All A mount lenses are compatible with the LA-EA1 as MF lenses with the exception of some older 3rd party lenses where the lens firmware isn't 100% A mount compatible (mostly old Sigma lenses). I've tested with multiple original A mount lenses (35-70/4, 70-210/4, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, all original MinAF lenses).
All SAM and SSM lenses can AF on the LA-EA1, albeit poorly. 3rd party lenses are a crapshoot. The Supported Lens list is the list of AF capable lenses, less the Minolta G 70-200/2.8 SSM and Minolta G 300/2.8 SSM (which are physically and electronically identical to the Sony versions).
The ZA DT 16-80 is not a focus by wire lens, it's good old-fashioned screwdriver AF with a mechanically coupled focus ring. It's also noted for some quality problems, particularly in earlier samples. These are mostly to do with the barrel, but may cause optical issues in some cases.
The big advantage of the LA-EA1 is full aperture coupling. If you want/need AF, get the LA-EA2.
I went out this morning and shot some test images of 18-55 vs. 16-80 vs. my 35-70 of a brick wall to compare at f/5.6, trying to flush out whether my 16-80 has issues. I compared multiple focal lengths. I'm still not sure about the 16-80 - it was generally midway in IQ in the center of the images, though mushy in the corners. I am not sure how to tell if I am seeing field curvature or decentering of the lens??
The 18-55 was a bit worse, but did not lag way behind the 16-80. CY was either even with the 16-80 or ahead in the center, and very good in the corners at all focal lengths I tried. If anyone is interested, I can post images.
The 35-70 is the IQ choice though it necessitates carrying something wider - and sticking with the 18-55 makes the most sense for having a handy AF snapshot lens (for ex. when DH is using the camera since he does not have a MF feature ). For my own use, the 16-80 is the odd duck out, having neither awesome IQ nor AF. The zoom range is nice, but lowest on my priority list.
ETA: I can add to this the 16-80 versus 35-70 weights are about 0.2 oz apart with their respective adapters, so the in hand weight is not a factor. The 16-80 would weigh a few more oz. with the LA-EA2, so also not that significant in making a choice.
mawz wrote:
The big advantage of the LA-EA1 is full aperture coupling.
That's not a huge advantage- my $25 generic Alpha adapter also allows full aperture adjustment via a ring on the adapter. The f-stops aren't marked, but I actually find that it's ergonomically easier than adjusting aperture via the camera body on the NEX-5n (NEX-7 is probably a different story) Frankly, I don't see any good reason to get the LA-EA1.
LA-EA2 makes NEX AF much much faster. If you're looking for an AF lens for NEX,
I would pick LA-EA2 up.
I'm actually thinking about picking the 16-50 and LA-EA2.
But will wait to see what G-zoom for NEX looks like.
alwang wrote:
That's not a huge advantage- my $25 generic Alpha adapter also allows full aperture adjustment via a ring on the adapter. The f-stops aren't marked, but I actually find that it's ergonomically easier than adjusting aperture via the camera body on the NEX-5n (NEX-7 is probably a different story) Frankly, I don't see any good reason to get the LA-EA1.
Personally I feel exactly the opposite. I'd much rather set the aperture on the body than deal with an aperture ring on the adapter. And of course you get EXIF and full-aperture metering out of the deal (in fact this is the only way to get full aperture metering on a NEX, native E mount lenses do stop-down metering)
mawz wrote:
Personally I feel exactly the opposite. I'd much rather set the aperture on the body than deal with an aperture ring on the adapter. And of course you get EXIF and full-aperture metering out of the deal (in fact this is the only way to get full aperture metering on a NEX, native E mount lenses do stop-down metering)
why on earth would you want full aperture metering?
sebboh wrote:
less accurate metering and focusing.
Better metering on most DSLR's (The NEX's seem to do well with stop-down metering, as to the m43 bodies and Sony's SLT's but DSLR's don't do so well). Full-aperture metering helps keep the light hitting the metering sensor within its sensitivity range when you're using a separate metering sensor.
I don't particularly care, but there's many who do, mostly due to familiarity.
alwang wrote:
Potential focus shift from stopping down.
Thanks! Does NEX AF w/ native lenses at full aperture? Been wondering about that for a while. Herb had the post about the 24 ZA possibly having focus shift.
mco_970 wrote:
How is it affecting focusing? Focus breathing?
lenses with focus shift (like the ZA 24/1.8) will be off at (mostly) mid apertures (f/2-f/4) if focused wide open and then stopped down during the capture (this is the problem so many have with the canon 50L). also, if you're like me and consider the act of focusing to include seeing how focus rolls off and what the dof is, then your out of luck there too.
mawz wrote:
Better metering on most DSLR's (The NEX's seem to do well with stop-down metering, as to the m43 bodies and Sony's SLT's but DSLR's don't do so well). Full-aperture metering helps keep the light hitting the metering sensor within its sensitivity range when you're using a separate metering sensor.
µ4/3 and and sony SLTs don't do so well because they don't use stop-down metering - they actually use wide open metering (though with µ4/3 i think it's actually some weird halfway metering). if you stick a non-coupled lens (all my lenses that i can mount on my a55) on a sony SLT it is forced to use stop-down metering and meters perfectly (just like the NEX). the reason DSLRs do poorly with stop-down metering is, of course because they have a separate sensor for metering that is mostly likely optimized for f/2.8 or f/4 just like SLR focus screens and focus aids. i thought we were talking about liveview cameras here though.
