Jump to content

FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS Lens ALTERNATIVE?


Recommended Posts

If you need image stabilization: no (except Canon, please read below), unless you use one of Sony bodies with built-in IS.

 

If instead you either don't need IS or use one of the aforementioned bodies: yes, several.

 

Please keep in mind that I don't have a FE 70-200, because after seeing many full size samples I wasn't particularly impressed, worse still I was frankly quite a bit disappointed (mostly by the corner and border performance @ 200mm).

 

And please also consider than I'd rather use a Minolta 200/2.8 hs + the 1.4 Apo multiplier on a la-ea4 adapter than a 70-200 zoom (this because if I'm using anything over 85-100mm usually is because I need quite a long focal length). This solution, btw, will also give you native speed af.

 

Speaking of af, another solution that would let you do that is using the Canon 70-200/4. The non stabilized version is fairly cheap, but really sharp.

 

The IS (stabilized) version is quite more expensive, and considering the cost of a good adapter (Sigma or Metabones) the price might not be competitive, compared to the native Sony solution. That is, unless you plan to use the adapter with several other Canon lenses.

 

If you can live with manual focus (easier than you think, unless you shoot sport or wildlife) I would wholeheartedly recommend the Contax 80-200 or the Contax 100-300. Especially the first one is fairly cheap nowadays, but the results are really quite good (and there is a thread here on the forum devoted to Contax glass, check it out). The 100-300 is even better, IMO, than Canon L series glass.

 

Pictures taken with Sony Alfa Cameras and Contax Zeiss le...

Vario-Sonnar T* 80-200mm

Vario-Sonnar T* 100-300mm

 

Another really good lens was the first Nikon AF 80-200/2.8, the one without tripod collar (you can generally buy one aftermarket from China fairly cheap, or buy directly a Nikon/Sony adapter with one) but with still the aperture ring. Its weakness is mostly quite a bit of chromatic aberration shooting wide open in extreme contrast situations (a dark pole agains a snowy background, for example), not something you would encounter on a day to day basis (but please remember I haven't used this particular lens on a Sony, only on Nikon bodies).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need image stabilization: no (except Canon, please read below), unless you use one of Sony bodies with built-in IS.

 

If instead you either don't need IS or use one of the aforementioned bodies: yes, several.

 

Please keep in mind that I don't have a FE 70-200, because after seeing many full size samples I wasn't particularly impressed, worse still I was frankly quite a bit disappointed (mostly by the corner and border performance @ 200mm).

 

And please also consider than I'd rather use a Minolta 200/2.8 hs + the 1.4 Apo multiplier on a la-ea4 adapter than a 70-200 zoom (this because if I'm using anything over 85-100mm usually is because I need quite a long focal length). This solution, btw, will also give you native speed af.

 

Speaking of af, another solution that would let you do that is using the Canon 70-200/4. The non stabilized version is fairly cheap, but really sharp.

 

The IS (stabilized) version is quite more expensive, and considering the cost of a good adapter (Sigma or Metabones) the price might not be competitive, compared to the native Sony solution. That is, unless you plan to use the adapter with several other Canon lenses.

 

If you can live with manual focus (easier than you think, unless you shoot sport or wildlife) I would wholeheartedly recommend the Contax 80-200 or the Contax 100-300. Especially the first one is fairly cheap nowadays, but the results are really quite good (and there is a thread here on the forum devoted to Contax glass, check it out). The 100-300 is even better, IMO, than Canon L series glass.

 

Pictures taken with Sony Alfa Cameras and Contax Zeiss le...

Vario-Sonnar T* 80-200mm

Vario-Sonnar T* 100-300mm

 

Another really good lens was the first Nikon AF 80-200/2.8, the one without tripod collar (you can generally buy one aftermarket from China fairly cheap, or buy directly a Nikon/Sony adapter with one) but with still the aperture ring. Its weakness is mostly quite a bit of chromatic aberration shooting wide open in extreme contrast situations (a dark pole agains a snowy background, for example), not something you would encounter on a day to day basis (but please remember I haven't used this particular lens on a Sony, only on Nikon bodies).

addicted2light,  

 

I really appreciate your ongoing contributions regarding adapted lenses.

 

Have you had any experience using the Techart Pro adapter to give autofocus to manual lenses?   I'm considering using the TechArt Pro on C/Y glass or using a LA-EA4  adapter for Minolta glass at the 200mm focal length for ballet dancers on the street. .    My suspicion is that neither one will be completely acceptable for high speed AF, but if I have the dancers jump into the scene a consistent distance I may be able to get away with it.  Maybe even with manual focus. .     I'd appreciate your thoughts or if you know someone who has tried this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minolta ceased to exist in 2007 so by definition, Minolta lenses are pretty much 2nd hand lenses. You may find an occasional A mount lens for sale 2nd hand that's new in original packaging but it's extremely rare. Most Minolta lenses are screw driven for focus. You'll need the LA-EA4 adapter.

 

You've got some great feedback so far. I don't know what you'll typically be shooting with a 70-200 but I want to make sure you understand a couple of things you'll be giving up using A mount lenses with the LA-EA4 in case they're important to you.

 

-Eye auto focus will not work (important if you're doing portraiture)

-you'll be limited to 15 of the available 179 focus points

 

If you can live with the above then you can usually find some good deals on excellent Minolta A mount glass. If the two items above are important to you then native E mount (or maybe adapted third party lenses?) are the way to go.

 

I don't know your price range for a 70-200 but you can find some deals on used FE 70-200 F4's in 9+ to 10/10 condition in the $900 US range. I recently saw an 8/10 one listed for $845. I purchased an FE 70-200 F4 in 9+ condition for $940 US last month and have been quite happy with it.

 

I own a number of Minolta lenses and can attest that the 50mm and 100mm 2.8 macros perform exceptionally well on my A7II. I still love to shoot now and then with my 35-105mm 3.5-4.4. When I purchased my A7II Sony Canada had a promotion on the LA-EA4 adapter. It was being sold as a $99.99 add on to any A7 purchase so I picked one up. While it works well and has allowed me to adapt my older glass, "personally", I find it an uncomfortable PITA to use hand held. The damd focus motor just seems to get in my way when shooting hand held. Strictly a personal thing but you may want to try it out in store with a Sony A mount lens before committing to a lens purchase.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

addicted2light,  

 

I really appreciate your ongoing contributions regarding adapted lenses.

 

Have you had any experience using the Techart Pro adapter to give autofocus to manual lenses?   I'm considering using the TechArt Pro on C/Y glass or using a LA-EA4  adapter for Minolta glass at the 200mm focal length for ballet dancers on the street. .    My suspicion is that neither one will be completely acceptable for high speed AF, but if I have the dancers jump into the scene a consistent distance I may be able to get away with it.  Maybe even with manual focus. .     I'd appreciate your thoughts or if you know someone who has tried this.

 

Sorry, I don't have any experience with the Techart. I'm using a first gen A7r, that is not supported by the Techart...

 

As for the la-ea4, my guess is that, as long as you okay with the limitations listed above by KMG, the af speed will be more than enough (at least with the right lens).

 

That being said, like you already inferred, I'd rather use manual focus if the movement of your subjects is this kind of "erratic but predictable" motion, so to speak, pre-setting the focus on the point where I know a dancer is going to appear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a number of Minolta lenses and can attest that the 50mm and 100mm 2.8 macros perform exceptionally well on my A7II. I still love to shoot now and then with my 35-105mm 3.5-4.4. When I purchased my A7II Sony Canada had a promotion on the LA-EA4 adapter. It was being sold as a $99.99 add on to any A7 purchase so I picked one up. While it works well and has allowed me to adapt my older glass, "personally", I find it an uncomfortable PITA to use hand held. The damd focus motor just seems to get in my way when shooting hand held. Strictly a personal thing but you may want to try it out in store with a Sony A mount lens before committing to a lens purchase.

 

Just my 2 cents.

I recently bought a 35-105 (1st version) and even if I still haven't had the chance to shoot with it that much I am quite impressed, for now at least.

 

As for the motor bulge in the la-ea4 I guess it's a personal thing. I, for one, I like it because I can rest the bottom of the adapter in my left hand enhancing stability. But I can certainly see how it could be annoying to someone else!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I now have the 28-70 I realize what I need first is a short zoom like 10-35. Any suggestions in used glass?

(Probably) best but most expensive: Sony 16-35/4 FE

 

Second best but still expensive: Sony Zeiss 16-35/2.8 A mount

 

Cheap as dirt but quite good if used stopped down ( at landscape apertures): Minolta (or Tamron, they should be the same lens) 17-35/2.8-4 A mount

 

http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sony-af/objektiv-vergleiche/315-16mm-20mm-firenze-battistero-2009

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Probably) best but most expensive: Sony 16-35/4 FE

 

Second best but still expensive: Sony Zeiss 16-35/2.8 A mount

 

Cheap as dirt but quite good if used stopped down ( at landscape apertures): Minolta (or Tamron, they should be the same lens) 17-35/2.8-4 A mount

 

http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sony-af/objektiv-vergleiche/315-16mm-20mm-firenze-battistero-2009

 

Anything "in the middle"? Moderately priced but fast. Would like 2.8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the Techart and it is shockingly good.  I have used with both Leica lenses, and also with the additional adapters that allow it to work with other legacy glass.  In good light it is much faster than I would have dreamed (almost as fast as native glass).  It will hunt in low light, but if you open lens to widest aperture it works fine except for fast moving stuff.  Combined weight of adapter and the lens you want to use needs to be less than 800 grams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything "in the middle"? Moderately priced but fast. Would like 2.8.

 

 

Nothing comes to mind...especially not f/2.8.

 

Wide zooms are difficult to design, and wide AND fast zooms even more so, and the price reflects this.

 

Another couple of options could be the Canon 17-40/4 (from what I gather more or less like the Tamron/Minolta 17-35/2.8-4, but more expensive and borders on the A7r decent only shooting at f/11, good from f/16) or the Canon 16-35/2.8 (that didn't have that good of a reputation to begin with, not even on 16Mp Canon cameras).

 

Or you could go for a fixed 24/2.8 (plenty of them, starting with Olympus OM, Minolta MC, Minolta AF). Usually they are from decent to really good, and they are fairly cheap as well. And stitching you can go wider, if you have the time to shoot multiple frames (actually, for stitching I prefer using a 35 or a 50mm, or even a longer lens, because the perspective they give me, but this is a matter of taste).

 

Going under 24mm requires either compromises (Tamron/Minolta, in its case having to stop down the aperture to get good borders) or money.

 

EDIT: I've never used one, but Thomas of thephotofundamentalist is very fond of the last incarnation of the Tokina 16-35/2.8. He is a nice guy, and you could ask him directly how it performs on the A7 series using the contact form on his blog

 

http://thephotofundamentalist.com/sony/491/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to follow up I got the Minolta 70-200 f4 and it works very nice. And for $170 on Craigslist with the adapter, so I'm happy.

 

You mean the 70-210 F4 ???

 

Minolta only made a 70-200 F2.8 G (D) SSM which is the same as the Sony 1st gen A-Mount  model and these would be about the same price as the FE 70-200 F4

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the 70-210 F4 ???

 

Minolta only made a 70-200 F2.8 G (D) SSM which is the same as the Sony 1st gen A-Mount  model and these would be about the same price as the FE 70-200 F4

 

Yes of course - sorry typo. I did however find I got sold the wrong adapter, the EA1 and not the EA4, but I'm told I can remove the barrel. Or just crop in edit. The lens looks really sharp to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have time to plan your shots I would recommend Contax Zeiss 135mmf2.8 and 200mmf4. The 135mm is the best vintage option I know and 100% Zeiss. My copy of the 200mm is also very sharp with about same colours but less contrast.

Good manual wide lenses are hard to find - even a decent 35/1.4 ...

I am very happy with my Zony 1635f4 and you don't get cheaper when you need good quality. Image stabilisation works great with my A7s, even when working with a cheapish slider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Addicted2Light <<And please also consider than I'd rather use a Minolta 200/2.8 hs + the 1.4 Apo multiplier on a la-ea4 adapter>>

 

Two questions if I may:

 

1. Is there any difference in AF speed between the first version (APO-G) and the later HS version, when using the LA-EA4 ?

2. According to Sony, the LA-EA4 does not permit using teleconverters (I'm reading the product description from B&H Photo). I assume the older Minolta converters are OK but not the new Sony ones, correct?

 

Thanks

 

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Addicted2Light <<And please also consider than I'd rather use a Minolta 200/2.8 hs + the 1.4 Apo multiplier on a la-ea4 adapter>>

 

Two questions if I may:

 

1. Is there any difference in AF speed between the first version (APO-G) and the later HS version, when using the LA-EA4 ?

2. According to Sony, the LA-EA4 does not permit using teleconverters (I'm reading the product description from B&H Photo). I assume the older Minolta converters are OK but not the new Sony ones, correct?

 

Thanks

 

P

 

I have the much cheaper EA3 as i manual focus so can't say I am afraid. Teleconverters likely do not have pass trump for AF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Addicted2Light <<And please also consider than I'd rather use a Minolta 200/2.8 hs + the 1.4 Apo multiplier on a la-ea4 adapter>>

 

Two questions if I may:

 

1. Is there any difference in AF speed between the first version (APO-G) and the later HS version, when using the LA-EA4 ?

2. According to Sony, the LA-EA4 does not permit using teleconverters (I'm reading the product description from B&H Photo). I assume the older Minolta converters are OK but not the new Sony ones, correct?

 

Thanks

 

P

 

 

I'll try to answer, but please consider that I don't have much first hand experience with the lens. I've tried it, the HS, and seen results from others, but I'm still hunting one on the auction sites.

 

1. The second version should be faster, but how much I don't know

2. I didn't know this. That said, I've read plenty of posts of people using Minolta converters just fine, so my guess the limitation has more to do with the insertion of another "weak spot" (a camera/lens connection) that theoretically could possibly impact the quality of your pictures with a bit of unwanted "tilt". Please keep in mind I'm guessing here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
    • Thanks! The 18-105 mm /f4 was PERFECT lens for my needs but a HUGE disappointed. I bought it with the camera, then I brought it with me on a trip. To my disappointed, all pictures came out slightly blurred, like the lens was slightly out of focus. Stepping down was not solving the issue. The kit lens was definitely better, to my surprise. Thinking that I got a lemon, I went back to the shop where I bought It (luckily, I has bought both the camera and the lens in a brick and mortar store). We tested the lens on another camera and it was the same. Then we tested other copies of the same lens that the store had in stock and all showed the same lack if sharpness. All pictures slightly out of focus. In the end I returned the lens and used the money to buy other equipment. I must admit that it was a perfect lens for video but it is not what I use my camera for. Actually this was confirmed by the shop owner, most buyers of the 18-105 mm are interested in its video capabilities. I will have a look at the Tamron, the Sony 16-55 is almost double the price, at least here, so I will keep it out of the picture, at least for the time being. The Sigma also looks as an interesting option.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...