old good A-mounts or new E-all-in-one

addy landzaat wrote: neilt3 wrote: ahaveland wrote: Thanks for many good advice here. I have not checked the details of which lenses/body/adapters would give me best AF. However I already have LA-EA4 with built in focus motor. But this use the contrast points I guess. The LA-EA4 uses phase detect AF sensors built into it , the same as the A mount SLT cameras . Rather than the contrast AF the camera does off the main sensor . The A7r2 has phase detect sensors off the main sensor with adaptors like the LA-EA3/5.

Correct , but the camera makes no use of them with the O.P's LA-EA4 .
Which is a shame , as if they could used for a final check by the camera they would remove the need for MFA .

Edited by neilt3 - 17 December 2021 at 22:16

addy landzaat wrote: Aha, but the LA-EA4 does not use of the contrast AF off the main sensor AFAIK.

That's right .
The LA-EA4 is a stand alone unit as far as AF goes .
Like I said when I wrote " The LA-EA4 uses phase detect AF sensors built into it" .
It doesn't use any of the cameras AF capabilities .

EDIT ; That's unless you convert it to an LA-EA4r with the Monster adapter chip , although I've no idea on compatibility with that set-up .

Edited by neilt3 - 18 December 2021 at 09:36

Compatibility of the LA-EA adapters is a bit of a minefield - check the compatibility pages on the Sony website before buying.

With the LA-EA3 note the AF speed comments, while it sort of works on some older bodies the AF speed is incredibly slow, making it pretty useless.

The LA-EA5 will only work on the very latest bodies and some of those will not work with the older adapters.

The LA-EA4 AF is pretty much the same as the A99 and includes the ability to do microfocus adjustments.

addy landzaat wrote: neilt3 wrote: addy landzaat wrote: Aha, but the LA-EA4 does not use of the contrast AF off the main sensor AFAIK. Like I said when I wrote " The LA-EA4 uses phase detect AF sensors built into it" I got confused by your remark about contrast AF. Therefore the summary

No problem .

DSC09116 by A_H_A_V, on Flickr

DSC09119 by A_H_A_V, on Flickr

DSC09137 by A_H_A_V, on Flickr


Thanks for keeping my discussion alive.

Here are three uncropped photos form today's short hike. Compressed by the playmemories app on my mobile. However I do see that the minolta 28-135 is versatile in range. But I feel that the resolution is far from my experience will so you feel 28-70 3.5-5.6 OSS which I had to sell with my a7.

I wasn't planning to spend more money right now.. but I see that I both want to keep my primes, and get a better walkabout zoom..

Edited by ahaveland - 20 December 2021 at 07:45

How to post pictures here, read this thread: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/posting-images-and-links-faqs_topic28010.html

What you see is that the camera compensates the faults of the 28-70 but not of the 28-135. That gives the impression that the 28-70 is better. FE lenses have this option.

How often do you use your primes?
Where do you use your macro for? The Tamron 28-200 has a 1:3 macro that is not good for bugs but fine for flowers.

I assume you saw the reviews in our lensdatabase: https://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Tamron-28-200mm-F2.8-5.6-Di-III-RXD_review7071.html

I had a very good copy of the FE 28-70 OSS that was sharper than any of the Minolta 28-135's I've had. It's main fault is being a kit zoom that has some variation. Though that is also a problem with some expensive Sony lenses.

The SAL2875 also gets Lens Compensation when used on the full-frame E-mount cameras. I have a sharp copy of that one too. I had two copies of the Tamron branded version that were not as good, but were still sharper than the Minolta zooms. The SAM is pretty slow and noisy, but works well enough.

I prefer the rendering of the FE 28-70 OSS over these.

Edited by QuietOC - 20 December 2021 at 11:46