I played with the idea of adding a longish lens to get more reach and to dabble into the realm of "wildlife" using a mirror-less system for quite some time. Finally, I decided to bite a bullet after the availability of IBIS in the A7II. Frankly, at this point I didn't feel like spending big bucks on one of the new Sony SSM lenses for that purpose, especially since my DSLR system is performing just fine and currently unmatched in that respect. In addition, those big lenses are unwieldy and are more designed to be used for dedicated birding/wildlife trips. For sure not something you can take leisurely with you to go to a local park or zoo with your grandkids, for example.
After doing some research, I found out that Minolta used to make a 500mm reflex lens with AF. Maybe the only company that offered AF in such a lens. Due to its design, mirror or catadioptric lenses are light and compact. So, I placed a bid on that on-line auction and I won! The lens arrived the day before yesterday and yesterday, I took it out for a spin to a local park and here are the images it generated. I used a monopod for the duck image but handheld for the other shots.
While the speed of the AF is sufficient to catch some action but it makes that whirring noise. Yes, it uses a dated AF system alright. However, the IBIS of the A7 II works wonder and it is a life saver for me, at least. And the camera recognizes the FL and chooses the IBIS mode optimized for that FL automatically. The sharpness and contrast of that lens is excellent. Is it comparable to my DSLR lenses? Well, not quite but not too bad for a tiny fraction of the price ($360+ shipped) and especially, the ease of handling is significantly better. I can't complain too much about anything really. The bokeh? Well, that's a different story and I am not a fan of the bokeh to be honest. Sometimes, it is just fine, like in the duck image but not quite to my liking in the BIF shots. The highlights are donut-shaped but I knew that upfront. Again, the handling and ease of use is really remarkable; the setup is a joy to use. Weighing only 700 grams, I can carry that lens all day long .
I have the Sony version and in good light focuses pretty well with my A mount cameras. You learn when the bokeh can be an issue and adjust accordingly. Using the la2 with my nex 7, the AF speed was pretty poor and without stabilization could be problematic to get a good sharp picture. It looks as if the 7DII has cured some of these problems. It is so light, I tend to be careless with technique and when using an aps-c camera and its 750mm POV, this lens will punish you.
You mean the a77II, not the 7DII, right? And you are quite correct on this lens being punishing. I flippantly used a monopod with it, and had disastrous results. Took my time and used proper technique and it can be quite rewarding.
Who can keep the naming conventions straight....why don't the manufacturers name for animals a la Apple, to many 7s, I or IIs and Xs. The OP is using the LCE-7M2 .
Yup, the Sony version is identical to the Minolta; they just changed the name and charged a little more but the increased price is probably more due to inflation . The Minolta was discontinued in 2006. Is it still current in the Sony lens lineup?
I wouldn't even bother looking into this had not been for the IBIS in the A7 II. Especially on a crop body - the effective FL of this lens becomes 750mm. Really, you can forget about handholding the setup.
mogul wrote:
Who can keep the naming conventions straight....why don't the manufacturers name for animals a la Apple, to many 7s, I or IIs and Xs. The OP is using the LCE-7M2 .
It is ILCE-7M2.... you missed the "I" . I agree, it can be confusing.
That's a nice setup! I wonder how the optics compare to Derek's manual 500mm? I have the a7ii, LA-EA4 and use it with my 70-400g. This could be a nice alternative when you know you'll be cropping anyway...
I've been very happy with it. It focuses pretty well with the LA-EA4, though not as quickly as the better Canon/Nikon bodies. I think the IQ is comparable to the Canon 100-400 L; perhaps even a touch more contrasty. I bought it before the a7ii was announced, so now I'm even happier -- the IBIS works very well with this lens!
I've used the Sonolta 500mm reflex with an LA-EA4 on my A7 the past six to seven months and have been pretty happy with what it can do, as a catadioptric "lens".
shelt wrote:
That's a nice setup! I wonder how the optics compare to Derek's manual 500mm?
i believe the optics are the same but the coatings are different, maybe there were some minor tweaks. i've heard a number of minolta manual focus designs transitioned from manual focus to autofocus with relatively little change – 24/2.8, 28/2, 28/2.8, 50/1.4 are also supposed to be very similar if different at all in optical design from the late model MD mount versions (this is just what i've heard without real sources though).
Rich, I considered getting the 70-400 lens, too but I will wait until there is a need for me to justify getting it. The new version of that lens is in the same price range as the new and well received Canon 100-400mm Mark II lens. The price and handling/usability of the 500mm reflex lens, which to me carries more a "fun and value-oriented" rather than "serious/tool" connotation, on the other hand, is too good to be be passed up .
sirimiri, Sonolta, huh :? I like that name .
Derek, yes, I don't think they changed much, if anything other than adding the AF mechanism. Look at how the lens renders OOF water in our both shots . The bokeh on the image of your daughter, even with the donut-shaped highlights, is really fine . And, yes, the IBIS of the A7 II really shines through.
Dave,
The hawk image is great! The soft background adds quite a bit to it and that's what we need to pay attention to for better results from this lens.
Don't worry about the 70-400g. It is still unclear if the 100-400II can match the Sony or Nikon 80-400. The Nikon may be the best of the three, but it is awfully close. Even the Sony 70-400g origional is an excellent lens. Bought mine for ~$1k used.
TheEmrys wrote:
Don't worry about the 70-400g. It is still unclear if the 100-400II can match the Sony or Nikon 80-400. The Nikon may be the best of the three, but it is awfully close. Even the Sony 70-400g origional is an excellent lens. Bought mine for ~$1k used.
is there an optical difference between the 70-400g I and II?
sebboh wrote:
is there an optical difference between the 70-400g I and II?
New AR coatings. The big change that most recignize is the upgraded SSM motor. But the coatings are the same made to the 70-200g, which was a nice bump in quality (but not a $1k bump). Same coatings are coming for the 70-300g, cz24-70/2.8, and the 16-35/2.8.
. 
. I agree, it can be confusing.
. And, yes, the IBIS of the A7 II really shines through.