous!
It seems it is best to have half-press IS on turned OFF, otherwise it picks up something in the background and tries to stabilize it and that tempts the AF. Soaring birds are no problem, but the faster guys are, so I have a Myset (HATE that word.... why not just set ?) configured for just that sort of situation, ISO 800, IS off, 7 FPS (10 is useless... can't see anything..big disadvantage of the EVF) A mode, 37 AF points. It is configured to my "Preview" button so if I see anything I can hit it and am ready to go.
But, as I say, I haven't been able to really test it as there hasn't been much going on and the light has been bad day after day. I'll do more for sure.
Haven't tried the 2x and I don't think I will, though they are getting cheaper. 540mm for walk around is pretty good.
Can't use the EC-14 with the Metabones adapter, only the Canon. It is Canon EF to mFT. On the scope, the EC-14 is substantially better than the Canon and a LOT better than my TN. The TN was somehow better on the old scope, or at least I thought so. On the newer one it kills contrast and ins not that sharp.
It is hard to compare the ocus speed with mFT lenses because it is only using the PDAF. I have not had great luck with the 75-300 for BiF. It spends a LOT of time searching. It is best compared with FT lenses, and there it holds up well. It is not a speed demon, but it gets there. It would have no trouble at all with Gannets!
There are some BiF shots herehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/42162009@N04/albums/72157659863679710
The first 7. Un-cropped so you can see what the AF was up against.
One nice feature is that you can use all 37 central AF points, even with the 1.4x Extender. Canons only give you ONE!
There hasn't been much flying around but I have been trying to get the crows that sometimes fly back and forth. Difficult situation as the back and foreground are very busy and very tempting for the AF. Here is a crappy shot that shows that it does work however, full and cropped:
ISO 800, 1/250th. The light was anything but advantageous!
It seems it is best to have half-press IS on turned OFF, otherwise it picks up something in the background and tries to stabilize it and that tempts the AF. Soaring birds are no problem, but the faster guys are, so I have a Myset (HATE that word.... why not just set ?) configured for just that sort of situation, ISO 800, IS off, 7 FPS (10 is useless... can't see anything..big disadvantage of the EVF) A mode, 37 AF points. It is configured to my "Preview" button so if I see anything I can hit it and am ready to go.
But, as I say, I haven't been able to really test it as there hasn't been much going on and the light has been bad day after day. I'll do more for sure.
Haven't tried the 2x and I don't think I will, though they are getting cheaper. 540mm for walk around is pretty good.
Last edited:
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Thanks for the info Dan.
Reading your previous posts, I understood you were using the EC-14 this way.
EM-1 + EC-14 + Metabones + 400mm. In theory, it should work.
You have the Oly 75-300mm. How yould you compare focus speed on a stationary bird ? 75-300 -vs - Metabones + 400mm, no TC. That would give me a good idea.
Why do you write "It is hard to compare the focus speed with mFT lenses because it is only using the PDAF." ? I thought that the new Metabones firmware added PDAF for the EM-1 in addition to the original CDAF...
Reading your previous posts, I understood you were using the EC-14 this way.
EM-1 + EC-14 + Metabones + 400mm. In theory, it should work.
You have the Oly 75-300mm. How yould you compare focus speed on a stationary bird ? 75-300 -vs - Metabones + 400mm, no TC. That would give me a good idea.
Why do you write "It is hard to compare the focus speed with mFT lenses because it is only using the PDAF." ? I thought that the new Metabones firmware added PDAF for the EM-1 in addition to the original CDAF...
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
EC-14 is FT and not mFT. The MC-14 is mFT but will not fit with the Metabones. I use the EC-14 with my 50-200 and on the scope, that is, mostly on the scope as I don't use the 50-200 much. With the 400/Metabones I use the Canon 1.4x Extender III.
I would take the 400 any day over the 75-300. On some subjects maybe the 75-300 focuses better, but it is not in the same class optically as the 400 prime, has much less reach, has no focus limiter which is very handy on the 400! If an Oly camera can't focus right away, it goes searching first near, and then back out. I think Canon and Nikon do it the other way but not sure. Being able to limit the focus range to 8.5 meters to infinity saves a lot of time if things are not so close. The 75-300 is a fine little travel lens though. I took it to Scotland this spring, but I took maybe 95% with the 400.
FT lenses use the PDAF on the E-M1, and the Metabones taps into this system. CDAF is notoriously slow with CDAF, which is used mostly by the mFT lenses. The new firmware added PDAF which is true, but, as far as I know, it added it to nothing! Before you could only control the aperture through it.
So the setup is E-M1+Metabones+(TC)+400.
I would take the 400 any day over the 75-300. On some subjects maybe the 75-300 focuses better, but it is not in the same class optically as the 400 prime, has much less reach, has no focus limiter which is very handy on the 400! If an Oly camera can't focus right away, it goes searching first near, and then back out. I think Canon and Nikon do it the other way but not sure. Being able to limit the focus range to 8.5 meters to infinity saves a lot of time if things are not so close. The 75-300 is a fine little travel lens though. I took it to Scotland this spring, but I took maybe 95% with the 400.
FT lenses use the PDAF on the E-M1, and the Metabones taps into this system. CDAF is notoriously slow with CDAF, which is used mostly by the mFT lenses. The new firmware added PDAF which is true, but, as far as I know, it added it to nothing! Before you could only control the aperture through it.
So the setup is E-M1+Metabones+(TC)+400.
Tord
Well-known member
Dan,
With a weight of only 1.25 kg and a compact form factor it's a compelling alternative to bring on travel or hikes. Do you know if there are other non-IS, even discontinued, lenses of interest for us that at least in therory should compatible with the metabones? I had a look at Nikon but their lens lineup seems not to have anything equivalent.
I read that the Canon 400 has an ultrasonic focusing motor. Since you have both, how would you assess the focusing speed of the Canon 400 with the metabones adapter, compared to the 50-200 SWD?
With a weight of only 1.25 kg and a compact form factor it's a compelling alternative to bring on travel or hikes. Do you know if there are other non-IS, even discontinued, lenses of interest for us that at least in therory should compatible with the metabones? I had a look at Nikon but their lens lineup seems not to have anything equivalent.
I read that the Canon 400 has an ultrasonic focusing motor. Since you have both, how would you assess the focusing speed of the Canon 400 with the metabones adapter, compared to the 50-200 SWD?
Tord
Well-known member
There is a difference. The first one (562821) seems sharper and with higher resolution.
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
Tord,
correct, and yes there is a difference. My point is though, that the difference in the real world is at times small indeed compared to the difference in ideal conditions.
I have the non-SWD version, but from what I have been able to find out, the SWD is quieter, but not much faster. 1 to 1 against Nikon, I feel that Canon makes the better lenses. I have no others. A guy in Germany tried an older version of a 300/2.8 but it didn't work. Metabones says something about lenses with older focus systems not being compatible.
Compared to my 50-200+ EC-14, well it is about the same when the light gets better. In worse light the Oly has the advantage simply because it is faster glass. But there are situations where the 50-200 gets lost and hunts back and forth and never finds what it is looking for. The Canon seems better able to single things out and zero in on them. That is the one thing that I don't like about the sweet little 75-300. When it gets lost it is very stubborn. It likes to lock onto the background and absolutely refuses to believe I want something else. So I have to either spin the focus ring or quick focus on something bigger nearer to the target distance. This you have to do with ANY AF camera, but it just seems worse with the 75-300. But for the size/weight/cost, it is a gem!
My 400 was built in 2012. It was unused when I bought it along with a 5D II, which I sold again FAST. What a tank that was! I would love to try the 100-400 II. The Metabones also supports O-IS, though IBIS is the better way to do it. Interesting lens though. The older push-pull dust sucking 100-400s are a dime a dozen now. MANY for sale for around €800. Still prefer the 400/5.6 though.
correct, and yes there is a difference. My point is though, that the difference in the real world is at times small indeed compared to the difference in ideal conditions.
I have the non-SWD version, but from what I have been able to find out, the SWD is quieter, but not much faster. 1 to 1 against Nikon, I feel that Canon makes the better lenses. I have no others. A guy in Germany tried an older version of a 300/2.8 but it didn't work. Metabones says something about lenses with older focus systems not being compatible.
Compared to my 50-200+ EC-14, well it is about the same when the light gets better. In worse light the Oly has the advantage simply because it is faster glass. But there are situations where the 50-200 gets lost and hunts back and forth and never finds what it is looking for. The Canon seems better able to single things out and zero in on them. That is the one thing that I don't like about the sweet little 75-300. When it gets lost it is very stubborn. It likes to lock onto the background and absolutely refuses to believe I want something else. So I have to either spin the focus ring or quick focus on something bigger nearer to the target distance. This you have to do with ANY AF camera, but it just seems worse with the 75-300. But for the size/weight/cost, it is a gem!
My 400 was built in 2012. It was unused when I bought it along with a 5D II, which I sold again FAST. What a tank that was! I would love to try the 100-400 II. The Metabones also supports O-IS, though IBIS is the better way to do it. Interesting lens though. The older push-pull dust sucking 100-400s are a dime a dozen now. MANY for sale for around €800. Still prefer the 400/5.6 though.
Tord
Well-known member
Dan,
I have the 50-200 SWD and the focusing is really fast. Next time we meet you could test and see for yourself. (I was assuming you too had the SWD version of the lens, which is the most common of the two versions). Regarding "older lenses not being compatible": the 400/5.6 is almost 20 years old design...
I have the 50-200 SWD and the focusing is really fast. Next time we meet you could test and see for yourself. (I was assuming you too had the SWD version of the lens, which is the most common of the two versions). Regarding "older lenses not being compatible": the 400/5.6 is almost 20 years old design...
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
What TC is preferred to use with the E-M1, metabones and Canon EF 400/5.6 USM, the Canon Extender EF 1.4 II or III, and why , pros and cons?
Are there any contacts that needs to be taped over to get AF with both types of extenders mentioned above? It would be nice with a photo showing this, maybe a link to a photo ?
I have got the E-M1 and the 400mm and am wondering about the rest, what TC to buy and what adapter to buy....there seems to be some adapters to choose from when looking at e-bay and Amazon etc....but it is good to read here that at least the expensive Metabones seems to work, thanks Dan.
Thanks,
Anders
Are there any contacts that needs to be taped over to get AF with both types of extenders mentioned above? It would be nice with a photo showing this, maybe a link to a photo ?
I have got the E-M1 and the 400mm
and am wondering about the rest, what TC to buy and what adapter to buy....there seems to be some adapters to choose from when looking at e-bay and Amazon etc....but it is good to read here that at least the expensive Metabones seems to work, thanks Dan.Thanks,
Anders
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
I used to be a Canon man and the 400mm f/5.6 had a solid reputation as a BIF lens for 3 reasons:
- Fast and accurate focusing
- Sharp lens
- Very light
Now that Canon has the excellent 100-400mm II lens, people are getting rid of the 400mm and it can be bought second hand for a very good price, a steal for glass that good.
I have such an occasion now and I think I will go for it. It is only 500 g. more than my 100-300mm, plus the adapter. It is also f/5.6. Adding a 1.4X TC makes it a 560mm f/8. I would also be interested in seing how it performs with a 2X TC making it a 800mm auto focusing f/11 lens.
The coming Oly 300mm f/4 will become a 420mm f/5,6 lens with TC added and will probably be a bit heavier. It will be an expensive lens, costing about 2000$US, plus the TC which is another 400$.
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
Anders,
both work well with the 400/5.6 but the III has less CA. Same sharpness in the center, slightly better on the edges with the III. I think the difference on a 4/3 sensor would be small indeed.
Tape the first three pins:
This is from the net, not mine. I did a cleaner job of it!
Jules,
You hit the nail right on the head! 400s are suddenly hard to find around here...B
both work well with the 400/5.6 but the III has less CA. Same sharpness in the center, slightly better on the edges with the III. I think the difference on a 4/3 sensor would be small indeed.
Tape the first three pins:
This is from the net, not mine. I did a cleaner job of it!
Jules,
You hit the nail right on the head! 400s are suddenly hard to find around here...B
Last edited:
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
Check this site to compare the Canon extenders II and III, both 1.4 and 2.0X, when used with the Canon 400mm f/5.6.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Bear in mind that the results will be different with the EM-1, which is not FF, but the differences will remain IMO. The differences in CA are very apparent in the lower image.
It is too bad that V. I of the extenders is not included in the tests because these are very cheap on eBay compared to V. II and III.
The-Digital-Picture.com also has very comprehensive reviews of the 400mm and the Extenders. The 1.4X III review compares in depth the II and III versions.
Binoseeker
Mostly using spectacles (myopic) with binoculars.
Dan & Jules, thanks for the info.
The III was better than the II in the test....so I think I will go for the III.
So where to get the Metabones at a good price in the EU ?
Anders
The III was better than the II in the test....so I think I will go for the III.
So where to get the Metabones at a good price in the EU ?
Anders
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
Just have to google it. Make SURE that it is either the MB_EF-m43-BM1 as older models will not work with the new firmware. The BT2 is out in the US, but as far as I know they are essentially the same and have the same functionality and run the same firmware. I got mine in Switzerland.
DanC.Licks
AKA Daniel Bradley
To TC or not to TC, that is the question...
400/5.6+1.4x Ext. III
Only chromanoise removed. 1/200 and 1/100 second, hand held but supported on window frame. Distance, about 80 meters.
Would like to try a 2x....:smoke:
400/5.6+1.4x Ext. III
Only chromanoise removed. 1/200 and 1/100 second, hand held but supported on window frame. Distance, about 80 meters.
Would like to try a 2x....:smoke:
JGobeil
Nature Photographer
You can try Metabones directly. The BT2 sells for 399$US and international shipping via Fedex is 35$US. I have never purchased anything from them so I cannot recommend them.
http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_EF-m43-BT2
You can also consider B&H in the US - they ship worldwide. I use them often and they are very reliable. The BT2 is in stock and sells for 399$US.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1182562-REG/metabones_mb_ef_m43_bt2_canon_ef_to_mft.html
Similar threads
