Best Metabones Adapter for Canon EF lenses to Sony a9 body

I've looked a little, but can't figure our which adapter is best should I decide to buy the Sony 9.
Do they work well and are any functions of the body lost. I don't care about video.
Thanks

Assuming you mean the a9 but no matter, the best adapter is the Sigma MC-11 followed by the Metabones V.  I would not consider any others.  How well they work will depend on the lenses.  If you are planning on using them with super telephoto lenses or really anything over 200mm, you will be fine for totally still subjects but you won't find the performance acceptable on longer lenses, especially if there is any movement.  Those lenses are just no made for that and have the wrong type of focusing motors for optimal performance on a mirrorless camera.  You would want native lenses for that.  For landscape photography or still photography of non-moving subjects, they work very well on wide and normal type lenses.  Focus will be a little slower than native lenses but it doesn't really matter for that kind of photography. The adapters preserve pretty much all of the functions of the camera but performance under certain AF modes may be less than optimal.

Something I have learned from now now 6 years with the Sony system and teaching DSLR to mirrorless transition classes for 5 of those years, in virtually every case photographers that make the switch, within a year or so decide that dealing with adapters isn't something they want to do forever and end up buying native lenses.  There are so many lens options out there now and you can get phenomenal optics at half the price of Sony lenses (for example the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 together are less money than either the Sony 16-35 or 24-70 f/2.8 lenses by themselves and give up almost nothing in image quality).  Just about every Canon shooter I have ever met that went to Sony spent $400-$500 on a Metabones and after less than a year didn't use it all.  They could have easily have applied that $500 to buying native lenses along with selling their Canon lenses and had a lower financial burden than if they had just bought native lenses to begin with.

E.J. Peiker wrote: 
Something I have learned from now now 6 years with the Sony system and teaching DSLR to mirrorless transition classes for 5 of those years, in virtually every case photographers that make the switch, within a year or so decide that dealing with adapters isn't something they want to do forever and end up buying native lenses.  There are so many lens options out there now and you can get phenomenal optics at half the price of Sony lenses (for example the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 together are less money than either the Sony 16-35 or 24-70 f/2.8 lenses by themselves and give up almost nothing in image quality).  Just about every Canon shooter I have ever met that went to Sony spent $400-$500 on a Metabones and after less than a year didn't use it all.  They could have easily have applied that $500 to buying native lenses along with selling their Canon lenses and had a lower financial burden than if they had just bought native lenses to begin with.

I am one of them-lesson learned late

E.J. Peiker wrote:Assuming you mean the a9 but no matter, the best adapter is the Sigma MC-11 followed by the Metabones V.  I would not consider any others.  How well they work will depend on the lenses.  If you are planning on using them with super telephoto lenses or really anything over 200mm, you will be fine for totally still subjects but you won't find the performance acceptable on longer lenses, especially if there is any movement.  Those lenses are just no made for that and have the wrong type of focusing motors for optimal performance on a mirrorless camera.  You would want native lenses for that.  For landscape photography or still photography of non-moving subjects, they work very well on wide and normal type lenses.  Focus will be a little slower than native lenses but it doesn't really matter for that kind of photography. The adapters preserve pretty much all of the functions of the camera but performance under certain AF modes may be less than optimal.

Something I have learned from now now 6 years with the Sony system and teaching DSLR to mirrorless transition classes for 5 of those years, in virtually every case photographers that make the switch, within a year or so decide that dealing with adapters isn't something they want to do forever and end up buying native lenses.  There are so many lens options out there now and you can get phenomenal optics at half the price of Sony lenses (for example the Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 together are less money than either the Sony 16-35 or 24-70 f/2.8 lenses by themselves and give up almost nothing in image quality).  Just about every Canon shooter I have ever met that went to Sony spent $400-$500 on a Metabones and after less than a year didn't use it all.  They could have easily have applied that $500 to buying native lenses along with selling their Canon lenses and had a lower financial burden than if they had just bought native lenses to begin with.

Boy am I glad I asked because I shoot primarily with the Canon 500/4 II. I am way behind the learning curve on mirrorless bodies.
I am pretty happy with my Canon MKIV right now, except for the bulkiness and the weight.
Can you tell me what you consider to be the primary advantage of a mirrorless body, like the Sony a9?
If I do decide to switch to mirrorless which super telephotos do you recommend for flight shooting and which would you stay away from?
Lastly, are there any rumors that Canon will soon come out with a mirrorless body that you might recommend?
Thanks very much. 

E.J. Peiker wrote:[snip]
Something I have learned from now now 6 years with the Sony system and teaching DSLR to mirrorless transition classes for 5 of those years, [/snip]

You're not saying people actually would pay to attend the transition classes, are you?

Don't people realize that mirrorless camera is just a camera without a mirror, just like the camera that every cell phone comes with these days?

DChan wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:[snip]
Something I have learned from now now 6 years with the Sony system and teaching DSLR to mirrorless transition classes for 5 of those years, [/snip]

You're not saying people actually would pay to attend the transition classes, are you?

Don't people realize that mirrorless camera is just a camera without a mirror, just like the camera that every cell phone comes with these days?

Absolutely, there are lots of people that want to come up to speed quickly and be shooting as if they hadn't changed systems in a day.  Mostly these are people that also transitioned from one manufacturer to another and want to get back to working rather than trying to figure out things right away.

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote: Boy am I glad I asked because I shoot primarily with the Canon 500/4 II. I am way behind the learning curve on mirrorless bodies.
I am pretty happy with my Canon MKIV right now, except for the bulkiness and the weight.
Can you tell me what you consider to be the primary advantage of a mirrorless body, like the Sony a9?
If I do decide to switch to mirrorless which super telephotos do you recommend for flight shooting and which would you stay away from?
Lastly, are there any rumors that Canon will soon come out with a mirrorless body that you might recommend?
Thanks very much. 

There are a number of reasons that come to mind off the top of my head:
- Body that weighs half of a D5 or 1Dx
- Faster frame rate
- Zero viewfinder blackout
- Much better AF tracking especially when the focus point is outside of the center array of a DSLR.  An a9 will track whatever you first focus on through the entire frame regardless of where it is.
- Eye AF on humans and mammals
- No noise at all when shooting (The 1Dx cameras are literally the loudest things I have ever heard)
- No mirror slap
- Histograms, blinkies, zebras prior to exposure - no more shoot, chimp, change exposure, shoot again

There are always lots of rumors, many of which are meaningless.  I'm sure Canon will come out with a pro level EOS R in the next year but not until well after they have milked the 1Dx Mk III cow.  Note that even when they do, it is doubtful your super tele for EOS mount will work as well with the Canon adapter on an EOS R type body as it does on your EOS mount camera - it may be acceptable though but again, those lenses don't use liniear stepper motors and aren't designed for on-sensor AF making it more difficult.  

If you were to go full in, an a9 II, with Sony 600 f/4 and the two TC's would be the top of the line solution.  But I have found that the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 is more than adequate for most situations.  Only when you need more reach with a TC does the 600 really blow away that combo.  I have resorted to renting the 600 f/4 on those rare occasions when I absolutely positively need that, primarily when I anticipate needing a 2x converter.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote: Boy am I glad I asked because I shoot primarily with the Canon 500/4 II. I am way behind the learning curve on mirrorless bodies.
I am pretty happy with my Canon MKIV right now, except for the bulkiness and the weight.
Can you tell me what you consider to be the primary advantage of a mirrorless body, like the Sony a9?
If I do decide to switch to mirrorless which super telephotos do you recommend for flight shooting and which would you stay away from?
Lastly, are there any rumors that Canon will soon come out with a mirrorless body that you might recommend?
Thanks very much. 

There are a number of reasons that come to mind off the top of my head:
- Body that weighs half of a D5 or 1Dx
- Faster frame rate
- Zero viewfinder blackout
- Much better AF tracking especially when the focus point is outside of the center array of a DSLR.  An a9 will track whatever you first focus on through the entire frame regardless of where it is.
- Eye AF on humans and mammals
- No noise at all when shooting (The 1Dx cameras are literally the loudest things I have ever heard)
- No mirror slap
- Histograms, blinkies, zebras prior to exposure - no more shoot, chimp, change exposure, shoot again

There are always lots of rumors, many of which are meaningless.  I'm sure Canon will come out with a pro level EOS R in the next year but not until well after they have milked the 1Dx Mk III cow.  Note that even when they do, it is doubtful your super tele for EOS mount will work as well with the Canon adapter on an EOS R type body as it does on your EOS mount camera - it may be acceptable though but again, those lenses don't use liniear stepper motors and aren't designed for on-sensor AF making it more difficult.  

If you were to go full in, an a9 II, with Sony 600 f/4 and the two TC's would be the top of the line solution.  But I have found that the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 is more than adequate for most situations.  Only when you need more reach with a TC does the 600 really blow away that combo.  I have resorted to renting the 600 f/4 on those rare occasions when I absolutely positively need that, primarily when I anticipate needing a 2x converter.

Thank you. I didn't realize you were giving classes on converting to mirrorless systems, so I wasn't trying to get information without paying as some of the other comments seemed to imply. I looked at Fred Miranda's Buy and Sell sight and it looks as if many people are unloading their Canon gear and prices are falling and stuff isn't selling very fast.
Will the Sony 200-600 autofocus with the 1.4x on the Sony a9II?
Thanks again.

It's no problem, Richard, ask away!  There are a lot of people that like a 1 on 1 hands on learning experience

The 200-600 will AF even with the 2x on an a9 or a9 II but of course it slows down.

E.J. Peiker wrote:It's no problem, Richard, ask away!  There are a lot of people that like a 1 on 1 hands on learning experience

The 200-600 will AF even with the 2x on an a9 or a9 II but of course it slows down.

Thanks again. You are very kind to share your knowledge

I've used the Metabones and Sigma on several Canon lenses, 500mmf4 V1, 400mmf4 DO V2 and an assortment of smaller lenses. IMO, the Sigma is hands down the best. What I found is that initial acquisition is slower with the big lenses, but once on, it performs quite well. But, if it loses focus, it is slow to re-acquire. Enough so that it'll make you frustrated. The fact that it works at all is amazing. Like others, I grew tired of the compromises of adapters and dumped all my Canon gear last year. In years past, I could sell a Canon long lens in a week or two. It took me several months to unload my Canon gear. There doesn't appear to be much interest in their big lenses.
The 200-600 with 2x focuses quite well with the A9, that combo even works with the A7R4 but it is contrast-detect only and quite slow. For something stationary and in contrasty light, it's usable with a little post-processing to sharpen things up but overall it's not really very useful(I only tried it once just for the fun of it).

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I've used the Metabones and Sigma on several Canon lenses, 500mmf4 V1, 400mmf4 DO V2 and an assortment of smaller lenses. IMO, the Sigma is hands down the best. What I found is that initial acquisition is slower with the big lenses, but once on, it performs quite well. But, if it loses focus, it is slow to re-acquire. Enough so that it'll make you frustrated. The fact that it works at all is amazing. Like others, I grew tired of the compromises of adapters and dumped all my Canon gear last year. In years past, I could sell a Canon long lens in a week or two. It took me several months to unload my Canon gear. There doesn't appear to be much interest in their big lenses.
The 200-600 with 2x focuses quite well with the A9, that combo even works with the A7R4 but it is contrast-detect only and quite slow. For something stationary and in contrasty light, it's usable with a little post-processing to sharpen things up but overall it's not really very useful(I only tried it once just for the fun of it).

Scott,
Just want to make sure I'm clear on your comments about the 200-600. Did you say that the 200-600 works well on the a9 or a9II with the 2x? Does it autofocus and does that combo work for birds in flight?
Thanks

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I've used the Metabones and Sigma on several Canon lenses, 500mmf4 V1, 400mmf4 DO V2 and an assortment of smaller lenses. IMO, the Sigma is hands down the best. What I found is that initial acquisition is slower with the big lenses, but once on, it performs quite well. But, if it loses focus, it is slow to re-acquire. Enough so that it'll make you frustrated. The fact that it works at all is amazing. Like others, I grew tired of the compromises of adapters and dumped all my Canon gear last year. In years past, I could sell a Canon long lens in a week or two. It took me several months to unload my Canon gear. There doesn't appear to be much interest in their big lenses.
The 200-600 with 2x focuses quite well with the A9, that combo even works with the A7R4 but it is contrast-detect only and quite slow. For something stationary and in contrasty light, it's usable with a little post-processing to sharpen things up but overall it's not really very useful(I only tried it once just for the fun of it).

Scott,
Just want to make sure I'm clear on your comments about the 200-600. Did you say that the 200-600 works well on the a9 or a9II with the 2x? Does it autofocus and does that combo work for birds in flight?
Thanks

The A9 works well with the 2x for non-demanding conditions. I've not tried flight photography with it. In general, I'm not a big believer in 2x TC's. I think it's asking a lot of the combination, but the A9 is so good, maybe it will work decently. I'll maybe get a chance to try it on fast fliers this weekend and post back.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I've used the Metabones and Sigma on several Canon lenses, 500mmf4 V1, 400mmf4 DO V2 and an assortment of smaller lenses. IMO, the Sigma is hands down the best. What I found is that initial acquisition is slower with the big lenses, but once on, it performs quite well. But, if it loses focus, it is slow to re-acquire. Enough so that it'll make you frustrated. The fact that it works at all is amazing. Like others, I grew tired of the compromises of adapters and dumped all my Canon gear last year. In years past, I could sell a Canon long lens in a week or two. It took me several months to unload my Canon gear. There doesn't appear to be much interest in their big lenses.
The 200-600 with 2x focuses quite well with the A9, that combo even works with the A7R4 but it is contrast-detect only and quite slow. For something stationary and in contrasty light, it's usable with a little post-processing to sharpen things up but overall it's not really very useful(I only tried it once just for the fun of it).

Scott,
Just want to make sure I'm clear on your comments about the 200-600. Did you say that the 200-600 works well on the a9 or a9II with the 2x? Does it autofocus and does that combo work for birds in flight?
Thanks

The A9 works well with the 2x for non-demanding conditions. I've not tried flight photography with it. In general, I'm not a big believer in 2x TC's. I think it's asking a lot of the combination, but the A9 is so good, maybe it will work decently. I'll maybe get a chance to try it on fast fliers this weekend and post back.

Do you have the A9 or the A9II? Have you tried it with the 1.4x?
Looking forward to your flight report.

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I've used the Metabones and Sigma on several Canon lenses, 500mmf4 V1, 400mmf4 DO V2 and an assortment of smaller lenses. IMO, the Sigma is hands down the best. What I found is that initial acquisition is slower with the big lenses, but once on, it performs quite well. But, if it loses focus, it is slow to re-acquire. Enough so that it'll make you frustrated. The fact that it works at all is amazing. Like others, I grew tired of the compromises of adapters and dumped all my Canon gear last year. In years past, I could sell a Canon long lens in a week or two. It took me several months to unload my Canon gear. There doesn't appear to be much interest in their big lenses.
The 200-600 with 2x focuses quite well with the A9, that combo even works with the A7R4 but it is contrast-detect only and quite slow. For something stationary and in contrasty light, it's usable with a little post-processing to sharpen things up but overall it's not really very useful(I only tried it once just for the fun of it).

Scott,
Just want to make sure I'm clear on your comments about the 200-600. Did you say that the 200-600 works well on the a9 or a9II with the 2x? Does it autofocus and does that combo work for birds in flight?
Thanks

The A9 works well with the 2x for non-demanding conditions. I've not tried flight photography with it. In general, I'm not a big believer in 2x TC's. I think it's asking a lot of the combination, but the A9 is so good, maybe it will work decently. I'll maybe get a chance to try it on fast fliers this weekend and post back.

Do you have the A9 or the A9II? Have you tried it with the 1.4x?
Looking forward to your flight report.

I have the A9. As far as I know, the AF is almost identical.

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

RichardMittleman/Gon2Foto wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I've used the Metabones and Sigma on several Canon lenses, 500mmf4 V1, 400mmf4 DO V2 and an assortment of smaller lenses. IMO, the Sigma is hands down the best. What I found is that initial acquisition is slower with the big lenses, but once on, it performs quite well. But, if it loses focus, it is slow to re-acquire. Enough so that it'll make you frustrated. The fact that it works at all is amazing. Like others, I grew tired of the compromises of adapters and dumped all my Canon gear last year. In years past, I could sell a Canon long lens in a week or two. It took me several months to unload my Canon gear. There doesn't appear to be much interest in their big lenses.
The 200-600 with 2x focuses quite well with the A9, that combo even works with the A7R4 but it is contrast-detect only and quite slow. For something stationary and in contrasty light, it's usable with a little post-processing to sharpen things up but overall it's not really very useful(I only tried it once just for the fun of it).

Scott,
Just want to make sure I'm clear on your comments about the 200-600. Did you say that the 200-600 works well on the a9 or a9II with the 2x? Does it autofocus and does that combo work for birds in flight?
Thanks

The A9 works well with the 2x for non-demanding conditions. I've not tried flight photography with it. In general, I'm not a big believer in 2x TC's. I think it's asking a lot of the combination, but the A9 is so good, maybe it will work decently. I'll maybe get a chance to try it on fast fliers this weekend and post back.

Do you have the A9 or the A9II? Have you tried it with the 1.4x?
Looking forward to your flight report.

Coming from a Canon DSLR, if you decide to go with an A9/A9II, you will have a much better initial experience with it if you buy a grip.

Is there a Sony APS-C ML body that matches the a9/a9 II AF tracking capability (BIF for example)?
What about a6400 and/or a6600?

KK Hui wrote:Is there a Sony APS-C ML body that matches the a9/a9 II AF tracking capability (BIF for example)?
What about a6400 and/or a6600?

Both of these feature an AF system that is highly capable and nearly as good as the a9, certainly capable of any BIF photography you can throw at it.  Unfortunately ergonomically those bodies are a nightmare.  You would be better off getting an a7R IV and shooting it in 26 megapixel APS-C mode.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Both of these feature an AF system that is highly capable and nearly as good as the a9, certainly capable of any BIF photography you can throw at it ... 

Good to know and thanks EJ!
It'd be a good setup for entering Sony with budget ...
viz. a6400 and 200-600 for BIF

E.J. Peiker wrote:Assuming you mean the a9 but no matter, the best adapter is the Sigma MC-11 followed by the Metabones V.  I would not consider any others.

Totally agree. I own both but my testing consistently finds that whichever has the newest firmware is the best choice at that time.