Native glass or adapted lenses?

[Osval]

Hello guys!

I'm quite new to Sony and I have some good glass from my former Canon DSLR. The only lens I have from Sony is the kit lenses, which IMHO, sucks.

I have my Canons for sale (50mm f/1.8, Tamron 18-135 and my beloved 70-300 L - I also had a 24-70 L, but it was stolen ), but I'm wondering if it's worth to keep them using an adaptor or sell them and buy Sony glass.

Have you any experience with adapted lenses from Canon? What do you suggest, new lenses or adapt my stuff?

I'll appreciate your feedback!

 

[Janice]

Hello guys!

I'm quite new to Sony and I have some good glass from my former Canon DSLR. The only lens I have from Sony is the kit lenses, which IMHO, sucks.

I have my Canons for sale (50mm f/1.8, Tamron 18-135 and my beloved 70-300 L - I also had a 24-70 L, but it was stolen ), but I'm wondering if it's worth to keep them using an adaptor or sell them and buy Sony glass.

Have you any experience with adapted lenses from Canon? What do you suggest, new lenses or adapt my stuff?

I'll appreciate your feedback!

Personally, I have not used Canon lenses on my Sony. However, I know of a wedding photographer who uses a Sony body with Canon lenses professionally with beautiful results. Of course, depending on mount, you may need an adapter.

 

[Ziggy]

There's a lot of experience with adapted lenses reported on older forums, eg Talk e-mount.
The person whose done a lot of testing is Alex Phan.
Canon adaptations are more successful than Nikon eg., but you can expect a slowing of AF and frame rates.
An intelligent adapter isn't cheap and can be rendered useless by a lens firmware update.