Do not buy the Novoflex EF-SL Adapter!!

[dasjak]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just tried it at the local Leica Store because I was considering the SL, but only if I could use my Canon lenses.

I cannot understand how they can sell this thing, nothing worked!! The AF speed is very slow, if it works at all. Most of the times it just stopped working. Very annoying. I also tried it with my Sigma Art 35/1.4 and that was even worse...

 

Total rip off, don´t buy it!

 

To clarify, using MF of course it works, but where is the point in that and not for this money...

 

Best,

Andreas

Edited September 26, 2016 by dasjak

[LD_50]

There is a 10-page discussion about this adapter on this site.

 

Several users have had good experiences with specific lenses, and several have had experiences similar to your own.

 

I would suggest you provide specific lens feedback in that thread, as most potential buyers will be looking there for the various compatibility reports.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dasjak]

There is a 10-page discussion about this adapter on this site.

 

Several users have had good experiences with specific lenses, and several have had experiences similar to your own.

 

I would suggest you provide specific lens feedback in that thread, as most potential buyers will be looking there for the various compatibility reports.

 

 

Of course you are right, I didn´t mention the lenses.

So I tried it with the 24-70L II and the Sigma Art 35/1.4

 

With the 24-70 focus was working maybe at around 60% of the time and was slow. With the Sigma nothing worked at all, only manual focussing worked.

 

I was ready to buy this gorgeous camera but yeah, selling all my Canon gear won´t buy me the 24-90 at all and even if, I think this lens is way too big and heavy. So no SL for me I guess...

[LD_50]

I would not look to the SL for lens size advantage over Canon. You're comparing full frame against full frame and Leica is typically going to be designing for higher performance, which will drive larger size, if not higher cost, or both.

 

If you're looking to shoot an SL with smaller lenses, look at M-mount lenses with adapater, and possibly some of the R glass.

 

The 24-90 is not much larger than the Canon 24-70 (1 inch longer, 300g heavier). I haven't shot the Canon 24-70 but comparing the SL with 24-90 to my old Nikon D4s and D700 with Nikon 24-70G (not the newest, larger VR version), I don't notice much difference.

[steppenw0lf]

Of course you are right, I didn´t mention the lenses.

So I tried it with the 24-70L II and the Sigma Art 35/1.4

 

With the 24-70 focus was working maybe at around 60% of the time and was slow. With the Sigma nothing worked at all, only manual focussing worked.

 

I was ready to buy this gorgeous camera but yeah, selling all my Canon gear won´t buy me the 24-90 at all and even if, I think this lens is way too big and heavy. So no SL for me I guess...

 

 

The Novoflex EOS  adapter for the SL works very well with the Canon T/S lenses (no AF) and the 11-24 (with AF). So it is a useful tool, offering the possibility to add lenses to the SL that do not exist in the SL lens range. I heard it is also working fine with the Otus (no AF). There are also other EOS lenses that work well - find more details in the corresponding thread. (It is still early days and a lot needs testing, and maybe some more advanced firmware).

But why buy the SL and then only attach the old lenses from before ? If I mainly wanted to stick with these lenses (Canon EF 2.8/28-70 II and Sigma 1.4/35 in EOS mount), I would never switch to an SL.

The SL allows to adapt all M lenses and most R lenses with optimal quality. So this could be a reason to buy an SL.

And it offers two great AF zooms - another reason. And there will be more great AF lenses later ...  e.g. a high end AF 1.4/50  and more.

I do also attach Contax and Nikon lenses from before, but this is just a side benefit. This was never a reason for me to buy the SL. (I use mainly Leica R and M lenses and the SL 90-280 - a really great lens)

 

Maybe have also a look at the photo gallery. During the first half-year many photographers showed all sorts of exotic lenses adapted to the SL with remarkable results. Often without AF.

So anything is possible, but the transition from Canon EOS to SL is probably not the easiest. Start to look over the fence into neighbours garden and dream about the lenses from other brands you always wanted to try. For me it is e.g. very enjoyable to use Leica and Zeiss lenses side by side on the same camera (even if many are not AF). And I also enjoy trying specialty lenses that are not availabe in every brand.

Edited September 26, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[grandefotografo]

My Ef/SL novoflex adapter is very, very,very slow and erratic with my Canon 16/35 F.4,0 IS, Canon 24/70 F.4,0 IS, Canon 40 F.2,8 and AF did not work with Canon 70/200 F.4,0 IS

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just tried it at the local Leica Store because I was considering the SL, but only if I could use my Canon lenses.

I cannot understand how they can sell this thing, nothing worked!! The AF speed is very slow, if it works at all. Most of the times it just stopped working. Very annoying. I also tried it with my Sigma Art 35/1.4 and that was even worse...

 

Total rip off, don´t buy it!

 

To clarify, using MF of course it works, but where is the point in that and not for this money...

 

Best,

Andreas

 

 

Is it really that hard to grasp that a lens adaptor has almost no hope of autofocusing Canon lenses on a different brand body that will ever come close to the speed of native camera? Is it really that hard to grasp that Canon mount lenses with PDAF autofocus are going to focus slower on a CDAF focus system? Is it surprising that a lens (Sigma 35) that isn't listed as compatible by Novoflex might not be compatible? Does anyone really expect this thing to offer AF that's comparable to what these lenses do on a Canon? People need to go in with realistic expectations rather than the hope of a technological unicorn.

 

The problem isn't the adaptor. It's the expectations people have that can't possible be lived up to.

 

Try putting any of the Canon bodies (except the 5D4 and 1DX2) into live view and see how they do in CDAF mode. The Novoflex adaptor is a revelation compared to that. there are very few Canon lenses adapted for fast CDAF. The rest will focus slower on a CDAF system than a PDAF one.

 

Also the *point* of manual focus is that some of the best 35mm tilt shift lenses are the Canon ones and they are only manual focus. As is the 65mm MPE, the Otus lenses, Samyangs excellent primes and the spectacular Milvus primes. All of these are world class and the adaptor allows these lenses to operate natively on the SL, which is a better body for these lenses than any Canon.

 

As someone who makes his living off the back of Canon's tilt shift lenses, I think this thing is with every last penny.

 

I have the 24-70 f4LIS and while it's definitely slower to focus than on a native body it's better than I expected. It's also not in the same class as the SL24-90.

 

Gordon

Edited September 26, 2016 by FlashGordonPhotography

[dasjak]

Ok just to clarify and rephrase some things: I am looking at the SL because I use my M lenses (on M240) for work and also carry around a 5D with the 24-70II for situations where I cannot use both hands (I work a lot in the mountains so MF is not always possible). So my plan was to get the SL to carry one camera less for weight benefits in the mountains.

And after reading about the Novoflex adapter I had high hopes my plan was about to come to life...and for only using my Canon lenses in MF mode, I think this adapter is way overpriced...

[dasjak]

Is it really that hard to grasp that a lens adaptor has almost no hope of autofocusing Canon lenses on a different brand body that will ever come close to the speed of native camera? Is it really that hard to grasp that Canon mount lenses with PDAF autofocus are going to focus slower on a CDAF focus system? Is it surprising that a lens (Sigma 35) that isn't listed as compatible by Novoflex might not be compatible? Does anyone really expect this thing to offer AF that's comparable to what these lenses do on a Canon? People need to go in with realistic expectations rather than the hope of a technological unicorn.

 

The problem isn't the adaptor. It's the expectations people have that can't possible be lived up to.

 

Try putting any of the Canon bodies (except the 5D4 and 1DX2) into live view and see how they do in CDAF mode. The Novoflex adaptor is a revelation compared to that. there are very few Canon lenses adapted for fast CDAF. The rest will focus slower on a CDAF system than a PDAF one.

 

Also the *point* of manual focus is that some of the best 35mm tilt shift lenses are the Canon ones and they are only manual focus. As is the 65mm MPE, the Otus lenses, Samyangs excellent primes and the spectacular Milvus primes. All of these are world class and the adaptor allows these lenses to operate natively on the SL, which is a better body for these lenses than any Canon.

 

As someone who makes his living off the back of Canon's tilt shift lenses, I think this thing is with every last penny.

 

I have the 24-70 f4LIS and while it's definitely slower to focus than on a native body it's better than I expected. It's also not in the same class as the SL24-90.

 

Gordon

 

 

No Gordon, it´s not hard to grasp at all. But if I buy an adapter that says it can autofocus my Canon lenses (forget the Sigma) but really can´t then I am pissed. The 24-70II would only autofocus once in a while but more often would get stuck and wouldn´t AF unless I switched the lens from AF to MF and back to AF. I was not looking for the superfast AF provided by the lens on a 5D but as said, I was looking for a reliable AF adaptor with which I can work (see post above why I need my Canon lens to AF on the SL). Clearly this is not the case and because of that, I think the price tag is a bit steep on this adaptor.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

No Gordon, it´s not hard to grasp at all. But if I buy an adapter that says it can autofocus my Canon lenses (forget the Sigma) but really can´t then I am pissed. The 24-70II would only autofocus once in a while but more often would get stuck and wouldn´t AF unless I switched the lens from AF to MF and back to AF. I was not looking for the superfast AF provided by the lens on a 5D but as said, I was looking for a reliable AF adaptor with which I can work (see post above why I need my Canon lens to AF on the SL). Clearly this is not the case and because of that, I think the price tag is a bit steep on this adaptor.

 

 

The 24-70 f4LIS is the only Canon AF lens I own, although my shooting partner has the 24-70 f2.8LII. My lens works as expected. No IS but AF always works as long as you mount the lens with the AF off and then turn it on, as per the instructions. I have only tested the 2.8 version briefly but it also worked as expected. I didn't have any issues with the AF stopping. The AF is adequate in decent light but falls off a cliff in low light, which is to be expected. Although the Canon's are good optically, neither is as good as the 24-90 on the SL.

 

Gordon

[dasjak]

The 24-70 f4LIS is the only Canon AF lens I own, although my shooting partner has the 24-70 f2.8LII. My lens works as expected. No IS but AF always works as long as you mount the lens with the AF off and then turn it on, as per the instructions. I have only tested the 2.8 version briefly but it also worked as expected. I didn't have any issues with the AF stopping. The AF is adequate in decent light but falls off a cliff in low light, which is to be expected. Although the Canon's are good optically, neither is as good as the 24-90 on the SL.

 

Gordon

 

 

Hm ok I am not sure I mounted the lens with AF off, the guy at the store didn´t tell me that. Will go back tomorrow since I decided to get the SL anyways

Thanks for your feedback Gordon.

[dasjak]

Ok I now own the SL and also bought the adaptor. After trying it with my L glass I can say that the 17-40 works really well, the 24-70/2.8 II is  a bit of a hit and miss but works alright I guess.

Turns out the guys at the Leica store in Vienna don´t know how to use the adaptor (i.e. turning the camera off before attaching etc.), but I told them how to use it hehe...

 

So, NO total rip-off! Buy it if you want to use Canon glass!

[Arai]

I didn't see the point a Leica to be mounted with Canon glass..well a Leica glass mounted on another camera makes more sense. It's like you buy a Ferrari but you fill it with low quality gas

[dasjak]

I didn't see the point a Leica to be mounted with Canon glass..well a Leica glass mounted on another camera makes more sense. It's like you buy a Ferrari but you fill it with low quality gas

 

 

maybe you should widen your horizon. as people mentioned they are using the tilt/shift lenses, which leica doesn´t offer. I for my part, not that I have to tell you, want to use my L zooms because I have them and it´s good glass. I might, one day, buy the 24-90 if there is enough money in the house. until then, i use my M glass and the two canon zooms.

[chris_tribble]

I didn't see the point a Leica to be mounted with Canon glass..well a Leica glass mounted on another camera makes more sense. It's like you buy a Ferrari but you fill it with low quality gas

Slightly off topic, but I've just played with an old FD Canon f4 300 L lens that I got to use with the M240s (where it was a PITA) . On the SL I have the feeling it's going to be extremely useful. Not properly tested as yet, but first impressions are good. For the money this is a lovely lens. For me the camera is a box that holds a light capture medium. The lens is the key to the image and the great strength of the SL is it lets you use so many different drawing instruments. Mounting Leica glass on a digital Canon where the sensor can't handle it might be a mistake. Not the other way round IMHO.

Edited September 28, 2016 by chris_tribble

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I didn't see the point a Leica to be mounted with Canon glass..well a Leica glass mounted on another camera makes more sense. It's like you buy a Ferrari but you fill it with low quality gas

 

 

You make two fundamental errors. Firstly that Canon do not make quality lenses (Low quality gas, as you describe it). They do. Some are class leading. Some have unique qualities unavailable elsewhere. The second is that there are no Canon lenses that aren't in a better version with a Leica badge. Canon's TSE lenses, MPE65, 11-24, and others have no equivalent in the Leica universe in either the M, SL, T, R or S mounts.

 

As for the advantage of Leica lenses on a Canon body. Firstly the Canon flange depth is too long for Leica glass without modification. M glass won't fit at all. Secondly most Canon cameras use a fairly thick AA filter which slightly degrades image quality. Canon lenses can perform slightly better on the SL than some Canon bodies. They are also easier to manually focus.

 

Gordon

[Arai]

maybe you should widen your horizon. as people mentioned they are using the tilt/shift lenses, which leica doesn´t offer. I for my part, not that I have to tell you, want to use my L zooms because I have them and it´s good glass. I might, one day, buy the 24-90 if there is enough money in the house. until then, i use my M glass and the two canon zooms.

 

I'm sorry for being too cynic, you were right, for some lenses Leica don't have/make yet like TS or even longer tele, people will use others. I was talking about standart zoom, common fixed lens like 24-70, 35, 50, even wide angle. I used to have Canon back in the days and I have plenty Canon lenses like 16-35, 24-105, 70-200, 85L, 135L. Not one of them even close to Leica standart, I'm not talking about pixel peeping or other test chart etc, the different is obvious, plain in the eyes, that's why I sold the system and plunged in onto Leica.

 

Slightly off topic, but I've just played with an old FD Canon f4 300 L lens that I got to use with the M240s (where it was a PITA) . On the SL I have the feeling it's going to be extremely useful. Not properly tested as yet, but first impressions are good. For the money this is a lovely lens. For me the camera is a box that holds a light capture medium. The lens is the key to the image and the great strength of the SL is it lets you use so many different drawing instruments. Mounting Leica glass on a digital Canon where the sensor can't handle it might be a mistake. Not the other way round IMHO.

 

Mounting Leica glass on digital Canon will increase image quality, on the contrary mounting your Canon glass to Leica body will not getting the optimum image quality.

 

 

You make two fundamental errors. Firstly that Canon do not make quality lenses (Low quality gas, as you describe it). They do. Some are class leading. Some have unique qualities unavailable elsewhere. The second is that there are no Canon lenses that aren't in a better version with a Leica badge. Canon's TSE lenses, MPE65, 11-24, and others have no equivalent in the Leica universe in either the M, SL, T, R or S mounts.

 

As for the advantage of Leica lenses on a Canon body. Firstly the Canon flange depth is too long for Leica glass without modification. M glass won't fit at all. Secondly most Canon cameras use a fairly thick AA filter which slightly degrades image quality. Canon lenses can perform slightly better on the SL than some Canon bodies. They are also easier to manually focus.

 

Gordon

True, some Canon lenses are class leading when Leica don't make them. Have you try compare Leica glass with Canon at same focal length and speed? The different is so obvious, you can differentiate them with your bare eyes.

You were right again, the distance flange depth will not fit M lenses, but R fit nicely. I have tried my 5Dmk2 with 90 Summicron R, the result was better than any of my Canon glass, again it is subjective.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Arai

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Have you try compare Leica glass with Canon at same focal length and speed? The different is so obvious, you can differentiate them with your bare eyes.

 

I shot Canon professionally for over 15 years and was a CPS member when you actually needed to be a professional to apply.

 

You mentioned the 135L as a lens you have shot. At 3.5 it's easily the equal of the 135 APO. And it goes to f2 when needed. You mentioned the 85L. I have owned that lens in FD and both versions of the EOS mount. The fastest 85 ever made with AF. Like Leicas Noctilux it's designed to be something other than clinical. One of the great 85's ever made. The Leica APO90mm, which I own, for me is at least behind the 85L and the ZA 85mm 1.4 in short teles I would choose. The 100L macro is astonishing. Great macro that also works with lovely blur for portraits and sharp to the corners at infinity for landscapes. Canon's super teles are without peer, easily out resolving even a 50MP sensor. The 11-24 is without peer in wide zooms, at least until the new Sigma Art12-24 is released.

 

I've shot Nikon, Schneider and Leica PC and shift lenses and the Canons are the benchmark. Until very recently the Canon 24-70 f2.8LII was the standard zoom all others were measured against.

 

We're all fans of Leica here. Personally I've got over a dozen Leica lenses and five bodies. But I'm not drinking the coolaid that says Leica lenses are always the best. I own far too many lenses and in some cases I much prefer an alternative to the Leica.

 

Gordon

[Arai]

 

You mentioned the 135L as a lens you have shot. At 3.5 it's easily the equal of the 135 APO. And it goes to f2 when needed. You mentioned the 85L. I have owned that lens in FD and both versions of the EOS mount. The fastest 85 ever made with AF. Like Leicas Noctilux it's designed to be something other than clinical. One of the great 85's ever made. The Leica APO90mm, which I own, for me is at least behind the 85L and the ZA 85mm 1.4 in short teles I would choose. The 100L macro is astonishing. Great macro that also works with lovely blur for portraits and sharp to the corners at infinity for landscapes. Canon's super teles are without peer, easily out resolving even a 50MP sensor. The 11-24 is without peer in wide zooms, at least until the new Sigma Art12-24 is released.

 

I've shot Nikon, Schneider and Leica PC and shift lenses and the Canons are the benchmark. Until very recently the Canon 24-70 f2.8LII was the standard zoom all others were measured against.

 

We're all fans of Leica here. Personally I've got over a dozen Leica lenses and five bodies. But I'm not drinking the coolaid that says Leica lenses are always the best. I own far too many lenses and in some cases I much prefer an alternative to the Leica.

 

Gordon

I almost shot 85L exclusively with my 5D, when my cousin lend me his 90 cron R I was blown away by its sharpness and contrast, even bokeh I prefer 90 cron over 85L. Well Leica doesn't have very wide lens so we can wait.

I agree Canon super tele are very very good but I dont see any Leica for comparison. What I know is Leica 180 Apo summicron R will outperform Canon 200mm f2. I shouldnt say outperform but I really prefer 180 apo Leica than Canon 200mm f2.

 

Well what I found best today is Leica system, I didn't say any brand are bad, it just Leica is better.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[orc999]

there are not many canon lenses that make sense to adopt to the SL. Maybe the TS lenses and the 70-200 2.8 II. it would make sense to adopt Zeiss ZE lenses(they are much heavier then zm lenses though), they need aperture control thus an electronical adapter.

 

I did try the 70-200 2.8 IS II with said adapter. After 1 hour trying I bought the 90-280 and traded in the 70-200. Slow focus. inaccurate, hunting. Flickering in the EVF(probably trying to stop down and up again).