Kit Lens Jockey said:
Yes, I've watched them, they're all pretty pedantic. I just want to know, overall, in all the varied situations that most people encounter when using a camera, does using Canon lenses on the newer Sony bodies hold up well, or is it just too finicky and imprecise for serious work?
I've given it a pretty serious spin, and my verdict is... it depends on what you shoot, how important it is, and what focal length you need.
1. You do NOT get, on pretty much every adapted lens is any of the subject tracking modes. So that means, where the camera locks onto a subject, and follows it around. It's totally useless to me, but DPR and some other reviewers seem to think that this is the best thing ever. Since more DR, anyways.
2. You do NOT get center point + expanding points (flexible zone expanding points, or some such as they call it). Basically, this is the mode where it's some movable point, and if there's nothing to AF on, it searches the 8 adjacent points. This is kind of sad for patio birding, for example with an adapted 70-200 2.8 IS II.
3. You do NOT get magnified focus Autofocus. This is a One Shot (or AF-S as they call it) autofocus feature, where a magnifier comes up, for example at 6.2x magnificantion, and there is a + reticle. This allows you to AF on one specific part of the subject. Works much better with a fixed lens (for example, resting on railing, on a tripod, etc.)
What you DO get:
4. Autofocus works, but it is a little slower than native lens (enough to notice). The difference gets more and more pronounced as the focal range gets bigger and the aperture gets smaller.
5. Autofocus hunts more than native lenses,
but its not bad.
6. It's better with wideish adapted lenses, lke 16-35/4 and 24-70/2.8 and 24-70/4LII. Definitely good with 70-200L/2.8 II.
7. Eye AF works!! and pretty well with adapted lens, too.