A7RII Vs 5ds R

[jgcox]

I'm looking at these now as I've upped my budget. What are some of the gem lenses for the Sony? I need an ultra wide zoom and a standard zoom. The 16-35 doesn't look that great and I can't fine good samples from the 24-70 f4.
For the cannon I like the 24-70 2.8 ii alot, but I can't seem to find any samples from the 24-70 f4 IS or the 24-120 ISL, how are those?
From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?
thanks,
John

[synn]

Pretty much every canon lens you love will also work equally good on the Sony now.
As for native lenses, my Sony toting friend swears by the 55mm Zeiss and the 90 macro.

[Dr Tone]

From what I've read the FE 24-70 is below average all around but the FE 16-35 is rather good 16-24 or so, but starts getting weaker as you get to 35.

[chez]

I'm looking at these now as I've upped my budget. What are some of the gem lenses for the Sony? I need an ultra wide zoom and a standard zoom. The 16-35 doesn't look that great and I can't fine good samples from the 24-70 f4.
For the cannon I like the 24-70 2.8 ii alot, but I can't seem to find any samples from the 24-70 f4 IS or the 24-120 ISL, how are those?
From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?
thanks,
John

I find my 16-35 is really great right up until about 28mm...then starts to diminish. Why do you say the 16-35 doesn't look great?

[Hywel]

From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?

I find the camera tends to overexpose when grabbing shots quickly on auto settings.

Fortunately there's a big physical exposure compensation dial in exactly the right place to over-ride.

I've found myself using the camera on program much more often than I'm accustomed to. Auto ISO with settable limits and program mode with settable minimum shutter speeds make for a very sensible working pattern- you can even tell the camera "obey the 1/focal length rule" as best you can or one or two stops faster or slower than the 1/focal length rule.

The only real issue is that the histogram displays are too small, and I think they are based on the JPEG rather than true RAW histogram.

RawDigger types can probably tell us if the camera is really over-exposing or not, but for my evolving workflow with Capture One I find dialling in a stop of underexposure on the EC dial pretty much gets me where I want to go, except when the sun is right in frame.

When I'm working at leisure with camera on a tripod of course manual everything and bracketing for true ETTR is still the way to go, but setting my preference for max ISO, min ISO, slowest shutter speed, IBIS stabilisation and a quick burst of the EC dial seems to work pretty well. I'd rather underexpose a tiny bit than blow the highlights, ETTR notwithstanding.

Its a nice way to work in rapidly changing light.

Cheers, Hywel

[Telecaster]

From what I've read the FE 24-70 is below average all around but the FE 16-35 is rather good 16-24 or so, but starts getting weaker as you get to 35.

The 24–70/4 is an average lens but no less than that. More than fine for professional work, as I can attest via the work of folks I know who earn money with it. Frankly…in front of a 40+mp sensor even the glorious Canon 24–70/2.8 comes off as pedestrian if OCD levels of pixel peeping are your thing.

As for the OP's question about highlights blowing…that's either incompetence if done unintentionally or creative choice if done on purpose. An online acquaintance of mine often goes for a high-key look, maxing out highlight values in the process.

-Dave-

[AlterEgo]

From the images I've seen the highlights seem to blow out often on the A7RII, is that the photographer or a trait of the camera?

A7R2 spot meter is set for ~3.7EV below clipping... you need to see not images, but raw files (they are images too of course, just w/o alterations that wreck the data)... the above mentioned rawdigger or even fastrawviewer ( www.fastrawviewer.com ) are your friends...

[shadowblade]

The A7rII is hard to beat as a sensor, but E-mount leaves a lot to be desired as a camera system - the lack of f/2.8 zooms is a huge handicap compared with the more-established EF and F-mount systems. At present, I'm using EF mount lenses via Metabones adapters, but the system will never live up to its full potential until equal lenses are available in E-mount.

At minimum, there needs to be a f/2.8 zoom trio covering 14-200mm (14-24, 24-70, 70-200), as well as a lightweight and heavyweight supertele zoom (similar to 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and 200-400 f/4) once the AF system matures to be able to handle fast action. Without that, E-mount is doomed to remain on the periphery, as a mix-and-match system used by size-conscious amateurs and oddball professionals, but without the big cohorts of event and wedding photographers.

[Chuck Fan]

The A7rII is hard to beat as a sensor, but E-mount leaves a lot to be desired as a camera system - the lack of f/2.8 zooms is a huge handicap compared with the more-established EF and F-mount systems. At present, I'm using EF mount lenses via Metabones adapters, but the system will never live up to its full potential until equal lenses are available in E-mount.

At minimum, there needs to be a f/2.8 zoom trio covering 14-200mm (14-24, 24-70, 70-200), as well as a lightweight and heavyweight supertele zoom (similar to 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and 200-400 f/4) once the AF system matures to be able to handle fast action. Without that, E-mount is doomed to remain on the periphery, as a mix-and-match system used by size-conscious amateurs and oddball professionals, but without the big cohorts of event and wedding photographers.

Sony does have a 75-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens.   Seems like a commendably well made lens too.   Also, do Minolta's 17-35-24-70 and 70-200 work on the Sony?   I thought Sony is fully backwards compatible with Minolta A mount.   These lenses are a little old, but just how much worse are they compare to the current Nikon and Canon offerings?

[shadowblade]

Sony does have a 75-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens.   Seems like a commendably well made lens too.   Also, do Minolta's 17-35-24-70 and 70-200 work on the Sony?   I thought Sony is fully backwards compatible with Minolta A mount.   These lenses are a little old, but just how much worse are they compare to the current Nikon and Canon offerings?

Those are all A-mount lenses which require an adapter for E-mount (same as Nikon/Canon lenses) and don't work as well as native E-mount lenses (not all focus modes available, etc.).

Also, optically, they're not quite up to the standard of the current crop of Canon/Nikon/Sigma lenses.

Sony has a partnership with Zeiss. They can make a new line of modern, top-of-the-line lenses.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Any particular reason to use zooms? If yes, and you want f2.8 zooms, Sony already stated that they are in the pipeline. If you can not wait, you can use Canon f2.8 zooms, or Sony A mount f2.8 zooms, they provide ample quality. I am not so sure how handling the combo would become; after all, the Canon 24-70 weighs around 1 kilo, perhaps you would need the camera grip for better balance?

If you are willing to look into primes, the quality is abundant, from Sony and from Zeiss (Batis and Loxia).

[shadowblade]

Any particular reason to use zooms? If yes, and you want f2.8 zooms, Sony already stated that they are in the pipeline. If you can not wait, you can use Canon f2.8 zooms, or Sony A mount f2.8 zooms, they provide ample quality.

No particular reason. I mostly use primes myself (Otus, Sigma Art and Canon TS-E), apart from at longer focal lengths (e.g. 70-200) where there is little IQ difference between primes and zooms, and certain, specific zooms which are top-of-the-line optically at their focal length (Nikon 14-24 was like this until recently). But a solid lens lineup requires fast zooms, and the f/2.8 zoom trio is almost irreplaceable for event/wedding photography, at least as the first shooter (a second shooter often uses primes for the more creative shots). No manufacturer's lens lineup is complete without them.

I am not so sure how handling the combo would become; after all, the Canon 24-70 weighs around 1 kilo, perhaps you would need the camera grip for better balance?

If you are willing to look into primes, the quality is abundant, from Sony and from Zeiss (Batis and Loxia).

I shoot almost exclusively on the tripod. And, even when I'm not, handling a 1kg zoom on a compact mirrorless body is just like handling a large, 1.5-2kg lens on an SLR - you hold it primarily by the lens, with the body hanging off the back.

Of course, when they release their 'pro level' E-mount body (hopefully packed full of battery and processor power), balance will be less of an issue.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Why I was in the Dolomites with Hans Kruse's workshop we have tried out some of his Canon lenses on my A7RII with the Metabones. We did not check focus tracking just the ability to lock on. Focusing was pretty OK with the 16-35/4L and the 24-70/2.8LII, with the 100-400 LII it worked well up to 200 mm. Longer than 200 mm it did not find focus but went into slow hunting. Prefocusing manually it still snapped into focus.

My take is that a Canon shooter probably does better with a Canon 5Ds/5DsR unless he needs an EVF or the additional DR the Sony offers.

As a long time Minolta/Sony user I am not offended by the user interface, but I still feel some things don't make sense. I would like the user interface to be more "orthogonal" many limitations it sets don't make any sense.

I have essentially been very pleased with the camera and it is a great picture taking device and it works for me.

Best regards
Erik

Not with autofocus and not at speed and accuracy. At least with the A7sII as I tested a new metabones with the latest firmware and ef lenses, A mount lenses with Sony's adapters and E mounts.

The e mounts will track focus reasonably well, the rest won't.

If you shoot stuff that doesn't move, use any lens, but if it's alive then it's going to be e mount.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

Not with autofocus and not at speed and accuracy. At least with the A7sII as I tested a new metabones with the latest firmware and ef lenses, A mount lenses with Sony's adapters and E mounts.

The e mounts will track focus reasonably well, the rest won't.

If you shoot stuff that doesn't move, use any lens, but if it's alive then it's going to be e mount.

IMO

BC

J,

 Whatever you say about the A7SII I will believe, but to speak about the R2 you really need to do the test on the R2. The A7sII and the A7R2 are different animals. The difference is not only the processors, it's those special focus sensels embedded in the main sensor which make the phase detect work.

Edmund

[Manoli]

Two links to 'adapted' lens performance from Brian Smith (Sony guru)

SONY A7RII CANON EF SMART ADAPTER TESTS
http://briansmith.com/sony-a7rii-canon-ef-smart-adapter-tests/

SONY A-MOUNT LENSES ON SONY A7RII
http://briansmith.com/sony-a-mount-lens-sony-a7rii-guide/

[Dr Tone]

Not with autofocus and not at speed and accuracy. At least with the A7sII as I tested a new metabones with the latest firmware and ef lenses, A mount lenses with Sony's adapters and E mounts.

The e mounts will track focus reasonably well, the rest won't.

If you shoot stuff that doesn't move, use any lens, but if it's alive then it's going to be e mount.

IMO

BC

As others have mentioned the A7S2 doesn't have the same phase detection focusing subsystem as the A7R2.  The S2 will be substantially slower or completely unusable with longer lenses.

I had a friends Canon 70-200 2.8 L2 on my A7R2 a couple days ago with the Metabones IV and .45 firmware and it was continuous tracking runners and bikers across the river from me just fine.  That said you had to be careful and be close to in focus initially you don't want it to hunt, way to slow to reacquire focus.  Focus limiter was certainly helpful.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is a 70-400/4-5.6 lens and it is pretty good at the short end. The corresponding Canon lenses are certainly better, but the 70-400/4-5.6G is sort of OK. many older Minolta lenses are OK but probably not great.

Personally, I would prefer a set of well working f/4 zooms over f/2.8. Large aperture lenses are big. The 24-70/4 offering from Sony is a bit mediocre AFAIK. I use it with the 24-70/2.8 ZA, which works remarkably well in the 24-60 mm range. But I would speculate the Canon 24-70/2.8 LII is a better lens. The 16-35/4 is said to be very good, but I would again guess the Canon 16-35/4L is a better (and cheaper) lens.

Getting back to f/2.8 of f/4 zooms, I feel that the A7rII works decently well at high ISOs and having image stabilisation is quite helpful. Shooting sports is a different thing, but I don't think fast moving action is the great strength of the A7 series anyway.

Best regards
Erik

Sony does have a 75-400 f/4.5-5.6 lens.   Seems like a commendably well made lens too.   Also, do Minolta's 17-35-24-70 and 70-200 work on the Sony?   I thought Sony is fully backwards compatible with Minolta A mount.   These lenses are a little old, but just how much worse are they compare to the current Nikon and Canon offerings?

[synn]

For my personal use with DSLRs, I sold my f/2.8 zooms a long time ago in favor of f/4s. The faster lenses were a necessity back in the days of limited ISOs, but that is hardly the case with any modern body. Also, the subject isolation between f/2.8 and f/4 isn't that much, especially at longer focal lengths. I might be giving up some build quality and bragging rights with the slower lenses, but I'd gladly do that for the sake of the size and weight savings. I can't see too many genuine use cases for an f/2.8 zoom except for teleconverter use.

The problem that I see with the Sony f/4 lenses are that they seem to be not on par with the Canikon offerings. Once they update these, they should have very competent offerings for most people.

[Hans Kruse]

Hi,

Why I was in the Dolomites with Hans Kruse's workshop we have tried out some of his Canon lenses on my A7RII with the Metabones. We did not check focus tracking just the ability to lock on. Focusing was pretty OK with the 16-35/4L and the 24-70/2.8LII, with the 100-400 LII it worked well up to 200 mm. Longer than 200 mm it did not find focus but went into slow hunting. Prefocusing manually it still snapped into focus.

My take is that a Canon shooter probably does better with a Canon 5Ds/5DsR unless he needs an EVF or the additional DR the Sony offers.

As a long time Minolta/Sony user I am not offended by the user interface, but I still feel some things don't make sense. I would like the user interface to be more "orthogonal" many limitations it sets don't make any sense.

I have essentially been very pleased with the camera and it is a great picture taking device and it works for me.

Best regards
Erik

I tried Erik's A7R II for a short while on both the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II. My observation was that AF was considerably slower on the A7R II compared to the 5Ds R. The 5Ds R focussed instantly on both lenses. Especially from really out of focus it snaps in immediately. The A7R II was ok on the 24-70 for landscapes, but I'm not sure it would be ok for my way of shooting portraits. The 100-400 was  an entirely different matter. The AF did not work well on longer distances for longer focal lengths like over 200mm. It would focus for shorter distances all the way to 400mm. As far as I know there is a newer firmware release for the Metabones adapter that should focus better.

The EVF on the A7R II was not my taste and would much prefer the OVF on the Canon. I prefer an uncluttered VF that is bright and clear and the 5Ds R has that.

Regarding weight of lenses, I sold my f/2.8 70-200 lenses and now only use the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR lens which is excellent and is light at about 800 grams. On the Canon I use the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS which is excellent, but not quite the biting sharpness of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens. This lens weighs 800 grams and the f/4 is 600 grams so not much of a difference.

Regarding the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens my observation is that my copy is in for repair at the moment since it had an unsharpness in the right hand side. The lens I have on loan via CPS also has a slight softness in the right hand side, so I'm waiting to see if the repaired lens has the weakness still of if it is a general thing with this lens.

Regarding the A7R II versus the 5Ds R, I would say that the Canon is a very fine example of DSLR design and has few defects in design and use. The well known lesser DR is for my landscape shooting only an issue in very early mornings with strong light from the sky and a very dark landscape and where the desire is to tone map it such that the deep shadows in the landscape will contain detail. The same applies for sunsets. For any other type of landscape shooting I have not found an issue with DR. So for the cases where DR is less than desired (which again depends on taste for post processing) I bracket and blend two (or perhaps 3) exposures using the HDR function in Lightroom. This works well and basically removes the DR issue for this camera (in my opinion) for landscape shooting.

So for choosing between the two cameras, if the use case is predominantly Canon lenses with auto focus, I my choice would be the Canon. If flexibility is needed to use many different lenses with adapters and a lot of manual focus needed and no fast focus is needed, then the A7R II seems like the obvious choice. If the EVF is highly favoured with lots of information in the VF then I guess the choice is easy too. Many more considerations could be added....

[Dr Tone]

Hi,

It is a 70-400/4-5.6 lens and it is pretty good at the short end. The corresponding Canon lenses are certainly better, but the 70-400/4-5.6G is sort of OK. many older Minolta lenses are OK but probably not great.

Best regards
Erik

The current alpha mount 70-400G2 from Sony is exceptonal right to 400.