p.16 #10 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
TheEmrys wrote:
A little review on the LA-EA5 at DPR today.
Nice to see the adapter working, but disappointing that those guys didn't even know that the 85mm and 135mm (that they were using for the demonstration!) are screw-drive lenses.
p.16 #12 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
No 100/2 test. But the 80-200/2.8 looks usable. I don't know what the HS will be like, but the 300 HS is pretty fast. The 85's looked very usable for portrait work. No eye-af tests, which would have been nice. I definitely would not ever use this for sports. But the 500/8 mirror lens looks really good. I will have to get one. Again.
p.16 #13 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Is the 200/2.8 + LA-EA5 adapter worth it to have a compact high quality fast 200mm for low light landscapes (sunrise/sunset time of day)?
Right now I have:
180/4 APO CV SL
180/3.4 Telyt
and my 100-400GM
So, nothing really fast around 200mm - the 100-400GM is f/5.6 (with great OIS which is worth at least another stop or two with a lens w/o IBIS. My 180/3.4 Telyt is great, but it's heavy, no CPU and not f/2.8. The 180/4 APO is also great, but f/4 plus no CPU.
The only issue I've seen with the 200/2.8 APO is flare/ghosting, so I'd have to be careful pointing it at the rising or setting sun.
I like to have fast teles for landscape shots is I tend to use them wide open with as low an ISO as I can go and some minimum shutter speeds due to moving objects in the image (like ferries and waves).
p.16 #14 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
TheEmrys wrote:
No 100/2 test. But the 80-200/2.8 looks usable. I don't know what the HS will be like, but the 300 HS is pretty fast. The 85's looked very usable for portrait work. No eye-af tests, which would have been nice. I definitely would not ever use this for sports. But the 500/8 mirror lens looks really good. I will have to get one. Again.
I'd forgotten how much the screw-driven lenses chatter like tiny squirrels. The sound makes me nostalgic for the a900 and a99 and the Mino 200 and 300/4.
p.16 #15 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
jhinkey wrote:
Is the 200/2.8 + LA-EA5 adapter worth it to have a compact high quality fast 200mm for low light landscapes (sunrise/sunset time of day)?
Right now I have:
180/4 APO CV SL
180/3.4 Telyt
and my 100-400GM
For landscape work you might find the touchy manual focus of the Minolta a drawback. As far as image quality, I'm not sure you'd gain much over that excellent trio of lenses.
p.16 #16 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
MikeEvangelist wrote:
For landscape work you might find the touchy manual focus of the Minolta a drawback. As far as image quality, I'm not sure you'd gain much over that excellent trio of lenses.
Can't be any more touchy than the 180/4 which is infamous for near-infinity focusing touchiness nor the 100-400GM (focus by wire is not the greatest when trying to nail it).
p.16 #17 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
jhinkey wrote:
Can't be any more touchy than the 180/4 which is infamous for near-infinity focusing touchiness nor the 100-400GM (focus by wire is not the greatest when trying to nail it).
- J
I don't have a tele that isn't touchy about infinity, but the rear-focus lenses tend to be touchier than the front or unit focused lenses.
In my single-copy experience with the Mino 200, wide open at infinity is where the lens is at its weakest. Lateral color shifts from mid-zone to corner in backlit scenes and low resolution outside of the center. It gets much better stopped down, but my feeling is it's a better event/portrait/fine art lens than it is a landscaper.
There is a 200/2.8 that can give you what you want.
From LR: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/just-mtf-charts-canon-prime-lenses/
p.16 #18 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
I don't have a tele that isn't touchy about infinity, but the rear-focus lenses tend to be touchier than the front or unit focused lenses.
In my single-copy experience with the Mino 200, wide open at infinity is where the lens is at its weakest. Lateral color shifts from mid-zone to corner in backlit scenes and low resolution outside of the center. It gets much better stopped down, but my feeling is it's a better event/portrait/fine art lens than it is a landscaper.
There is a 200/2.8 that can give you what you want.
I've had a few copies of both of these lenses, used primarily for landscape, but sold my Gen I/II Canon 200/2.8's. I have the Minolta today and wouldn't consider swapping it with a Canon, in spite of its good AF with the MC-11. I find the Minolta to be a great lens for nature/landscape. MTF's for sharpness don't tell me much for my uses. I never did like the Canons color or contrast much at all. Sharpness of the Minolta is on myA7rIII is not something that I ever felt was lacking.
p.16 #19 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
pdmphoto wrote:
I've had a few copies of both of these lenses, used primarily for landscape, but sold my Gen I/II Canon 200/2.8's. I have the Minolta today and wouldn't consider swapping it with a Canon, in spite of its good AF with the MC-11. I find the Minolta to be a great lens for nature/landscape. MTF's for sharpness don't tell me much for my uses. I never did like the Canons color or contrast much at all. Sharpness of the Minolta is on myA7rIII is not something that I ever felt was lacking.
I generally prefer the Mino as well. I prefer the OOC colors, I greatly prefer the performance from mid-to-mfd, and I liked the stopped down performance for landscapes, but for John's stated desire- wide open landscapes in backlit situations- I do think the Canon has the advantage. But it also could be I simply didn't have the best Mino 200 (though it didn't seem far off from the performance Phillip got on his loaned copy in the PR review) and had exceptional copies of the Canon.
p.16 #20 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
I generally prefer the Mino as well. I prefer the OOC colors, I greatly prefer the performance from mid-to-mfd, and I liked the stopped down performance for landscapes, but for John's stated desire- wide open landscapes in backlit situations- I do think the Canon has the advantage. But it also could be I simply didn't have the best Mino 200 (though it didn't seem far off from the performance Phillip got on his loaned copy in the PR review) and had exceptional copies of the Canon.
Earlier in this thread I posted crops WO from a 42MP FF sensor and I thought it was pretty impressive, even at f2.8 into the far corners. I would love to see similar crops with the 200 2.8L--if it is better, I wonder if it would be appreciable beyond pixel peeping at crops. I have found, like you and others, colors and contrasts very consequential and good Minolta glass has it in spades, like Zeiss and Leica IMO. I do wonder if the canon would be perceptual lower resolution/flatter because of this.
