p.8 #1 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
TheEmrys wrote:
With the 1.4x, and using the correct t/c (Minolta made 3 versions), its quite good on the 200/2.8. The 2x, like pretty much all but the most recent t/c's, shows a bit. But if there isn't any cropping, its pretty good on a 24mp sensor. I am sure the 42mp+ sensors would be harder on both.
The 100/2 isn't compatible. Oddly, the 135STF is compatible.
Like Sony still does, the TC's are only made for the big whites w/ the stf as the exception.
p.8 #2 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
For those curious. The Mino 200 2.8 holds up very well, even on 42mp. Focus is on the rock steps behind the fence, not the fence. Only place available I could get flat infinite distance near me.
I see a slight contrast boost and mild decrease in vignetting at f4 , and minimal but present improvements stopped down in the extreme corners. I would not hesitate to use at 2.8. I am impressed.
Manual focus is super finicky. Rendering is gorgeous.
Any suggestions for a 'dumb' adapter while I'm waiting for the la-ea5?
Congrats! Do I need to post 100/2 crops as well (I have them somewhere)?
As far as adapters--do not purchase a Fotodiox. It works well on my Minolta 50 2.8 macro and 100/2, but the built in aperture ring does not allow my 200/2.8 to open up fully.
p.8 #4 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Congrats! Do I need to post 100/2 crops as well (I have them somewhere)?
As far as adapters--do not purchase a Fotodiox. It works well on my Minolta 50 2.8 macro and 100/2, but the built in aperture ring does not allow my 200/2.8 to open up fully.
p.8 #6 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Pretty sure you will love the 100/2. It is a small, but very dense lens. It really is a fabulous lens/aperture for a small mirrorless system. The front element on it is enormously thick, whick I discovered after one of the two copies I owned became decentered. I tried some home repair.... Turns out the front element is nearly an inch thick. I was shocked.
p.8 #7 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Village:
I know a naive gentleman who has a Sony 135 STF lens. He currently uses it with a dumb adapter on his A7R4. Could he gain EXIF data by using an LA-EA3?? If so, any gain available by using the LA-EA5?? He thinks he understands the EXIF aperture may be reported "strangely", in any case. He thinks he is unlikely ever to have other A-mount lenses.
p.8 #8 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
He can indeed gain EXIF through an LA-EA3. Its pretty useful. There is no advantage for the LA-EA5 over the 3, UNLESS he ever wants to add another A-mount lens. And there are a lot of really good ones, and a couple of great ones out there. Myself, unless I had some sort of abhorrence for Minolta A mount stuff, I would choose the 5. It is only going to be marginally more money.
p.8 #9 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
jacquesvroom wrote:
Village:
I know a naive gentleman who has a Sony 135 STF lens. He currently uses it with a dumb adapter on his A7R4. Could he gain EXIF data by using an LA-EA3?? If so, any gain available by using the LA-EA5?? He thinks he understands the EXIF aperture may be reported "strangely", in any case. He thinks he is unlikely ever to have other A-mount lenses.
Thank you.
Yes, you do get EXIF with the LA-EA3, and it will report the camera-controlled aperture setting on the STF 135. It won't report the T-stop manipulation of the STF. I think the only added bonus for that lens from the 5 is the size of the adapter.
I couldn't find my old crops, but I shot another set quickly. It's similar to the 200 2.8 in terms of technical IQ. Slight contrast boost from f2 to 2.8 (one stop down and most CA disappears). Great sharpness across the frame, with corners slightly increasing as you stopped down, but it's already decently sharp at f2 into the extreme corners, and excellent from corner to corner at 2.8 and beyond.
@Village
I thought about recommending the LAEA3, but he specifically asked for a dumb adapter.
p.8 #11 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
I honestly shot both of my copies if the Minolta 100/2 slot at f/2.2. It is a bit sharper and most of the negligible CA disappears in all but the harshest scenes.
p.8 #12 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
TheEmrys wrote:
I honestly shot both of my copies if the Minolta 100/2 slot at f/2.2. It is a bit sharper and most of the negligible CA disappears in all but the harshest scenes.
Yeah, my dummy adapter doesn't allow for half stops, but I was curious not as much when the CA goes away but where contrast bumps up.
I couldn't find my old crops, but I shot another set quickly. It's similar to the 200 2.8 in terms of technical IQ. Slight contrast boost from f2 to 2.8 (one stop down and most CA disappears). Great sharpness across the frame, with corners slightly increasing as you stopped down, but it's already decently sharp at f2 into the extreme corners, and excellent from corner to corner at 2.8 and beyond.
@Village@
I thought about recommending the LAEA3, but he specifically asked for a dumb adapter.
Nice to see some shots from the 100/2, even nicer to see that it translates very nicely to digital. Hmmm. I likely do not need this, to start thinking about old Minolta glass on my Sony. The only thing saving me right now, I think, is that I've got an RII which doesn't appear to be compatible with the new adapter.
I couldn't find my old crops, but I shot another set quickly. It's similar to the 200 2.8 in terms of technical IQ. Slight contrast boost from f2 to 2.8 (one stop down and most CA disappears). Great sharpness across the frame, with corners slightly increasing as you stopped down, but it's already decently sharp at f2 into the extreme corners, and excellent from corner to corner at 2.8 and beyond.
@Village@
I thought about recommending the LAEA3, but he specifically asked for a dumb adapter.
The corner area look very sharp starting at f/5.6 but as you wrote, it's already really good from f/2-2.8.
From your experience, how would the 100/2 compare to the 85/1.4?
p.8 #15 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thank you for posting the resolution test!
The corner area look very sharp starting at f/5.6 but as you wrote, it's already really good from f/2-2.8.
From your experience, how would the 100/2 compare to the 85/1.4?
In short--I much prefer the 100/2. Read on if you're wanting the longer impression.
To me the 100 has punchier deeper color, it's sharper (if you care about that for portraits), it's a better all around-er, smaller, and good 100mm's are quite hard to find, especially a compact f2, whereas 85mm range has so many options, vintage and current. I don't think the bokeh is as smooth on the 100mm structurally even if both lenses are at f2 even with the extra 15mm helping the 100mm, but I prefer the 100/2 bokeh. But more importantly, the rendering on the 100/2 is unique--files are special aside from the superior technical performance.
I never found that Mino 85 that compelling, from an IQ or rendering perspective--it's not a bad lens by any means, I owned it and shot it extensively for a year or two on my a850. That lens just struck me as a bit boring--nothing really stood out about it in any way. No strong fingerprint. I sold it and never thought about repurchasing. I would go for a ZA 85, 100/2 or a 85 Limited.
I actually prefer the lovely images from 80-200/2.8 for portraits and generally over the 85 1.4 assuming you're good with f2.8.
Technically, the Mino 85/1.4 WO is soft outside the central portion of the frame and there's SA, and in harsh light a decent amount of CA. The first photo below is at f1.7, where I usually shot the lens as I wanted the finer textures and a bit more contrast/pop. Bokeh and transitions are nice, though I don't recall them being remarkable. Contrast bumps by f2 more as sharpness spreads. By 2.8 it sharpens out across the frame, and by f4 it's very sharp everywhere till it defracts. All this on 24MP FF. It's the common optical profile of most 85's of that generation in my experience (80 Lux, Canon 85 1.2, Contax 85 1.4).
Below are some photos I took with it on an a900 and/or a850. I would process them differently now, but here:
p.8 #16 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
It also depends on which Minolta 85/1.4. Minolta made 5 of them.
Original - not my favorite.
RS - better, as it has rounded aperture blades
G - pretty good. I like it's look a lot
D - not the look I like. Too much correction and images look flatter than the 100/2
Limited - Wow. Amazing. But out of my budget.
The G is interesting to me. Check out Dyxum's lens database and the image examples. Skip a couple pages as they are from the old 7D, an aps-c Konica Minolta.
p.8 #17 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
TheEmrys wrote:
It also depends on which Minolta 85/1.4. Minolta made 5 of them.
Original - not my favorite.
RS - better, as it has rounded aperture blades
G - pretty good. I like it's look a lot
D - not the look I like. Too much correction and images look flatter than the 100/2
Limited - Wow. Amazing. But out of my budget.
The G is interesting to me. Check out Dyxum's lens database and the image examples. Skip a couple pages as they are from the old 7D, an aps-c Konica Minolta.
Between the RS, G and D, do you know of optical or coating differences? The general conclusion seems to be they are the same lens with physical differences. But I've read things going both ways, but nothing official. Have you shot the different versions?
p.8 #18 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Between the RS, G and D, do you know of optical or coating differences? The general conclusion seems to be they are the same lens with physical differences. But I've read things going both ways, but nothing official. Have you shot the different versions?
I misremembered. There are only 4 Minolta versions and then the Sony ZA85. Original, G, D, and Limited. The G is often referred to as a G RS, as it received the rounded aperture blades.
In looking at the designs, they all look identical. They are a 7/6 design and the lens schematic on Dyxum are identical. Now, I have no idea if Minolta tweaked their materials for those lenses, and if it would require an updated design, but there we are. All 4 versions have the same lens design. Or, it may be a good example of how much of a difference coatings actually make. I suspect its the effect of coatings. The color signature, T/#, and even contrast can all be affected by the coatings. But they all have very different looks.
p.8 #19 · Introducing LA-EA5 | Mount Adaptor | Sony | Accessory
TheEmrys wrote:
I misremembered. There are only 4 Minolta versions and then the Sony ZA85. Original, G, D, and Limited. The G is often referred to as a G RS, as it received the rounded aperture blades.
In looking at the designs, they all look identical. They are a 7/6 design and the lens schematic on Dyxum are identical. Now, I have no idea if Minolta tweaked their materials for those lenses, and if it would require an updated design, but there we are. All 4 versions have the same lens design. Or, it may be a good example of how much of a difference coatings actually make. I suspect its the effect of coatings. The color signature, T/#, and even contrast can all be affected by the coatings. But they all have very different looks. ...Show more →
If this site is accurate the Limited was designed for undercorrected SA: www3.xitek.com/xitek-lab/minolta85f14.htm
