p.23 #1 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's a negative but the Sony 135/1.8 GM does not allow teleconverters either.
True, but the design of the GM would force a different design than their current FE 1.4x. If memory serves, the only thing restricting the fit of the A-mount 1.4x was the rear baffle of the ZA, which could've been redesigned to accommodate the extender. Anyway, the GM and rIV make a strong argument against the need for a teleconverter, from a resolution perspective.
p.23 #2 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
True, but the design of the GM would force a different design than their current FE 1.4x. If memory serves, the only thing restricting the fit of the A-mount 1.4x was the rear baffle of the ZA, which could've been redesigned to accommodate the extender. Anyway, the GM and rIV make a strong argument against the need for a teleconverter, from a resolution perspective.
Yes, I just tried the Minolta 1.4 APO II on the ZA and teleconverter's protruding element does not fit the narrow space of the lens.
p.23 #3 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
mogul wrote:
With A mount, TC's can be used...just not the white Minolta/Sony
The Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 and associated rebrands add much more field curvature and drop resolution significantly more outside of the center than the Minolta-design. Their latest DGX MC4 and up are vast improvements, but they dropped the A-mount from manufacturing.
p.23 #5 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
freaklikeme wrote:
The Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 and associated rebrands add much more field curvature and drop resolution significantly more outside of the center than the Minolta-design. Their latest DGX MC4 and up are vast improvements, but they dropped the A-mount from manufacturing.
p.23 #7 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Are you going to try one of those?
I've just bought the 1.4x DGX MC4 for Sony-A via Ebay for $65. Will give it a try. If it works, I will try the 2x.
If it's like the Minolta 1.4x APO II + LA-EA5 , it will only work with the lens wide open.
It would be really nice to have the extra 190/2.5 and 270/3.5 equiv. with one lens.
p.23 #10 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've just bought the 1.4x DGX MC4 for Sony-A via Ebay for $65. Will give it a try. If it works, I will try the 2x.
If it's like the Minolta 1.4x APO II + LA-EA5 , it will only work with the lens wide open.
It would be really nice to have the extra 190/2.5 and 270/3.5 equiv. with one lens.
That's awesome. I thought they'd stopped production on A-mount before the introduction of the DGX. This site tested it along with several other extenders and found it beat the Canon 1.4x vIII.
It looks like they made the MC7 DGX 2x in A-mount, and I'm betting that's the way to go. The tester was spot-on with the 1.4x, so I'm betting his results are good for the 2x as well.
p.23 #15 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
DaveFP wrote:
So Fred; I know it is early days but are you glad to have the 135 ZA?
A keeper?
I might consider one in the spring.
Hi Dave,
I had high hopes but after a short time with it, it's safe to say that the 135/1.8 ZA actually exceeded my expectations. You know when a lens gets too much hype...but I don't think it's the case here -- A true classic.
It has a design without asphericals and I think that contributes to the unique looking images it produces. High resolution from center to edge wide open, high contrast (bold colors), soft transition zone and low contrast OOF rendering. The is not field curvature either.
Just like with STF lenses, complex and busy backgrounds do not look distracting and that's the magic of this lens. That's also true for the transition zone which can be seen at long distance. (One of my negatives for the new GM)
I was worried about phase detect focus accuracy and the results tell me it's a keeper. Contrast detect (AF-S) is super accurate and AF-C's accuracy is on par with my other telephoto lenses (85 GM and Batis 135). It even works great with Eye-AF, bringing new life to this lens. Focusing is not very fast though so don't expect to excel in sports.
Now for the main negatives which could be deal breakers for you:
1) Price: It's an expensive lens still in production. Currently selling for $1,800! If you are patient though, you can grab a mint copy for about $700. I bought this one. It's like new and has no tilt or swing.
2) Weight: It's heavy just like the 135/1.8 GM but still needs the adapter. Luckily the adapter weighs only ~ 80 grams making it about 150g heavier than the GM. It's a bit front heavy with the adapter though.
3) AF noise: I don't know how it sounds on a A-mount body but when adapted to Sony, it's a bit loud just like my other screw-drive Minolta lenses. This could be a deal breaker for some accustomed to nearly silent focus lenses like the Batis 135.
4) Axial CA and purple fringing: Honestly I thought it would be worse based on reviews. It's there but I don't think it's excessive. Still a negative though.
There is a possibility of using the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter with it for a 190/2.5 equiv. lens. I will report back on this.
p.23 #16 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Dave,
I had high hopes but after a short time with it, it's safe to say that the 135/1.8 ZA actually exceeded my expectations. You know when a lens gets too much hype...but I don't think it's the case here -- A true classic.
It has a design without asphericals and I think that contributes to the unique looking images it produces. High resolution from center to edge wide open, high contrast (bold colors), soft transition zone and low contrast OOF rendering. The is not field curvature either.
Just like with STF lenses, complex and busy backgrounds do not look distracting and that's the magic of this lens. That's also true for the transition zone which can be seen at long distance. (One of my negatives for the new GM)
I was worried about phase detect focus accuracy and the results tell me it's a keeper. Contrast detect (AF-S) is super accurate and AF-C's accuracy is on par with my other telephoto lenses (85 GM and Batis 135). It even works great with Eye-AF, bringing new life to this lens. Focusing is not very fast though so don't expect to excel in sports.
Now for the main negatives which could be deal breakers for you:
1) Price: It's an expensive lens still in production. Currently selling for $1,800! If you are patient though, you can grab a mint copy for about $700. I bought this one. It's like new and has no tilt or swing.
2) Weight: It's heavy just like the 135/1.8 GM but still needs the adapter. Luckily the adapter weighs only ~ 80 grams making it about 150g heavier than the GM. It's a bit front heavy with the adapter though.
3) AF noise: I don't know how it sounds on a A-mount body but when adapted to Sony, it's a bit loud just like my other screw-drive Minolta lenses. This could be a deal breaker for some accustomed to nearly silent focus lenses like the Batis 135.
4) Axial CA and purple fringing: Honestly I thought it would be worse based on reviews. It's there but I don't think it's excessive. Still a negative though.
There is a possibility of using the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter with it for a 190/2.5 equiv. lens. I will report back on this....Show more →
Thanks for providing these details. Are axial CA and purple fringing the same or worse than the 85GM?
p.23 #17 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Dave,
I had high hopes but after a short time with it, it's safe to say that the 135/1.8 ZA actually exceeded my expectations. You know when a lens gets too much hype...but I don't think it's the case here -- A true classic.
It has a design without asphericals and I think that contributes to the unique looking images it produces. High resolution from center to edge wide open, high contrast (bold colors), soft transition zone and low contrast OOF rendering. The is not field curvature either.
Just like with STF lenses, complex and busy backgrounds do not look distracting and that's the magic of this lens. That's also true for the transition zone which can be seen at long distance. (One of my negatives for the new GM)
I was worried about phase detect focus accuracy and the results tell me it's a keeper. Contrast detect (AF-S) is super accurate and AF-C's accuracy is on par with my other telephoto lenses (85 GM and Batis 135). It even works great with Eye-AF, bringing new life to this lens. Focusing is not very fast though so don't expect to excel in sports.
Now for the main negatives which could be deal breakers for you:
1) Price: It's an expensive lens still in production. Currently selling for $1,800! If you are patient though, you can grab a mint copy for about $700. I bought this one. It's like new and has no tilt or swing.
2) Weight: It's heavy just like the 135/1.8 GM but still needs the adapter. Luckily the adapter weighs only ~ 80 grams making it about 150g heavier than the GM. It's a bit front heavy with the adapter though.
3) AF noise: I don't know how it sounds on a A-mount body but when adapted to Sony, it's a bit loud just like my other screw-drive Minolta lenses. This could be a deal breaker for some accustomed to nearly silent focus lenses like the Batis 135.
4) Axial CA and purple fringing: Honestly I thought it would be worse based on reviews. It's there but I don't think it's excessive. Still a negative though.
There is a possibility of using the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter with it for a 190/2.5 equiv. lens. I will report back on this....Show more →
Sounds like time for a Bokeh shoot out between your 135's and the STF
p.23 #18 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Dave,
I had high hopes but after a short time with it, it's safe to say that the 135/1.8 ZA actually exceeded my expectations. You know when a lens gets too much hype...but I don't think it's the case here -- A true classic.
It has a design without asphericals and I think that contributes to the unique looking images it produces. High resolution from center to edge wide open, high contrast (bold colors), soft transition zone and low contrast OOF rendering. The is not field curvature either.
Just like with STF lenses, complex and busy backgrounds do not look distracting and that's the magic of this lens. That's also true for the transition zone which can be seen at long distance. (One of my negatives for the new GM)
I was worried about phase detect focus accuracy and the results tell me it's a keeper. Contrast detect (AF-S) is super accurate and AF-C's accuracy is on par with my other telephoto lenses (85 GM and Batis 135). It even works great with Eye-AF, bringing new life to this lens. Focusing is not very fast though so don't expect to excel in sports.
Now for the main negatives which could be deal breakers for you:
1) Price: It's an expensive lens still in production. Currently selling for $1,800! If you are patient though, you can grab a mint copy for about $700. I bought this one. It's like new and has no tilt or swing.
2) Weight: It's heavy just like the 135/1.8 GM but still needs the adapter. Luckily the adapter weighs only ~ 80 grams making it about 150g heavier than the GM. It's a bit front heavy with the adapter though.
3) AF noise: I don't know how it sounds on a A-mount body but when adapted to Sony, it's a bit loud just like my other screw-drive Minolta lenses. This could be a deal breaker for some accustomed to nearly silent focus lenses like the Batis 135.
4) Axial CA and purple fringing: Honestly I thought it would be worse based on reviews. It's there but I don't think it's excessive. Still a negative though.
There is a possibility of using the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter with it for a 190/2.5 equiv. lens. I will report back on this....Show more →
Wow; that's quite an endorsement.
Thanks for the very detailed reply.
I have been looking for an AF 135 for some time but neither the Batis nor GM really appealed to me.
I have long considered the Canon but that has its own limitations.
This looks like it will be it.
So nice to be able to adapt this classic and leverage all the AF tech in the new bodies.
p.23 #20 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Very nice summation. Would love to hear your thoughts on the 100/2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Dave,
I had high hopes but after a short time with it, it's safe to say that the 135/1.8 ZA actually exceeded my expectations. You know when a lens gets too much hype...but I don't think it's the case here -- A true classic.
It has a design without asphericals and I think that contributes to the unique looking images it produces. High resolution from center to edge wide open, high contrast (bold colors), soft transition zone and low contrast OOF rendering. The is not field curvature either.
Just like with STF lenses, complex and busy backgrounds do not look distracting and that's the magic of this lens. That's also true for the transition zone which can be seen at long distance. (One of my negatives for the new GM)
I was worried about phase detect focus accuracy and the results tell me it's a keeper. Contrast detect (AF-S) is super accurate and AF-C's accuracy is on par with my other telephoto lenses (85 GM and Batis 135). It even works great with Eye-AF, bringing new life to this lens. Focusing is not very fast though so don't expect to excel in sports.
Now for the main negatives which could be deal breakers for you:
1) Price: It's an expensive lens still in production. Currently selling for $1,800! If you are patient though, you can grab a mint copy for about $700. I bought this one. It's like new and has no tilt or swing.
2) Weight: It's heavy just like the 135/1.8 GM but still needs the adapter. Luckily the adapter weighs only ~ 80 grams making it about 150g heavier than the GM. It's a bit front heavy with the adapter though.
3) AF noise: I don't know how it sounds on a A-mount body but when adapted to Sony, it's a bit loud just like my other screw-drive Minolta lenses. This could be a deal breaker for some accustomed to nearly silent focus lenses like the Batis 135.
4) Axial CA and purple fringing: Honestly I thought it would be worse based on reviews. It's there but I don't think it's excessive. Still a negative though.
There is a possibility of using the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter with it for a 190/2.5 equiv. lens. I will report back on this....Show more →
