Jump to content
Artin

Long lens on the SL2 with the MC 21

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have read that some of you have had experience with Canon long lenses with the MC21 

my question is .. does it work well  with all Canon super tele lenses or specific ones 

I have a few choices available to me locally 

my first choice would be the ..... 400 2.8 USM 1 ..... second would be a 500f4 USM 1. .. 3rd is a 400 DO USM 2.  

I do prefer a 400 2.8 + 1.4 converter 

Edited by Artin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Artin said:

I have read that some of you have had experience with Canon long lenses with the MC21 

my question is .. does it work well  with all Canon super tele lenses or specific ones 

I have a few choices available to me locally 

my first choice would be the ..... 400 2.8 USM 1 ..... second would be a 500f4 USM 1. .. 3rd is a 400 DO USM 2.  

I do prefer a 400 2.8 + 1.4 converter 

I have no experience with the Canon 400mm f2.8. Plenty of experience however with the 400mm f4 DO USM2. I would think that on the SL2 with the MC-21 EF-L adapter, performance should be similar with any of these lenses. Be aware that AF doesn't operate as efficiently as a native L mount lens would. Personally however I find it perfectly acceptable for my use.

You can read the feedback that I posted here:

I use the Canon 400mm lens primarily for birding. I spent a long time debating with myself on whether to get the f2.8 or f4 version. Cost considerations aside, I eventually settled on the f4  for a number of reasons listed below in no particular order:   

1. Portability- the f4 is almost 1kg lighter than the f2.8 & approx. 11cm shorter, and that's before you add on the monster lens hood.

2. Subject focus- even  with birds, in order to achieve uniform focus of the subject with proper depth of field, I find myself stopping down to f5.6 or f8 anyway, so the f2.8 aperture becomes almost redundant. With these extra-long focal lengths, even at f5.6 and f8  you'll still achieve subject separation from the background.

3. IMO with modern sensors, IBIS or OIS and better low light performance, you really don't need an f2.8 telephoto lens. I still have my Carl Zeiss 300mm f2.8 Tele APO-Tessar which I occasionally use on the SL & SL2 in full manual mode via a Novoflex C-L adapter, and I find that I'm mostly using it in the f5.6 to f8 range.

Some other points to bear in mind- AFC is not available only AFS works, IBIS is not available however the OIS works well - see pg. 2 of the thread I linked above.

Hope this helps.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the SL2 together with MC-21 and the Canon EF 600/4L IS III. AF-performance is very, very slow, but Af is working. But even when I was using MF and a tripod the pictures are not as sharp as with any Canon camera. The IQ is far behind. I returned the MC-21 the same day... See sample picture below.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mschuette said:

I tried the SL2 together with MC-21 and the Canon EF 600/4L IS III. AF-performance is very, very slow, but Af is working. But even when I was using MF and a tripod the pictures are not as sharp as with any Canon camera. The IQ is far behind. I returned the MC-21 the same day... See sample picture below.

That's disappointing. If you have chance try out the Sigma 500 f4 SA mount  with the MC-21 SA-L adapter and see what that delivers. I'm presently unable to get my hands on one to test here in SA.

It's probably focus length dependent, I've found the sweet spot with the 400mm f4 II on the SL2.  As I've previously said here ad nauseum 😵  IQ is excellent, AF is accurate and acceptable for me.

Edited by michali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, michali said:

That's disappointing. If you have chance try out the Sigma 500 f4 SA mount  with the MC-21 SA-L adapter and see what that delivers. I'm presently unable to get my hands on one to test here in SA.

It's probably focus length dependent, I've found the sweet spot with the 400mm f4 II on the SL2.  As I've previously said here ad nauseum 😵  IQ is excellent, AF is accurate and acceptable for me.

My selections are based on price of second hand units available to me.  Based on the amount of use I can pick up a 400 2.8 Is1.  For about 3500 cnd.  The 400 DO.  Is up around the 7000 mark.  I am going to test them out.  Even the sigma 500 sounds good.  I may try that option 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, michali said:

That's disappointing. If you have chance try out the Sigma 500 f4 SA mount  with the MC-21 SA-L adapter and see what that delivers. I'm presently unable to get my hands on one to test here in SA.

It's probably focus length dependent, I've found the sweet spot with the 400mm f4 II on the SL2.  As I've previously said here ad nauseum 😵  IQ is excellent, AF is accurate and acceptable for me.

+1 for the Canon 400mm f4 DO v2 + Sigma MC-21 (which I got based on @michali's postings...). The AF works fine - certainly not blistering fast - but it is absolutely usable for me. I was a little concerned that IBIS cannot be used with the MC-21, but the lens' IS works amazingly well. You seasily see this when the shutter release is half-pressed; the subject is then only slowly drifting around in the EVF, not jumping as is the case when the lens is handheld wo stabilisation. And the sharpness is great - at all distances as far as I can see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All of the experiences are regarding teh very long tele lenses 400mm and above. Is there any similar experience with other teles 85 or 100mm the Cnon 70-200mm zoom? That would be very helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Stunden schrieb helged:

+1 for the Canon 400mm f4 DO v2 + Sigma MC-21 (which I got based on @michali's postings...). The AF works fine - certainly not blistering fast - but it is absolutely usable for me. I was a little concerned that IBIS cannot be used with the MC-21, but the lens' IS works amazingly well. You seasily see this when the shutter release is half-pressed; the subject is then only slowly drifting around in the EVF, not jumping as is the case when the lens is handheld wo stabilisation. And the sharpness is great - at all distances as far as I can see. 

Can you show as any sample pictures? Also in 100% crop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that a lens that would be very interesting to use, especially for birding, is the Canon 100-400 IS II (plus extender).

If I were thinking of moving from my R mount tele rig (80-200 and APO 2x extender on the CL), that's what I'd want to try first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, biswasg said:

All of the experiences are regarding teh very long tele lenses 400mm and above. Is there any similar experience with other teles 85 or 100mm the Cnon 70-200mm zoom? That would be very helpful.

why not the TL 55-135 (which renders 80-200 @ 20 mps on the SL2)? Jono says it's great there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bags27 said:

why not the TL 55-135 (which renders 80-200 @ 20 mps on the SL2)? Jono says it's great there.

You cannot really compare 55-135 with a FF 70-200. When including APS-C mode, a 70-200 'renders' as a 70-300.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SrMi said:

You cannot really compare 55-135 with a FF 70-200. When including APS-C mode, a 70-200 'renders' as a 70-300.

 

 

Not sure I agree about no comparison. The 55-135 is a pretty terrific lens. Unless you are cropping severely (and admittedly, with a tele one sometimes does), this lens is a great mid-range tele, and as an L mount needs no extra equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bags27 said:

Not sure I agree about no comparison. The 55-135 is a pretty terrific lens. Unless you are cropping severely (and admittedly, with a tele one sometimes does), this lens is a great mid-range tele, and as an L mount needs no extra equipment.

I was talking about range, not quality. TL 55-135 is a lovely lens, but it is not an 80-200 just because it requires mandatory cropping. It is and will always be a 55-135 :-). IMO, it does not make sense to compare the range by using the APS-C crop for 55-135 and no-crop for 70-200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mschuette said:

Can you show as any sample pictures? Also in 100% crop?

Here's an image taken with the SL2 & Canon 400mm USM II with MC-21 adapter.

Final image in next post.

Edited by michali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mschuette said:

Can you show as any sample pictures? Also in 100% crop?

Here's another heavily cropped image taken with the SL2 & Canon 400mm USM II with MC-21 adapter.

Bear in mind that these birds are not more than 5cm tall, photographed in shady light, the IQ and detail captured by the lens is excellent, which one can't really appreciate here.

Edited by michali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bags27 said:

 

I would think that a lens that would be very interesting to use, especially for birding, is the Canon 100-400 IS II (plus extender).

 

I would not recommend the Canon 100-400 IS II with extender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only interested in Super tele Primes Zooms will not cut it. michali has had some wonderfull images that he has posted on this site very Nice work.

I have had Nikon 300 2.8   400 2.8 and 500 F4  they were all very nice  that is what I am mainly after .. but with my busy scedual this past few years It will most likely be a backyard rig 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leicaiste said:

I would not recommend the Canon 100-400 IS II with extender. 

Interesting. Two very fine naturalist photographers I know swear by it. So does Ken Rockwell, who, FWIW, calls it "the world's best telephoto lens." If course, he exaggerates everything and of course there are far more expensive lenses that are far better. But still....

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/100-400mm-ii.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not famous, but I also find the EF 100-400 IS II an excellent lens. B) Usually you don't need an extender, cropping is better. But it works ok with 1.4x extender, but loses AF with 2x extender. (Main strength is close focus even closer than 1m . I also thought about adding a close up tube, but in the end never needed to.)
Of course AF is much quicker with a Canon 5DSR, but with MC-21 acceptable on SL2.

Edited by caissa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy