Sony LA-EA5 Adapter $250 October

rovhazman wrote: TomV wrote: I just checked out the following A-mount lenses I own (Sony a99ii) against the LA-EA5/a7R IV combo, sw version 1.20: ... The following DO NOT WORK AF-wise, Excessive hunting: ... Sony SAL70400 Orig and G2 I am surprised. I used the original SAL 70-400 with LA-EA5/a7rIV and found it very good AF wise and it felt as good as native combination. My latest a-mount body is a99 (first generation) and the SAL 70-400 with LA-EA5/a7rIV was better AF-wise. Later I bought the e-mount 200-600mm lens and I found its AF performs with a7rIV similar and in some cases even worse that the LA-EA5/a7rIV with SAL 70-400 combo. Generally, I found the LA-EA5/a7rIV as good as native a-mount body with most of the lenses I used it. I didn't do any direct comparison, just based on personal experience.

I am also surprized as the LA-EA5 with an SSM/SAM lens should behave like the camera with an LA-EA3. Doing a quick google search did show several people having good experiences with the 70-400G and the LA-EA3 and 5.

Here is a video with Sony A9II, LA-EA5 and 70-400G2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN3N6ZMxJys (and some other lenses). Maybe the AF settings make a difference?

rovhazman wrote: TomV wrote: I just checked out the following A-mount lenses I own (Sony a99ii) against the LA-EA5/a7R IV combo, sw version 1.20: ... The following DO NOT WORK AF-wise, Excessive hunting: ... Sony SAL70400 Orig and G2 I am surprised. I used the original SAL 70-400 with LA-EA5/a7rIV and found it very good AF wise and it felt as good as native combination. My latest a-mount body is a99 (first generation) and the SAL 70-400 with LA-EA5/a7rIV was better AF-wise. Later I bought the e-mount 200-600mm lens and I found its AF performs with a7rIV similar and in some cases even worse that the LA-EA5/a7rIV with SAL 70-400 combo. Generally, I found the LA-EA5/a7rIV as good as native a-mount body with most of the lenses I used it. I didn't do any direct comparison, just based on personal experience.

Thanks for your input. Since you had good results I decided to retest my lenses, outdoors today since the rain has stopped. The original conclusions I reached were indoors and in the basement and compared to my a99ii. The lenses worked much better on the a99ii for the basement tests (beyond the MFD but not a whole lot further).

My outdoor results, using distances further away from the MFD for my my short distance to longer distance acquisition test, showed much better results. Outdoors the performance was good enough for me to not notice an impactful difference between the a7Riv and a99ii.

A pleasant surprise was that the AF performance of the Tamron was also similar to its a99ii performance. Additionally, it seems that the focus area is expanded with the newer camera. The wide focus area on the a99ii was set to a lot smaller area than when using a Sony lens. It looks like more of the sensor is used, though I have not plowed through to see how many focus points are used.

In a nutshell, though the a7Riv/LA-EA5 combo does not perform as well AF-wise with my long lenses as the a99ii on the short end of the focal length, anything beyond the close-in region performs well.

Last 4 in this set At the beach 3 taken with the a7iv and CZ 24-70mm f2.8 Vario-Sonnar with LA-EA5.

The SEL85F18 has some optical issues. I'd recommend looking at other options. I am sure there could be a better option I haven't tried.

Sigma 65mm F2 DG DN C is superb, but even the lowly SEL50F18F is better than the SAL50F14.

Edited by QuietOC - 17 February 2022 at 00:10

Howard_S wrote: QuietOC wrote: even the lowly SEL50F18F is better than the SAL50F14. Yet the lens database rates the SAL lens higher (4.59 vs 4.30). Do you rate the SEL higher because the SEL lens is native to the E-mount?

The A-mount landscape was a lot different especially back in the day when most of those reviews were written. I do occasionally go back and edit my own reviews. I will say the SAL50F14Z is pretty good.

I've compared the SEL50F18F and SAL50F14 several times. The E-mount lens is better optically other than not being F1.4. It does seem to me like the Sony version had worse variation, but even the best Minolta 50mm F1.4 didn't compare well. I found the SEL50F18F better optically than the C/Y Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 and every other old normal I've tried. It is like the best old style 50mm except in a cheap plastic focus-by-wire form. It would have been a lovely A-mount lens.

The SAL50F14 does support Lens Compensation and 5-axis stabilization on the LA-EA adapters. The FE 50mm F1.8 isn't much better focusing than the screw-driven lens on the LA-EA5. But I do find it better than the SAL50F18.

Edited by QuietOC - 16 February 2022 at 16:25

addy landzaat wrote: Anyway, the 50/1.8 better be better then the old 50/1.4 - it benefits from 30 years of lens design development and an aspherical element. There are two reasons to adapt a lens - one is because you enjoy using it, the other is because you cannot afford the E-mount equivalent. No A-mount lens is better or even equal to E-mount lenses in technical terms. You adapt the A-mount 50/1.4 only because you like it - for its rendering, for its nostalgia. Not because it is better.

Afraid I have to pick this up. I think people may have other reasons for adapting lenses, including nostalgia and variety. Your other point I would agree with for the expensive FE lenses but not the cheap APS-C ones. Sony's A-mount DT lenses are far superior to the E-mount equivalents, if you are prepared to forgive the OSS (which was only added because the E-mount cameras of that period lacked IBIS).
The later APS-C E lenses such as the 18-135mm E OSS seem to be better.

Just posted a couple of test shots using the Minolta 500mm f8 AF reflex on the a7iv via the LA-EA5 if anyone is interested.
More tests a7iv and LA-EA5.