g7 & Metabones EF adapter compatibility?

[ThomHaig]

Hey everyone,

A few months back I bought a Panasonic G7. Really blown away by what it's capable of, especially given the price!

I'm considering picking up a Metabones adapter, and I'm wondering whether to go Nikon or Canon EF mount? At present I only have one lens of each mount (tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for EF and Nikon 85mm f1.8 D) so I'd happily consider either. What I'm concerned about it the Metabones Nikon adapter's lack of electronic communication with the lens (no autofocus, no IS). - I'm using my G7 mostly for video, but it's nice that it's a very adequate (for me) stills camera too. I'm by no means a serious photographer, but is AF speed through the metabones EF good enough for the occasional still, as well as good enough to get in focus before switching back to manual when shooting video?

My other concern with the electronic communication with the EF metabones is compatibility with the G7 specifically. Here on the Metabones site, it lists G7 and GX8 compatibility as being different to that of other cameras, though I'd assume it would be the same: http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BT3 Can anyone clarify if G7 and GH4 communicate with metabones + EF lenses differently?

My other consideration is which metabones to pick within their product line. Searching online suggests that they had a firmware update (for the EF mount) that improved AF. There's the metabones ULTRA (always in CAPS!) the T, and the XL. On paper specs, I'd go XL for the slight extra light coming in, but is autofocus the same between them?

Would really appreciate any insight to my decision. Thanks very much

 

 

[Cinegain]

Continuous AF is pretty dinky, so I'd only use it for quick S-AF. But then again... that's not mighty difficult by hand either and would be the way you'd do it with vintage glass and cine primes anyways. But yeah, for stills... maybe. But I prefer native lenses for that (also because those lenses go along with the whole compact formfactor, I don't feel the need to rig up with photography as I would for shooting video) and either Sigma 18-35mm and Tokina 11-16mm for example don't offer IS anyways, so it's really only for AF then.

In turn you can save a couple of bucks by going with the somewhat cheaper Speedbooster XL for Nikon, that lacks the electronic connection. The beauty of it is you can control the aperture mechanically with a ring, unlike the Canon counterparts, which also enables you to use 'em on like 10~15 USD dummy adapters (two focal lengths for the price of one).

The Canon mount itself is a little more flexible, e.g. I overlooked that Contax Zeiss is not very compatible with the Nikon mount unless you change the mount out for a Leitax conversion to make it work on a few lenses.

I personally went with the Nikon-mount glass from the start. That also allows me to use a 2nd camera for example with a cheaper Lens Turbo on there.

[Mattias Burling]

I would get EF. You can still control aperture on Nikon lenses with a cheap Nikon-EF. And you get to adapt m42, C/Y and others to the speedbooster.

And you still get two lenses in on all of them by keeping a spare dumb ED-mft.

[tupp]

Be aware that not all Nikkor lenses will work with the Metabones EF speed boosters.

 

Metabones puts a flange around the front element of their EF speed boosters.  This flange sits a little too far forward, presumably to prevent the use of EF-S lenses.  This flange hits the rear protective hood on some Nikkor lenses, preventing those Nikkor lenses from being mounted in the Metabones EF speed booster.

 

Of course, the Metabones Nikkor F speed booster has no problem mounting Nikkor lenses.  It would be great if Metabones would make dummy EF Speedboosters without that forward flange, which would allow many more lenses to be mounted to a speedbooster.

[ThomHaig]

Hey, thanks very much for your input, everyone.

It's a tough decision, but at the moment I'm thinking I'll go the Nikon route. I really like my 85mm  f1.8D, and there seem to be fast and inexpensive 35mm and 50mm nikon options to expand my set of primes. The canon equivalents seem to be more expensive. Whilst it would be really nice to have IS, I don't really think I'll be shooting too much hand-held for any serious work.

I've been going back and forth a bit in my head, but the more I think about it, I think it makes sense to see the adapted primes as primarily video-only lenses, and to probably stick to nice compact native MFT lenses for amateur photography excursions.