Is this the age of the adapter

wornish

Senior Member
Wonder what effect it will have on the battery life.
At $349 its certainly not cheap.

Adding any adapter between the lens mount on the body and the lens introduces more "flex" in the system I wouldn't jump in here until I see a lot of reviews and real life experiences.

Wonder if its weather proof?

That said Sony do have a very active fan base who will probably love it.
 

Daz

Senior Member
I like it though, this is a step forward of technology. I am guessing they will be able to make this work with Nikon and Canon (in time) so that is a big plus !!
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Any adapter that allows full functionality of one mount on another is likely worth its weight in whatever you're measuring with. My understanding is that Sony is particularly adaptable to other lenses and I've got several friends who have made the investment in adapters. I only have a manual adapter for mine (cheap chinese for manual focus stuff) and was waiting to make my Nikon/Canon decision before I popped for anything.

If you're sporting two different systems in your bag they can be great. And given that Sony's "VR" is in-camera, that part isn't a big deal.
 

Daz

Senior Member
Well Canon already works on Sony due to it being an electrical focus, There is a Nikon auto focus mount in the wild by a company, not out for public release yet though
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
....And given that Sony's "VR" is in-camera, that part isn't a big deal.

Would be nice if Nikon put the VR in the bodies instead of in the lenses. Then we'd only have to pay for it once instead of everytime we purchase a VR lens. ;) I didn't know Sony made any cameras that way. As always, thanks for the info!
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Would be nice if Nikon put the VR in the bodies instead of in the lenses. Then we'd only have to pay for it once instead of everytime we purchase a VR lens. ;) I didn't know Sony made any cameras that way. As always, thanks for the info!

You can only do it with mirrorless.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
If you weren't interested in looking it up then you're probably not interested enough in reading all this, but in case there's someone who is, here's an explanation of what each type is and what's good/bad about each. ;)

https://photographylife.com/lens-stabilization-vs-in-camera-stabilization

A couple of interesting points from the article:

Optically-stabilized lenses are more effective – while there is no science with clear examples behind this statement (at least that I know of), both Canon and Nikon argue that image stabilization can be fine-tuned and tweaked on individual lenses, which would make image stabilization more effective when compared to generic in-camera stabilization. Tuning image stabilization based on lens features such as size, weight and focal length can provide the benefit of enabling different options for image stabilization.

Has anyone heard about the ability to fine-tune/tweak VR on any manufacturers' lenses?

And here is another one which I've never heard about previously:

Image Stabilization can degrade bokeh – this one might be a surprise for you, but it is true. Because the light that passes through the lens is shifted from its optical path when image stabilization is engaged, it can negatively affect lens bokeh.

Has anyone noticed a degradation of bokeh due to VR?
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Has anyone heard about the ability to fine-tune/tweak VR on any manufacturers' lenses?

...

Has anyone noticed a degradation of bokeh due to VR?

The point of the first statement is the every manufacturer fine tunes the VR on that particular lens as a part of the design and release of the lens. VR is designed to be as effective as possible for the lens design. In-body stabilization is a one-size fits all proposition unless the body manufacturer is willing to build in stabilization profiles for individual lenses (likely their own). No matter if you're shooting at 16mm with a lightweight kit lens or at 500mm with an adapter super zoom, the IS system is the same.

As for the other one, take a look at most images shot with a 150-500/600 zoom. These are almost exclusively shot with VR on and I cannot think of a time in my life where someone has said, "Look at that gorgeous bokeh", in one of my shots using that lens. I've never bothered to compare images taken with and without VR at the long lens of my 150-500mm, but I do know that I've often lamented the harshness of some of the OOF regions. How much of that is the glass and how much is VR is hard to say because, in general, I'm not going to be shooting at 500mm without VR handheld, and I'm not going to shoot with it on a tripod. Suffice it to say I don't doubt it. In general I find sharpness is better achieved without VR when you can achieve a shutter speed that eliminates movement, so if that's the case why wouldn't bokeh be negatively impacted as well?
 
Last edited:

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I think ime right in saying that IBS is not as effective with long lenses,i think Olympus have it in there new 300mm lens to work along side the IBS.

Havent read the linked piece yet.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
The point of the first statement is the every manufacturer fine tunes the VR on that particular lens as a part of the design and release of the lens. VR is designed to be as effective as possible for the lens design. In-body stabilization is a one-size fits all proposition unless the body manufacturer is willing to build in stabilization profiles for individual lenses (likely their own). No matter if you're shooting at 16mm with a lightweight kit lens or at 500mm with an adapter super zoom, the IS system is the same.

As for the other one, take a look at most images shot with a 150-500/600 zoom. These are almost exclusively shot with VR on and I cannot think of a time in my life where someone has said, "Look at that gorgeous bokeh", in one of my shots using that lens. I've never bothered to compare images taken with and without VR at the long lens of my 150-500mm, but I do know that I've often lamented the harshness of some of the OOF regions. How much of that is the glass and how much is VR is hard to say because, in general, I'm not going to be shooting at 500mm without VR handheld, and I'm not going to shoot with it on a tripod. Suffice it to say I don't doubt it. In general I find sharpness is better achieved without VR when you can achieve a shutter speed that eliminates movement, so if that's the case why wouldn't bokeh be negatively impacted as well?

Thank you for your comment, Jake. The way the article was written, I thought it meant some consumers had the ability to tweak VR on certain lenses...similar to how we can adjust AF with each lens.

For me, even with VR on, I still get a tiny amount of blur so I tend to use a tripod and turn off the VR. Now with the monopod, I have a lighter load to carry. :)
 
Top