p.14 #1 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Dave Sanders wrote:
From a purely technical standpoint, that's kind of interesting. I wonder what the issue is? Power? Being able to provide enough torque? Is it PDAF related? Some sort of information pass through?
Who knows? But as the LA-EA4 (and 3) work, it seems like it is something that can be fixed in firmware, but it just may require more processing power for AF.
p.14 #2 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
Minolta 200/2.8 HS at MFD wide open. Can't wait to have the LA-EA5 on this lens!
In my time with the lens, I felt like mid-to-close performance was where it really shines. Mine was decent at landscape distances stopped down, but awesome at MFD.
p.14 #5 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Did you see any increased CA that you recall?
I noticed 100/2 and 200/2.8 both have slightly long MFD’s by today’s standards, but they both perform wonderfully at MFD as well.
A tiny bit more spherochromatism, about on the level of the APO-Telyt 280/2.8 or Canon's original 300/2.8L. Nothing deal-breaking.
The Minolta 200 has the same 1.5m MFD as the Canon 200/2.8 and the 100/2 has the same 1m MFD as the Sigma 105/1.4, so I'd say they're still competitive in that regard. If you want a short or mid-tele with better MFD, macros or zooms are your only choices in those focal lengths, right?
p.14 #6 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
A tiny bit more spherochromatism, about on the level of the APO-Telyt 280/2.8 or Canon's original 300/2.8L. Nothing deal-breaking.
The Minolta 200 has the same 1.5m MFD as the Canon 200/2.8 and the 100/2 has the same 1m MFD as the Sigma 105/1.4, so I'd say they're still competitive in that regard. If you want a short or mid-tele with better MFD, macros or zooms are your only choices in those focal lengths, right?
I stand corrected.
At the time, I was trying to find a 100mm, and the lenses I went through were a contax 100/2, ZF 100, Mino 100, Oly 100/2 and Canon 100/2. The CY and Mino 100 had the longest of the 5, but I guess that's more normal.
Also, I didn't shoot crops, but I concur that the 1.4x with the 200/2.8 makes for a hellaciously sharp 280/4. I think you'd need to crop in to see a difference in IQ.
p.14 #7 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
The Zeiss 85 and 135 have an excellent reputation, but how's the 24 and 50? Besides the minolta 28f2 and 35f1.4, any other wides interesting? My maxxum 7 and my sony system can finally share lenses
p.14 #8 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
roofdweller49 wrote:
The Zeiss 85 and 135 have an excellent reputation, but how's the 24 and 50? Besides the minolta 28f2 and 35f1.4, any other wides interesting? My maxxum 7 and my sony system can finally share lenses
The 24 is something special, I do have the 50 f1.4 (the last lens released) but shoot with it so seldom, I really haven't formed an opinion other than it is really fast focusing.
p.14 #9 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Just be aware that the 35/1.4 isn't a good lens. It has all sorts of problems. But from 6-10' it can have some real magic to it. But it makes you work hard for it. I want it to have the level of magic that the RX1 35/2 has, but it just isn't there. I felt like my RX1/RII had magic in nearly every shot.
roofdweller49 wrote:
The Zeiss 85 and 135 have an excellent reputation, but how's the 24 and 50? Besides the minolta 28f2 and 35f1.4, any other wides interesting? My maxxum 7 and my sony system can finally share lenses
p.14 #10 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
roofdweller49 wrote:
The Zeiss 85 and 135 have an excellent reputation, but how's the 24 and 50? Besides the minolta 28f2 and 35f1.4, any other wides interesting? My maxxum 7 and my sony system can finally share lenses
The 20/2.8's an overlooked gem, or it was on the a99. No idea how it does with the higher resolution sensors. It's not wide, but the 100/2.8 macro is excellent. Like the APO 200, it has a double floating element design.
p.14 #11 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
The 20/2.8's an overlooked gem, or it was on the a99. No idea how it does with the higher resolution sensors. It's not wide, but the 100/2.8 macro is excellent. Like the APO 200, it has a double floating element design.
Do you have any direct experience with the 100 macro? I have almost purchased it several times over the last decade, including recently. I know it’s positively thought of, but most macros are pretty well corrected. Is it a stand out or special in your eyes?
p.14 #12 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
The 20/2.8's an overlooked gem, or it was on the a99. No idea how it does with the higher resolution sensors. It's not wide, but the 100/2.8 macro is excellent.
The 20/2.8 and 100/2.8 are both pretty poor.
I tried three copies of the 20/2.8. The best copy was worse than the worst copy of the Samyang 18/2.8 I tried. I did try a Tokina 17/3.5 that was an order of magnitude worse. You can get good images from the Minolta. It is nice that there is Lens Compensation for it in A7 bodies.
p.14 #13 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Do you have any direct experience with the 100 macro? I have almost purchased it several times over the last decade, including recently. I know it’s positively thought of, but most macros are pretty well corrected. Is it a stand out or special in your eyes?
With the Minolta D, yes, which was the design Sony carried forward. Just imagine the close performance of the 200 with more complex bokeh and the ability to focus much, much closer. OOC colors are gorgeous. The Tamron 90 F004 and latest are higher resolution and have their own focus motors, but the Mino has better colors and bokeh.
p.14 #14 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
QuietOC wrote:
The 20/2.8 and 100/2.8 are both pretty poor.
I tried three copies of the 20/2.8. The best copy was worse than the worst copy of the Samyang 18/2.8 I tried. I did try a Tokina 17/3.5 that was an order of magnitude worse. You can get good images from the Minolta. It is nice that there is Lens Compensation for it in A7 bodies.
Disagree strongly. The 20/2.8 isn't going to challenge to FE 20/1.8, but for the size, you're not going to do better. My copy was sharp across the frame at f/4, and had less distortion, CA, and better flare resistance than the Tamron FE 20. Maybe it's an aberration, an exceptionally good copy, but I wasn't disappointed with it.
Like I said in my earlier reply, the 100 has aspects that are more pleasing than any 100 macro I've shot. It's not a resolution monster, but, like the Mamiya 120 macro, the colors and bokeh are distinct and quite lovely.
p.14 #15 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
Disagree strongly. The 20/2.8 isn't going to challenge to FE 20/1.8, but for the size, you're not going to do better. My copy was sharp across the frame at f/4, and had less distortion, CA, and better flare resistance than the Tamron FE 20. Maybe it's an aberration, an exceptionally good copy, but I wasn't disappointed with it.
Like I said in my earlier reply, the 100 has aspects that are more pleasing than any 100 macro I've shot. It's not a resolution monster, but, like the Mamiya 120 macro, the colors and bokeh are distinct and quite lovely.
I am likely to give it a whirl. Think it matters which version I get beyond ergo? Is one preferred for coatings or anything?
p.14 #16 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am likely to give it a whirl. Think it matters which version I get beyond ergo? Is one preferred for coatings or anything?
If you want 5-axis stabilization and Lens Compensation with the 100/2.8 the options are the Minolta D and Sony versions. My RS version had an issue where the focus would drift. My current D version seems to be ok.
All three AF versions of 20/2.8 are optically and electrically identical. A rubber focus grip was added and aperture blade shape supposedly changed.
p.14 #18 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
So, I had a very interesting email reply from Sony support today. It looks like the LA-EA5 will work on the a7c, which means it could be made to work on the a7III. Here is the email:
Hi Tyler,
Thank you for contacting Sony Digital Imaging Support Team.
I understand that you would like to know if the LAEA5 lens adapter is compatible with the ILCE7C camera.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond. The Sony LAEA5 lens adapter is fully compatible with the ILCE7C camera. Using the Sony LAEA5 lens adapter with the Sony SAL135/1.8, the focus should work properly when using with the ILCE7C camera.
p.14 #19 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
Received the EA4 today and was surprised by how fast the AF was on both 200/2.8 and 100/2.
Aargh. I gave up on the manual adapter after finding a used EA4 at B&H for a good price. Thought I'd use it while waiting for the EA5, then sell it on.
Well, it arrived today, and sadly has to go back. Previous owner apparently cleaned the mirror with steel-wool, or similar. But at least I could use it for a few minutes to see how the autofocus works on my 80-200, 135mm and 500mm Minoltas.
How not to clean the semi-transparent mirror in a LA-EA4
p.14 #20 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Aargh. I gave up on the manual adapter after finding a used EA4 at B&H for a good price. Thought I'd use it while waiting for the EA5, then sell it on.
Well, it arrived today, and sadly has to go back. Previous owner apparently cleaned the mirror with steel-wool, or similar. But at least I could use it for a few minutes to see how the autofocus works on my 80-200, 135mm and 500mm Minoltas.
Woah—crappy. Sorry for the bad luck.
How was the condition described? Where did you buy from?
