A7rII Sony A Mount. Include Sigma, Tamron, Minolta

[GrahamWelland]

Mike,

I have the Tamron 150-600 A mount and also Sony A mount 70-400 SSM II arriving on Tuesday to test with the LAEA3 and LAEA4 and my A7II & A7RII (I'll check my A7s & A7r too if I have time). I'm off on safari in Africa in the middle of the Sept and renting these to test to decide what to take with me for a couple of weeks.

I tried a Canon mount 150-600 with Metabones IV adapter in store but it was too slow to be usable on the back of a land rover. The Sony mount version hopefully will be a lot better and I'll be testing on both bodies and adapters so that I have backup options.

I'm extremely interested in any experiences and tips from others who have tried either of these lenses on the FE mount cameras.

 

[Woody Campbell]

What do with think about the A mount 50mm vs. the E mount 55? Pros and cons?

 

[dmward]

I have the Tamron lens and LAE3 adapter coming as well.
I posted a question on Lu-La asking for experience reports since Michael and Kevin have used the lens on both the A7RII and the A7II.

Got a reply back from Michael saying the lens and E3 adapter on the RII is outstanding.

My recollection is that it won't work well on the A7II with the E3 adapter. Not a big deal for me.

I'll let you know what I find.

 

[vjbelle]

What do with think about the A mount 50mm vs. the E mount 55? Pros and cons?

This is not addressing the OP but I will comment on the E mount 55. I purchased one on a whim along with my A7Rll expecting to send it back. I'm still pinching myself but this lens kicks butt! Sides and corners are all very sharp at the same plane..... absolutely amazing!! I shoot it at F5.6 mostly and am in heaven. So...... good copies are out there. I don't have another lens in this focal length area that can touch this lens...... that includes Zeiss and anything from Nikon. Still can't believe it.......

Victor

 

[hcubell]

Mike,

I have the Tamron 150-600 A mount and also Sony A mount 70-400 SSM II arriving on Tuesday to test with the LAEA3 and LAEA4 and my A7II & A7RII (I'll check my A7s & A7r too if I have time). I'm off on safari in Africa in the middle of the Sept and renting these to test to decide what to take with me for a couple of weeks.

I tried a Canon mount 150-600 with Metabones IV adapter in store but it was too slow to be usable on the back of a land rover. The Sony mount version hopefully will be a lot better and I'll be testing on both bodies and adapters so that I have backup options.

I'm extremely interested in any experiences and tips from others who have tried either of these lenses on the FE mount cameras.

Graham:
I just returned from two weeks in Zambia and Botswana and used an A7RII with the Sony A mount 70-400 SSM II and the LAEA3 adapter. I have not had time to really go through my files, but I am generally impressed with what I see so far. The lens is generally excellent from an optical standpoint. I was able to shoot handheld with the lens and get very capable results by setting the camera on Manual at my desired aperture (usually one stop down from wide open) and a shutter speed of at least 1/1000 of a second, and using Auto ISO to let the camera determine the ISO to achieve t he correct exposure. At ISOs of up to 3200, the A7RII is superb even without applying sophisticated NR. The AF with the LAEA3 seemed quite snappy to me, but low light was a problem very late in the day and certainly on night drives. I had to switch to MF with magnified view and hope the lions and leopards stayed relatively still. Since they were hunting, this did not always work well, as you can imagine. I am not experienced enough with AF to know if cameras like the Nikon D4S and the Canon 1DX would have worked in these conditions either. You should note that some of the best AF features of the A7RII like AF-A and focus tracking do NOT work with the Sony 70-400. High Speed Continuous Drive also does not work.
As you have probably read, the use of EFCS is NOT recommended with shutter speeds at 1/1000 and faster. There is no way to set up the camera to automatically turn off EFCS at higher shutter speeds and it was beyond me to remember to turn it on or off based upon shutter speed. In good light, I was regularly using very fast shutter speeds so I would want it off, but as the light went down, my shutter speeds would drop and I would forget to turn it on.
Off topic, but the A7RII files seem to have a very smooth and beautiful quality to them. I really like what I am seeing so far.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Thank you Howard, that is most useful information.

I'm off tomorrow for my trip. I decided in the end to take the Tamron 150-600 A mount on one 17rII body along with 70-200FE on a second A7rII plus a couple of other lenses for use with by A7s around camp at night etc. My experience with the 70-400 was good but in the end I decided to pick up the Tamron anyway. Both seem to behave in a similar manner to you describe regarding AF support and I've also found that they would hunt in low light with either the LEA3 or LEA4 and so I have to resort to manual focus. I'm taking along both adapters because I've yet to get fully comfortable with which is better overall. The extra AF points and tracking with the LEA3 seems better but since the adapters are small I'll play safe anyway.

Thanks for the heads up on the EFCS.

I decided to rent a second A7rII vs taking along my A7II as the second body. I figured that the last place I want to be fiddling around with subtle body operational differences is on the back of a Land Rover during animal action.

Regarding other camera / lens performance, the last couple of times I've been on Safari I've always shot with Nikons. The D3s and D3x combo I took last time on a 200-400/4 VR and 70-200/2.8 VR II were excellent regarding AF performance in low light. I pretty much know already that the Sony's won't perform at quite the same level of AF but this time around I'm not really looking to machine gun AF - been there, done that, don't need to do it any more.

One thing that I haven't come to grips with yet are the lack of rear button AF in AF modes. I normally use the cameras in MF mode and use a rear button for on-demand AF but with the AF modes it always seems to only work with the shutter button (with the LEA3/4 at least). I may have to revisit this again today.

 

[hcubell]

Thank you Howard, that is most useful information.

I'm off tomorrow for my trip. I decided in the end to take the Tamron 150-600 A mount on one 17rII body along with 70-200FE on a second A7rII plus a couple of other lenses for use with by A7s around camp at night etc. My experience with the 70-400 was good but in the end I decided to pick up the Tamron anyway. Both seem to behave in a similar manner to you describe regarding AF support and I've also found that they would hunt in low light with either the LEA3 or LEA4 and so I have to resort to manual focus. I'm taking along both adapters because I've yet to get fully comfortable with which is better overall. The extra AF points and tracking with the LEA3 seems better but since the adapters are small I'll play safe anyway.

Thanks for the heads up on the EFCS.

I decided to rent a second A7rII vs taking along my A7II as the second body. I figured that the last place I want to be fiddling around with subtle body operational differences is on the back of a Land Rover during animal action.

Regarding other camera / lens performance, the last couple of times I've been on Safari I've always shot with Nikons. The D3s and D3x combo I took last time on a 200-400/4 VR and 70-200/2.8 VR II were excellent regarding AF performance in low light. I pretty much know already that the Sony's won't perform at quite the same level of AF but this time around I'm not really looking to machine gun AF - been there, done that, don't need to do it any more.

One thing that I haven't come to grips with yet are the lack of rear button AF in AF modes. I normally use the cameras in MF mode and use a rear button for on-demand AF but with the AF modes it always seems to only work with the shutter button (with the LEA3/4 at least). I may have to revisit this again today.

I read at least one report that the AF performance with non-native zoom lenses is better with the LAEA4 adapter in terms of hunting for focus, even though you apparently sacrifice some of the PDAF sensors compared to the LAEA3. If I had the time, I would have rented both adapters to try before I left.
On the setup of the menus for rear button AF, I recall setting it up following the recommendations in the LULA review of the A7II. At least with the Sony A Mount 70-400, I could put the lens into MF mode and still use the button in the AF/MF toggle switch for on-demand AF. More often than not, I just left the lens in AF mode and used a half press of the shutter to get my focus and then recomposed.

 

[dmward]

Tamron 150-600 and EA3 adapter just arrived. Will have to start testing and practicing tomorrow.

From everything said here and from Michael R's comments on Lu-La I anticipate that I have found my long lens for the A7RII. I had a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for my 5DIII. It was a big heavy but great lens.

I am a bit surprised that the Tamron is as small as it is when not zoomed out. Much more compact than I expected after seeing MR's review on the LuLa.

Will get its first workout at the BMW Championship next week.

 

[jaree]

Rented the A7Rii + LA-EA3 + Sony 70-400 G II + Sony Zeiss 135 F1.8 last week for a trip to New Hampshire and Vermont. Big heavy lens, but then I use tripod with long lenses anyway. Very nice combo I must say - 70-400 is superb on the A7Rii if you need a one lens solution for that range. With my Leica R 21-35 and R35-70 on the A7, I was able to cover all scenarios.

I tried hand-holding but did not get consistent results with IBIS, so I switched it off and went back to tripod. Zeiss 135 is MF only anyway with the LA-EA3. In any event this heavy combo is tripod only for me.

AF seemed to be very good, but I used MF most of the time - focus grip of 70-400 is quite good and easy to fine tune in magnified LV.

Definitely renting the 70-400 again on trips that need this range. Some over-processed pictures attached and yes, the colors were really bright.

First two with Zeiss, last four with 70-400. #3 is at 400MM.

 

[Rawfa]

Did anyone test the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 Di USD?

 

[The Ute]

Has anyone tried the Minolta 80-200 HS 2.8 on the a7r II via LA-EA4 ?
Feedback would be appreciated on the image quality.
TIA

 

[cedie0401]

What's the best adapter to use in terms of AF speed with Sigma 120-300mm f2.8?

 

[iiiNelson]

What's the best adapter to use in terms of AF speed with Sigma 120-300mm f2.8?

Probably the Sigma MC-11.

 

[Jan]

I'm considering using a Sony a7rii with Minolta primes, such as 35/1.4, 50/1.4 (already in possession) and 85/1.4. I understand that I need the latest A-mount adapter, just wondering, does it make sense to use these lenses compared to newer stuff coming from Sony, or better even, CZ.

From my understanding, a lot of the old lenses are optically (excellent lenses) not changed but just rebranded from Minolta to Sony. I know the performance of the GM lenses are amazing, but so are the price tags. Apart from the fact that the 24-70/2.8 GM seems a rather heavy lens on a small body and I prefer primes anyway.

In the wide angle range, I am looking at the CZ 24/2.8 or the newer CZ Batis 25/2.0. The latter seems the more obvious choice but I would like to see some opinions here.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[pegelli]

Jan, I can only talk from an "ease of operation" perspective and no optical qualities or rendering (since I have none of those newer/native E-mount lenses).

For the screw drive AF lenses (35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4) you'll need the LA-EA4 to maintain autofocus. This adapter has a pellicle mirror that takes away about a 1/2 stop of light and AF functions as if it were an A68, the special AF functions of the A7Rii are mostly unavailable

For SSM lenses (like the CZ 24/2) you can use the LA-EA3 which has no pellicle mirror and uses the AF function of the body, and the options available depend on the lens used. For screw drive AF lenses you'll have to use MF with this adapter.

Here's a website which gives you the full compatibility information of all Sony and Minolta lenses on all bodies: Compatibility Information.

Both the LA-EA3 and 4 are a bit bulky and clunky but they do work as advertised.

I bought my A7 mainly to have a full frame digital back for heritage MF lenses but I also still have a case full of old Minolta AF glass that I use with a LA-EA4 at times I want AF (or just want to use those lenses). Advantage over using them on the A7 over my trusty old A850 A-mount body is that the sensor of the A7 is much better at low light then the now 10 year old A850 sensor, but you lose the in-body stabilisation. For the A7Rii this would not be the case, it's an even better sensor with stabilisation. Downside is the bit of a clunky set-up, but you should see that for yourself by testing in a store or with a rig from a friend. Some people are OK with it, some people hate it (just like other cameras and systems)

 

[Jan]

Your elaborate thoughts are very much appreciated! I did find some images coming from your hand on dyxum.com, I still use that website as the bible for Minolta ;-) When you say, special AF functions, this relates to the number of AF points are available and AF point selection perhaps?

I will go to the store coming weekend and bring my 50/1.4 along and get a test-up done and I will take it from there.

Jan, I can only talk from an "ease of operation" perspective and no optical qualities or rendering (since I have none of those newer/native E-mount lenses).

For the screw drive AF lenses (35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4) you'll need the LA-EA4 to maintain autofocus. This adapter has a pellicle mirror that takes away about a 1/2 stop of light and AF functions as if it were an A68, the special AF functions of the A7Rii are mostly unavailable

For SSM lenses (like the CZ 24/2) you can use the LA-EA3 which has no pellicle mirror and uses the AF function of the body, and the options available depend on the lens used. For screw drive AF lenses you'll have to use MF with this adapter.

Here's a website which gives you the full compatibility information of all Sony and Minolta lenses on all bodies: Compatibility Information.

Both the LA-EA3 and 4 are a bit bulky and clunky but they do work as advertised.

I bought my A7 mainly to have a full frame digital back for heritage MF lenses but I also still have a case full of old Minolta AF glass that I use with a LA-EA4 at times I want AF (or just want to use those lenses). Advantage over using them on the A7 over my trusty old A850 A-mount body is that the sensor of the A7 is much better at low light then the now 10 year old A850 sensor, but you lose the in-body stabilisation. For the A7Rii this would not be the case, it's an even better sensor with stabilisation. Downside is the bit of a clunky set-up, but you should see that for yourself by testing in a store or with a rig from a friend. Some people are OK with it, some people hate it (just like other cameras and systems)

 

[pegelli]

Jan, good luck testing in the store. That will beat any story you can read here or elsewhere on the internet.

With "special AF functions" I mean indeed # of points (basically the LA-EA4 has it's own points and the ones from the body aren't used) but also the tracking, Eye AF and other AF gizmo's that are coming from the body aren't available, basically the adapter with the pellicle mirror takes over the full AF function.

 

[pegelli]

Last week I did some shopping in Antwerp and took my A7, the LA-EA4 and two lenses.
Not the greatest shot, but it shows it works

With the Minolta 85/1.4 RS @ f4.0 and iso 800:



With the Minolta 35/2 @ f4.0 and iso 640:


B.t.w. I like the Minolta 35/2 a lot more than the 35/1.4 The 1.4 is a bit dreamy wide open and has a nice rendering for closer subjects (environmental portraits) and to my taste not a very pleasing rendering for subjects that are further away (like landscapes). The 35/2 is less dreamy and sharper wide open and I like it's rendering overall better (both close and far subjects). So it depends a bit on the type of photography you do to find the best Minolta 35 for you.

 

[Jan]

Last week I did some shopping in Antwerp and took my A7, the LA-EA4 and two lenses.
Not the greatest shot, but it shows it works

With the Minolta 85/1.4 RS @ f4.0 and iso 800:
With the Minolta 35/2 @ f4.0 and iso 640:

B.t.w. I like the Minolta 35/2 a lot more than the 35/1.4 The 1.4 is a bit dreamy wide open and has a nice rendering for closer subjects (environmental portraits) ando my taste not a very pleasing rendering for subjects that are further away (like landscapes). The 35/2 is less dreamy and sharper wide open and I like it's rendering overall better (both close and far subjects). So it depends a bit on the type of photography you do to find the best Minolta 35 for you.

Thanks a lot for the images and your view on the 35/1.4 vs. 35/2.
I will do some more research on those lenses.

Good to see images from Antwerpen, I surely miss visiting the lovely city and it has been awhile since I was last there. I've done some fine black and white work there in my younger years.

 

[pegelli]

Yup, Antwerp is a great city. If you want to see more pictures, there's a whole thread on Dyxum about it: Cities: Antwerp, Belgium - Dyxum - Page 1

Good luck with your further choices of lenses and adapters.