Autofocus Adapter Canon EF to Leica SL by Novoflex

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although the mounts are identical, I think the electronics of the SL and the T are different, and so Novoflex clearly states that the adapter is only for the SL.

[steppenw0lf]

Just curious to know which subjects would you be shooting with 135f2 1.4x TC with MF on SL. I have the same gear, and looking for reasons to keep them. 

 

I use the Nikon 2/135 DC for portrait (DC stands for defocus control, which means bokeh control).

I think you can use any 135mm for that and keep it for that reason. (the 1.4x is not too useful here, but better suited to the 100-400 or his 300).

Edited May 27, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Advertisement]

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

[su25]

I use the Nikon 2/135 DC for portrait (DC stands for defocus control, which means bokeh control).

I think you can use any 135mm for that and keep it for that reason. (the 1.4x is not too useful here, but better suited to the 100-400).

I am looking at buying used Leica R lenses in that FL or maybe M lens 90mm f2 for portraits. I will have to sell a few L lenses I own, and add a bit more to purchase them, but I am quite certain it will be well worth the money (as compared to buying that adapter and using it with 135 f2).

[steppenw0lf]

I am looking at buying used Leica R lenses in that FL or maybe M lens 90mm f2 for portraits. I will have to sell a few L lenses I own, and add a bit more to purchase them, but I am quite certain it will be well worth the money (as compared to buying that adapter and using it with 135 f2).

 

My favourite R lens is the Apo Macro 2.8/100 . It can be used for almost anything and offers always perfect quality. It is still quite expensive, but it is actually only half the price I paid when it was new. Or if you prefer a new lens, Zeiss offers an excellent macro 2/100, that can also be bought with Nikon mount. Both are perfect for portrait, too.

Edited May 27, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[FlashGordonPhotography]

My favourite R lens is the Apo Macro 2.8/100 . It can be used for almost anything and offers always perfect quality. It is still quite expensive, but it is actually only half the price I paid when it was new. Or if you prefer a new lens, Zeiss offers an excellent macro 2/100, that can also be bought with Nikon mount. Both are perfect for portrait, too.

 

I use the Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro Plannar on my SL in a Nikon mount. Fabulous lens.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

 

CDAF - my experience has been that focus is sharper with LV. Not sure whether its related to mirror up in LV or whether CDAF is better than PDAF (via OVF). In fact, I found myself using a hood and LV to get sharper pictures with Canon - which tipped the scale in favour of SL.

 

 

 

It's not a PDAF vs CDAF thing. It's because in live view on Canons, the focusing is done directly off the imaging sensor so it has to be accurate, by definition. Through the  OVF a separate focusing sensor is used (via a half silvered section of the mirror) and this may or may not be correctly calibrated to the same distance as the imaging sensor.

 

The focus speed issue will be that most current Canon EF lenses are designed around a PDAF system. CDAF requires the focus to move back and forward until the highest contrast is received. Something canon lenses aren't designed to do. That's why Canon's live view is so notoriously slow and why the fast focus of EF lenses on Sony cameras is limited to the ones with PDAF on sensor focusing. I *think* a few newer Canon lenses have been optimised for CDAF, although I can't remember which ones. So they may work fine.

 

Important for some, certainly. Me, I'll be using my T/S lenses and they're all manual focus. Although the temptation to try an 85L on the SL may just prove to be too tempting.....

 

Gordon

 

Gordon

[su25]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... It's because in live view on Canons, the focusing is done directly off the imaging sensor so it has to be accurate, by definition. 

In SL, is focussing also done directly off the imaging sensor? If not, will  the EF lenses be less accurate in SL when  compared to LV focussing on Canon?

 

Another question - will EF lenses produce similar colours as that from Leica glass? I am assuming colour rendition will differ based on the lens, and it more dependent on the glass than the sensor. True?

 

Not sure what it is that Leica is doing, but I find the AF speed & accuracy, sharpness ad colour rendition on SL with Leica 24-90 lens phenomenal... I like it 

[wildlightphoto]

In SL, is focussing also done directly off the imaging sensor? 

 

 

Yes.  This is one of the advantages of mirrorless EVF cameras.  The AF systems of SLR cameras are Rube Goldberg contraptions.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

In SL, is focussing also done directly off the imaging sensor? If not, will  the EF lenses be less accurate in SL when  compared to LV focussing on Canon?

 

Another question - will EF lenses produce similar colours as that from Leica glass? I am assuming colour rendition will differ based on the lens, and it more dependent on the glass than the sensor. True?

 

Not sure what it is that Leica is doing, but I find the AF speed & accuracy, sharpness ad colour rendition on SL with Leica 24-90 lens phenomenal... I like it 

 

 

Yes. The SL uses the sensor for focusing. So even with EF lenses focusing should be dead on 95% of the time (ALL af systems have some focus errors). Just like with the SL lenses.

 

As far as colour goes. It will be different. I can use Canon, Leica, Zeiss and Sony glass on my A7R2. So I can compare directly. There are subtle differences in tone, colour and rendering. I find Canon glass a bit cooler than most Leica lenses. But I also prefer Canon glass on the wide DR sensor of the Sony over any Canon camera I've used. So the body has a role. Everything in the optical path will have some effect on the final output whether that's the lens, a UV filter, antialiasing (or not) and , micro lenses and bayer filter as well as the sensor. Some of it can be equalised in post production. But there will be a subtle difference.  Some is because of the camera, some the lens. Differences in dynamic range and demosaicing do make subtle colour and tonal differences as well. Even the raw converter and profile makes a huge difference. i'm playing with calibration profiles at the moment and their effect is huge.

 

The closest I've found to the SL (using Lightroom) in colour is the XPro2 Fuji. Very close indeed if you white balance from the same point in an image.

 

Even the different Leicas have slightly different things going on. The SL is different to the M which is different to the S. I expect the Canon glass will render somewhat cooler to the 24-90 but I prefer Canon to Nikons rendering. I don't expect it to be a big issue in real world shooting.

 

And yes, the 24-90 is phenomenal. I couldn't agree more. So is the 90-280......

 

Gordon

[rafikiphoto]

I have an EOS mount Sigma 300mm f2.8 that I'd love to use on the SL. How likely is it that 3rd party lenses will be compatible with the adaptor?

[jaapv]

Depends on how bug-free their reverse engineering has been. I know Sigma had problems, quite some time ago, when Canon changed something in their firmware.

[rafikiphoto]

I have emailed Novoflex with the question.

[brill64]

Does anyone know anywhere this can be purchased from yet?

it's not available anywhere until 31st July. available for pre-order, i guess.

[stephanjuergenschulz]

This adapter was certainly made with the full agreement from Leica.

 

Remember what Stephan Schulz, Head of Leica Product Management Professional Camera Systems was saying in LFI (November 2015) (and I quote) :

 

... We expect that adaptors for other systems will appear on the market soon. A number of mechanical adaptors is already available and we are convinced that there will also be electronic solutions for the autofocus available in due course. ...

 

I did talk about the adapter for S-lenses........    

[stephanjuergenschulz]

Such an adapter would be nice, but for the high-end lenses not really desireable. The most-expensive lenses have floating elements to get better corrections e.g. in the close focusing range. The adapter mentioned is just shifting the lens, that means the floating elements are not properly used. So you would buy an expensively-corrected lens, just to override this correction.

For older or less complex lenses this is of course good enough, but not for the best quality lenses. Also for macro it is not really usable (the moving range is simply too short).

 

I have also a lot of R lenses and had a close look at this adapter, but found it not really helpful, unfortunately. E.g. it made no sense for the R 1.4/35 with floating elements. And it was unusable with the Apo Macro 100, that also has floating elements. Also not usable with most long tele lenses.

So I think a non-AF lens will always be so, but the SL offers 3x/10x  finder enlargement and focus-peaking to get over that small problem.

 

With the adapter the flange distance is equal as on the original camera system. That means, all floating element lenses will produce with the Leica SL the same maximum image quality, the lens was designed for. Not more but also not less.

 

So, in general there is never an optical performance issue by adapting floating element lenses to mirrors systems. Apo Macro 100 is performing very well over the whole focussing range. If not, the lens may have an issue.

 

Stephan Schulz

Edited May 27, 2016 by stephanjuergenschulz

[steppenw0lf]

With the adapter the flange distance is equal as on the original camera system. That means, all floating element lenses will produce with the Leica SL the same maximum image quality, the lens was designed for. Not more but also not less.

 

So, in general there is never an optical performance issue by adapting floating element lenses to mirrors systems. Apo Macro 100 is performing very well over the whole focussing range. If not, the lens may have an issue.

 

Stephan Schulz

 

Sorry, but you have completely misunderstood our discussion. Please read the beginning and you will see what it is about.

I use a lot of adapted lenses on the SL, and the results are perfect, nobody denies this. We know this since Jono Slacks field report, where he made many exciting photos with adapted R and M lenses.

This specific discussion is about how the techart adapter focuses by moving the whole lens.

Edited May 27, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[stephanjuergenschulz]

Sorry, but you have completely misunderstood our discussion. Please read the beginning and you will see what it is about.

I use a lot of adapted lenses on the SL, and the results are perfect, nobody denies this. We know this since Jono Slacks field report, where he made many exciting photos with adapted R and M lenses.

This specific discussion is about how the techart adapter focuses by moving the whole lens.

 

True, I was too quick and did not read the whole discussion, sorry.

[Leicaiste]

I did talk about the adapter for S-lenses........    

 

 

In LFI November 2015 ? About the SL ?

 

Mmmmm ...

Edited May 27, 2016 by Leicaiste

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

I did talk about the adapter for S-lenses........

Weren't you talking about the adapter for the Hasselblad and Contax lenses?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

The Novoflex Canon EF adapter is a good thing, glad to see it announced (even if I haven't owned a Canon EF lens in over a decade, and won't be buying any). 

 

Of course, I'm more interested in the Leica R Adapter SL: when it will appear and what its features will be. Because I own a healthy number of R lenses and love using them on the SL ... :-)

 

(A Nikon adapter that supports AF and auto aperture operation would also be nice ... I have a select small set of my favorite Nikkor AI and Nikon AF lenses too.)

Edited May 28, 2016 by ramarren