I would like to get some feedback on the LA-EA2 adapter. I am thinking of putting a 16-50 2.8 lens on it & would probably sell my 18-55 kit lens and 16mm. This would be used for my bright days outdoor pursuits, where the LCD & EVF is impossible to see well enough for careful MF work.
How is the size & IQ with the LA-EA2? Any comments on the 16-50??
Part of what got me interested in looking at this avenue was shooting my 18-55 against my adapted 17-40L, and the 17-40L had great color, contrast and sharpness. I'd love to have an AF option like that to hold me over until the high performance native NEX zoom arrives.
You can probably get a very accurate view of how it affects IQ from looking at DPReview comparitors of the A77 and A65.
Luminous Landscape seems to love the 16-50 SSM.
I think for base ISO work, it should probably make minimal difference, but I wouldn't shoot above 800 with it, I would probably use the EA1 for those instances.
I´m using the LA-EA2 on NEX-7 with Minolta 35-70 and until last week the SAM 85/2,8, sold the SAM 85 last week.
I will purchase the Sony 70-400 in one or two months for Wildlife with LA-EA2 and NEX-7.
The LA-EA2 has very fast AF and the IQ is still the same as without it.
No difference to see in images.
mco_970 wrote:
I would like to get some feedback on the LA-EA2 adapter. I am thinking of putting a 16-50 2.8 lens on it & would probably sell my 18-55 kit lens and 16mm. This would be used for my bright days outdoor pursuits, where the LCD & EVF is impossible to see well enough for careful MF work.
How is the size & IQ with the LA-EA2? Any comments on the 16-50??
Part of what got me interested in looking at this avenue was shooting my 18-55 against my adapted 17-40L, and the 17-40L had great color, contrast and sharpness. I'd love to have an AF option like that to hold me over until the high performance native NEX zoom arrives....Show more →
Sorry for going offtopic, but is the EVF really useless in bright daylight? I've only used the 5N LCD which is completely washed out in bright light, but I assumed the EVF would be better since your eye is pressed against it. Is this not true? In which case, I'm thinking of exploring more "primitive" solutions like the Hoodman Hoodloupe:
If you're really using the 16-50 exclusively for bright daylight conditions, you may want to consider the Zeiss 16-80 instead. PhotoClubAlpha compares it against the 16-50 in the link above. You give up the SSM, weather sealing, and fast aperture, but you gain some reach and the IQ is excellent.
alwang wrote:
[Sorry for going offtopic, but is the EVF really useless in bright daylight? I've only used the 5N LCD which is completely washed out in bright light, but I assumed the EVF would be better since your eye is pressed against it. Is this not true? In which case, I'm thinking of exploring more "primitive" solutions like the Hoodman Hoodloupe:
If you're really using the 16-50 exclusively for bright daylight conditions, you may want to consider the Zeiss 16-80 instead. PhotoClubAlpha compares it against the 16-50 in the link above. You give up the SSM, weather sealing, and fast aperture, but you gain some reach and the IQ is excellent.
Well, full disclosure is I have astigmatism and wear glasses full time so there are a lot of people that will not have the same issues. Diopter will not adjust for my vision when I have my glasses off. In bright light, I can't get the EVF close enough to my eye to seal out stray light. Because of that, there are times in bright sunlight that I can't see enough detail to MF *at all* due to the stray light, whether using EVF or LCD. Sometimes I can work around it, sometimes not. I'm experimenting with a lot of different things to get around it, but so far AF is the most consistent workable choice. Nothing is more frustrating that having your nice G90 mounted on the camera and missing a shot because you can't see to focus! Grrrrrrr.
However, I am finding Sony's AF can be iffy depending on the subject, and I do not like the 18-55 nearly as well as my vintage glass.
It may well turn out that I have the best results with phase detect AF for hiking photos. If that's how it turns out, it's not a big deal. I just want a non-frustrating solution before my prime season arrives.
ps. I'm also at high altitude (~7,000) so I'm curious if the super intense sunlight up here affects the amount of glare. Jacob is going to be in town next week with his NEX, and I will appreciate hearing his impression about that topic. I guess I could also PM Vern since he uses his NEX for his Rocky Mountain treks.
If speed to AF isn't a concern, you should be able to use the LA-E1 (firmware version 2, from what I've read) with the 16-50 SSM. I've never used the zoom, but it was slow with the 35/1.8, and I doubt the zoom would make it faster.
Since you're thinking about a big hunk of glass anyway, why not the ZA 16-80? I have tried that on the a900 in crop mode, and I'd say it could more than give the 17-40L a run for its money.
BTW, the amount of detail the NEX-7 is able to resolve in those DPReview test shots is just nuts, at least at ISO100. It doesn't just beat the A77, it shows more detail than the Sony A900 and Canon 5D2 as well.
FlyPenFly wrote:
If we assume the pellicle mirror technology on the LA-EA2 is the same as the unit in the A-77, and I don't see why we wouldn't, it seems to cause a loss of contrast/clarity even at Base ISO.
At ISO1600, there seems to have half a stop to a stop loss in light as well.
You have exactly 1/3 loss and not a half stop loss in light, and you will see not this difference that the photos from dpreview show.
First photo with Quenox SonyAF to NEX Adapter and Sammy 35
Second photo with LA-EA2 and Sammy 35.
I just tested two16-50 lenses from B&H and found that one of the lenses had inconsistency of sharpness across the frame, must have been then the decentering that people have been talking about. The other copy was very sharp, large and heavy, also zoom ring was stiff even though I tried to break it in for quite a while. It is definitely usable but I decided it was just too large for the NEX 7, especially with the 50 mm 1.8 coming out. I'm using the LA-EA2 adapter now with the 35 mm 1.8 lens which I find to be extremely sharp and very fast focusing on this set up. Sony is supposedly coming out with the new version E mount that"s stabilized that I would rather wait for.
freaklikeme wrote:
If speed to AF isn't a concern, you should be able to use the LA-E1 (firmware version 2, from what I've read) with the 16-50 SSM. I've never used the zoom, but it was slow with the 35/1.8, and I doubt the zoom would make it faster.
Since you're thinking about a big hunk of glass anyway, why not the ZA 16-80? I have tried that on the a900 in crop mode, and I'd say it could more than give the 17-40L a run for its money.
I think your ideas here are sound... The 16-80 is actually a fair bit lighter than the 16-50, and I can try an open box LA-EA1 from Amazon Warehouse and won't feel bad to return it if I hate it. Actually, Amazon Warehouse also has the 16-80, too, so all around I think it will be worth a shot.
ps. I feel stupid and might as well admit it. In the LCD option in the menu, which I had set to auto, there IS a "sunny" setting which I found late this afternoon. Still will be more confident at this time with a good AF option in the camera bag, even if I am shooting one of my MF lenses. Hopefully the "sunny" setting is awesome.
mco_970 wrote:
Drats. LA-EA1 does not support autofocus with the 16-80 lens! Even with the firmware update, it's not listed as a working combination. That bites.
Guess I can see if the IQ is what I want it to be, then go for the LA-EA2 if I like the lens.
Even with a supported lens, LA-EA1 doesn't support anything resembling usable AF. I've used the EA1 with the 16-50 SSM, DT 35/1.8 SAM and 85/2.8 SAM and AF is glacial. Just manually focus, it will be a lot faster.
mawz wrote:
Even with a supported lens, LA-EA1 doesn't support anything resembling usable AF. I've used the EA1 with the 16-50 SSM, DT 35/1.8 SAM and 85/2.8 SAM and AF is glacial. Just manually focus, it will be a lot faster.
MF with the EA1 was fine this evening out hiking, but the corners from this sample of the 16-80 lens are not great at all. I need to do a bit more shooting to be sure, pref. in a well controlled setting. It was really nice not to change lenses all afternoon, though.
FlyPenFly wrote:
If we assume the pellicle mirror technology on the LA-EA2 is the same as the unit in the A-77, and I don't see why we wouldn't, it seems to cause a loss of contrast/clarity even at Base ISO.
these samples look very different from what i've seen shooting through the mirror on the a55. i think dpr f**ked up or the lens they used has issues.
i'll have to try and find my mirror so i can do a comparison.
sebboh wrote:
these samples look very different from what i've seen shooting through the mirror on the a55. i think dpr f**ked up or the lens they used has issues.
i'll have to try and find my mirror so i can do a comparison.
Sebboh, I'd love to see your comparison shots! If I end up with an LA-EA1 and a LA-EA2 at the same time, I thought I'd do some, too. That should clearly show any differences in IQ.
Where did you find where I could also read what lenses,
with the firmware update, it can or can not use with the
particular lens?
Thanks,
Ed
I have LA-EA1 but probaby won't keep it since it won't AF the lens. MF on the 16-80 is typical for focus by wire lenses.
You can find the compatible lens list on the firmware update page for the LA-EA1. I thought maybe it was just a firmware issue at first, but unfortunately it's not.
Most of my images from my hike yesterday are not acutely sharp and the corners don't look good at all (no better than my 18-55) - not sure if it's sample variation on the lens or just reflects that I am not good with MF of focus by wire lenses. 16-80 is supposed to have some sample variation, and this lens was from Amazon Warehouse, so someone else already had returned it once... It very well could be a dud sample. The color and contrast looked very good, just not the sharpness.
I'd love to have an AF option like that to hold me over until the high performance native NEX zoom arrives.
