TechArt Pro Sony E To Nikon Z Adapter

[heart0less]

Does Techart support eye AF? 

[Lestor]

Thanks for the detailed review.You have mentioned that the Contax G adapter from Techart for the Sony E is now working on the Nikon Z via the TZE-01. Is this something you have confirmed yourself? I have feedback on the Techart TA-GA3 that it is not working yet on the Z via the TZE-01. Thanks for confirming.

-lestor 

[Andrew Reid]

The TA-GA3 I assumed working as stacking a Techart adapter on a Techart adapter, you'd think they'd talk to each other. Seems I need to correct that part of the article as amazingly it doesn't! More worryingly still, no luck with the Leica M AF adapter either... The motor fires up but it just parks at infinity and does nothing in any AF mode.

In the full review I'll make all of this clear. Need to test more and ask Techart what the firmware update situation is.

[BTM_Pix]

31 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

More worryingly still, no luck with the Leica M AF adapter either... The motor fires up but it just parks at infinity and does nothing in any AF mode.

 

Oh bollocks.

<clicks Remove Z6 From Basket>

[Andrew Reid]

I've contacted them to see what is going on. Hopefully it's just a firmware update away from not being a total disappointment.

[BasiliskFilm]

Is the Leica M AF adaptor smooth enough for video (when used on a Sony body)? I have seen that it is accurate, but thought it was not very smooth.

[Andrew Reid]

The Leica M AF packs up and goes home in video mode. Stills only.

I've updated the firmware of it (via the bluetooth smartphone updater app from Techart) and still no luck stacking it on the Z6.

Native Sony E mount lenses working amazingly in video mode though on the Techart Z-E mount adapter... Glued to the subject.

While I await response from Techart I'm going to see if there's a new firmware via USB lens cap for the TZE

[Castorp]

“Of the Z lenses I have the 35mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 and 24-70mm F4 – all of which cost me far too much money, only for them to be discounted almost to half price just a few months later.”

Where can I find the 35/1.8S for half price? I will buy it immediately. Thank You

Also Andrew, you keep saying how much you dislike the Z glass without making an argument for why they don’t work for you. It makes it difficult to take you seriously. I’m curious to hear why.

Had I held off I could have bought the superior Z7 for almost the same money as my Z6 but I fail to see how this is Nikon’s fault? Early adopters often pay that price whichever the type of product. I fail to see how aggressive discounts (from all the manufacturers btw) in the face of a quickly shrinking market would not make sense? 

I disagree with you regarding the Z lenses. Great value for money. Better built than G or D lenses. Better put together than any Fuji X mount I had. The XF lenses may be metal on the outside but with far lesser tolerances, wobbling barrel on the 16-55/2.8 and slightly loose bayonet fitting on all lenses except the 50mm f2.

I don’t think high quality plastics is a bad thing. It’s more practical in cold weather and often deals with impact better. Not to mention lower weight.

The control ring has perfect resistance on all the Z lenses I have and the optics are better than anything I’ve ever seen. The choice to first release superlative quality F1.8 primes is more practical to most than what Canon has done. Super speed exotic heavy specialist glass with far fewer use cases, even if they do make for more exciting news it’s true.

Theres nothing as good at the price or compactness as the 24-70/4S out there, the 14-30/4S is unique and optically on even footing with the twice heavy 14-24G. The new 2.8 zoom is supposed to be incredible. The primes so far are both spectacular.

They’re quiet, fast and has what looks to be the best weather sealing out there (just look at the design of the seal at the base of the lens, I’ve never seen that construction before and it’s a much better design than just the rubber gasket you find on everything else). 

No focus breathing or other weird focusing behaviour. 

Almost no aberrations and no coma 

Extremely sharp with good rendering and neutral colour.

Lens control ring awesome for exposure compensation or step-less aperture control. 

For sure it’s not like an old charming Sonnar, but I don’t need my standard glass to be full of “character”, I want it to be as neutral, sharp and true to the world as possible.

The only problem I see is the lack of a setting for linear focus behaviour of the focus ring. And that the lens line is still small. But what we have so far is arguably the correct order of release for most. 

As of today the single best reason to buy a Z camera I believe is the lenses. 

 

[Andrew Reid]

14 hours ago, heart0less said:

Does Techart support eye AF? 

Yes I think I remember it mentioned as supported but again need to check.

1 hour ago, Castorp said:

As of today the single best reason to buy a Z camera I believe is the lenses. 

I can't agree. While they are not bad lenses it doesn't make sense to invest $$$ in lenses which can't be adapted, especially ones as boring as the small Z range released so far.

I get much more value from my Canon EF lenses as they're usable on so much.

Whereas E-mount lenses make more sense as well.

My Sony FE 35mm F1.4 has the Zeiss pop and 3D rendering. It is superior the Nikon Z 35mm F1.8. That lens is by no means a BAD lens but my Sony cost less (used in very good condition) and is flat out superior, faster, and better built.

My Sony Batis lenses, 25mm F2 and 85mm F1.8 are also Zeiss glass, and look incredible. Nikon doesn't even have an answer for Z mount. No fast 24mm or 85mm primes yet! What were they thinking?

F4 is too slow for a zoom for me, and 70mm too short, so the 24-70 Z, while relatively affordable and compact is BORING, compared to Canon's incredible 28-70mm F2.8 from the 90's which is par focal and $300... And what's more, I can use these lenses on countless Sony bodies, and not just my Z6.

Nikon's main mistake with the.Z series lenses so far, has been the pricing. Charging $600-$900 for F1.8 primes, I don't care how good they are, it doesn't match market expectations when everything else in this region by Canon, Sigma, Sony and Nikon is F1.4 and their F1.8 lenses are in the bargain bins. See how much a Canon 50mm F1.8 costs you or a 35mm F1.8 Nikon.

[BasiliskFilm]

Does a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 FE (adapted) focus as quickly/smoothly on the Nikon as the native 24-70 f4?
I have to say the Tamron f2.8 zooms are a big attraction, budget-wise, of the E mount system, but if they can be adapted well, or Tamron produce a native Z version, then Nikon looks much more attractive. 
Maybe Tamron needs to get someone from Techart to work on their AF protocols?

[gethin]

On 7/4/2019 at 2:51 AM, Castorp said:

 

As of today the single best reason to buy a Z camera I believe is the lenses. 

 

whert? theres only 5 reasons, and none of them are that interesting. I only own the 14-30 f4. It's really handy, but it's not great, soft at 14, and farking expensive for a plastic focus by wire lens. And on that - what in gods name is good about it? They are a pain in the arse to fcus manually, let alone focus pull.  The 14-30 is soft enough that even zoomed all the way in focussing by wire is a nightmare. Nikon touted it's lens mount as enabling super-duper lens design, then brought out f1.8 primes and f4 zooms aimed at a consumer market. Totally batso strategy and SNAFU for nikon.  The only native z lenses I'm going to consider buying are wide, or light lenses, Because once you get over a certain size and weight, you may as well buy f-mount and keep your mounting options open (ie you can adapt them to everything else, whereas z-mount lenses are for z-cameres only). 

My lens research over the last few months has been on the

zhongyi 85mm f1.2, 50mm f0.95
laowa 10-18. 12mm zero d, 105 f2. 
sigma and nikon 105 f1.4, 

even if z versions are released, I still might consider buying e or F mount versions of these lenses because it leaves my future options open. 

If nikon had released z versions of a 12-24 f4, 16-40 f2.8, 50 f1.2 that is a similar size to it's existing f1.2 lens (with similar rendering),  and 20, 35, 85 f1.4 primes I would've looked hard at all of those.  And why not have a focus by wire option that keeps the travel of the lens ring locked to how much the focus changes? how hard can that be?

 

 

[Castorp]

Gethin, make an A2 inch print from that zhongyi and one from any of the Z lenses and see what happens. 

I don’t have the 14-30/4 but I hear it’s more than comparable to the 14-24/2.8G?

I will get back to Andrew later. I understand his perspective, but it’s a niche perspective which he doesn’t specify. He cares about very specific things, which is fine, but a reviewers viewpoint should be clear and not be made to sound like a general matter of fact. 

On the other hand, generalising and simplistic statements that stir emotions through dishonesty for the sake of clicks is the name of the game these days. 

 

[Viscount Omega]

"The other adapter I will be trying in the full review is the Sony A mount range, both for full frame Alpha glass – of which there are some rather nice ones, indeed some of my favourite of all time, and the superbly cinematic Minolta AF range."

I also think they have a distinctly cinematic quality.

It's nice to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that.  Ya know, when you mention the word "Minolta" some cinematographers are like, "What are you crazy?" 

Fuck them.  LOL.

 

[gethin]

20 hours ago, Castorp said:

Gethin, make an A2 inch print from that zhongyi and one from any of the Z lenses and see what happens. 

I don’t have the 14-30/4 but I hear it’s more than comparable to the 14-24/2.8G?

I will get back to Andrew later. I understand his perspective, but it’s a niche perspective which he doesn’t specify. He cares about very specific things, which is fine, but a reviewers viewpoint should be clear and not be made to sound like a general matter of fact. 

On the other hand, generalising and simplistic statements that stir emotions through dishonesty for the sake of clicks is the name of the game these days. 

 

Zounds! A2 printing. Methinks you're in the wrong forum ?  Horses for courses: I care more about character most of the time. Except longtitudinal chromatic abberation, I hate that. Especially hard to correct on video. 

I have both, no the 14-24 is sharper, but the 14-30 has a simpler distortion to correct. 

Erm, re trying to tell someone what they should and shouldn't do on their own website: priceless.  As I said - I prefer character than "perfection" Lol

 

 

[Castorp]

I think it is fair to have opinion on any sizeable publication yes. You don’t agree? You believe that publications are not accountable to their readers? 

I would argue a good but critical relationship  between a publication and it’s audience builds trust and creates a positive loop for both parties in the end. 

I make a difference between Andrew the EOSHD publisher and Andrew the forum member. I am curious to the opinion of both but I just like to know who is talking at which time and what the perspective is, so I can better understand what’s written. That’s all. Anthropomorphising a publication is a mistake.

[Andrew Reid]

You seem to have an axe to grind Castorp. Maybe a previously banned member who has rejoined. Don't make every one of your posts about me, otherwise you will be out of this place faster than you can type Anthropomorphising.

[Castorp]

I think what I wrote is crystal clear. But if not I am more than happy to clarify via PM. Have a good day.

[Andrew Reid]

Don't bother, I won't be wasting time reading what you have to say... And if you hijack another discussion and make it about me, you will be out with no further warning.

[Castorp]

Cheers, then we leave it there and I don't have to waste my time either explaining to gethin or others why I bothered with the sidetrack of editorial integrity. Back to lenses.

I am primarily a stills photographer that sometimes work with video. I make very large prints for walls and/or publications. My knowledge and experience in photography is substantial. My knowledge and experience in video is limited. 

When considering the development of where lenses for still cameras (that can shoot video) are going the trend seems pretty clear. The large and heavy Otus lenses, the large and heavy but less expensive Sigma Art lenses, the Tokina Opera lenses as well as the lenses released for the Leica SL and for the Panasonic S1. Highly corrected optics that render incredible amounts of detail only necessary for prints or heavy cropping. In my experience, a sharp lens is as important as the sensor for large prints. 

I'm not a fan of the huge and heavy 1.4 lenses from Sony, Panasonic, Leica or the Canon RF 1.2 or the upcoming Nikkor 1.2. Not for general use. Sure I would have use for them in some situations, just as I would with a tilt shift lens or a telephoto, but for general use? No. A single focal length prime weighing around 800 grams or more is a specialised lens.  

As a much longed for contrast to the enormous and expensive 50mm 1.4 lenses we have the excellent Zeiss Batis line, the f2 series for Leica SL, and the Nikkor S 1.8 primes and compact zooms. Smaller, lighter and less expensive but without compromising optical quality. They're typically around 400 grams or lighter, while also being far less expensive and smaller. 

The Nikkor 50/1.8S is nothing short of a game changer. It's Zeiss Otus level optics for 600$!  I've made prints from the 50mm 1.8G, the 50mm 1.8D and a bunch of manual fokus Nikkors, especially the excellent 55mm 2.8 micro ais. Stop the G lens down to 5.6 and its still not even close, the corners never catch up. The 55 micro has good sharpness across the image plane but not as good as the 50S. I can comfortably work at f2 with the S lens and still outperform older Nikons. There is no comparison.

This would be remarkable enough, but then I also get top level weather-sealing, silent and fast autofocus, practical build with high grade plastics and build quality that puts Fujifilm to shame. Certainly better than the D lenses and personally I prefer them to G. The 50S is 400$ cheaper than the comparable Sony 55 f1.8 but the Nikkor is the better lens. The only other lenses I can think of in the same size class is the Batis 40mm f2 and the Leica SL 50mm f2, both quite a bit more expensive.

The cheaper Sony 50mm is not on the same playing field at all. Neither the older Nikon 50's. It's laughable when I keep reading you can buy the 50 1.8G for 200$. Yeah? It's a crap lens in comparison. Doesn't mean its useless, just means it's not comparable and in my opinion the 50S offers far better value for money too.  

More or less the same is true for the 24-70/2.8S and the 35/1.8S. The 24-70/2.8S is apparently amazing while the 14-30/4 stomps all over the old 16-35/4G while being practical and small. For this reason, the optical performance together with the small size, low cost and practical features in comparison with other modern lenses, the S lenses are the best reason to buy a Z camera. There is not one bad lens (contrast with early Sony years). Over half a year in and I'm still ecstatic with what I get from these lenses. 

Doesn't mean I don't enjoy or want lenses with "magic sauce" or character. But there's endless lenses I can adapt to get that. I don't wan't my main workhorse lenses to have quirks. They should be as sharp as possible, with as little distortion as possible, to produce an image that is as transparent as possible, and that allows me to do anything from an instagram post to 1.5 meter wide prints. 

So the statement that S lenses aren't good I don't understand. I agree that non-linear electronic focus is a huge pain, but otherwise I'm not sure. I love using my 500CM which puts the haptic experience of any contemporary camera except Leica to sorry shame. The S lenses don't have head-line making specs like the RF glass. But for me, and I think for many, the S lenses are a lot more practical, offering similar or better optics at a much lower cost, weight and size.

All of these modern lenses and sensors are extreme overkill for screen and social media use. All the manufacturers should release small and light lenses for 200-500$ that would be good enough for a lot of things.

   

 

[webrunner5]

Oh imagine my surprise a 600 dollar 50mm Nikon lens is better than a 250 dollar Sony 50mm lens, or the Nifty 50 from Canon for 199 dollars or less. I am just amazed, not. But nice to see if people have the money there is an option. But Sony has the 55mm 1.8 for 995 dollars, probably as good. So if you have big money you can get big money results from all of the manufacturers. No new concept.