Least Expensive Way to get 24-70mm f/2.8 on a7rii?

[kazooless]

I've got an a7rii. I have no lens adapters as of yet, but willing to acquire.

 

What is the least expensive way to get an auto-focus f/2.8 24-70mm zoom lens for this body? I can't yet justify Sony's price for their G-Master, and frankly, I'm a little gunshy with the latest report of Sony warranty denying service.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

kazooless

[Guest all8]

There is the Sony entry level one for about 500 (but only 28-70 ..), the Sony-Zeiss one for about 1000, and the sony G for about 2200.

[kazooless]

Thanks. I need f/2.8 though.

 

I found on one of the other threads here a link to dyxum.com and that is a gold mine. I ended up getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 with the LA-EA4 adapter from Amazon. Total was $600.

 

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-28-75mm-F2.8-XR-Di-LD-Aspherical-IF_lens114.html 

[jayteepix]

Thanks. I need f/2.8 though.

 

I found on one of the other threads here a link to dyxum.com and that is a gold mine. I ended up getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 with the LA-EA4 adapter from Amazon. Total was $600.

 

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Tamron-SP-AF-28-75mm-F2.8-XR-Di-LD-Aspherical-IF_lens114.html 

Well from asking to solving your problem all by your little 'ol ownsome you solved your problem Great!

 

Frankly less than 4 hours from first to last post all you did was promote another site!

Well done enjoy you don't need us!

Bye

[tinplater]

Let us know how that lens functions in terms of autofocus and image stabilization with your A7rii.  I have the Sony G master and it is an awesome performer.

[tinplater]

Well from asking to solving your problem all by your little 'ol ownsome you solved your problem Great!

 

Frankly less than 4 hours from first to last post all you did was promote another site!

Well done enjoy you don't need us!

Bye

That's a little harsh...just because he asks a question doesn't preclude him from doing his own research after the question is asked.  I assume you feel better with your caustic response.  What is wrong with praising Dyxum?  Do you view these blogs as competitive rather than co-informative?

[kazooless]

Agree

 

That's a little harsh...just because he asks a question doesn't preclude him from doing his own research after the question is asked.  I assume you feel better with your caustic response.  What is wrong with praising Dyxum?  Do you view these blogs as competitive rather than co-informative?

 

Agreed. It was because I posted this that this site led me to other similar posts that didn't come up in my initial searching. Thanks for sticking up for me @tinplater!

[kazooless]

Let us know how that lens functions in terms of autofocus and image stabilization with your A7rii.  I have the Sony G master and it is an awesome performer.

 

I've used it for two family portrait sessions now. When the focus is correct, this is amazingly sharp for a $300 lens. Wow. 

 

Pointing into the sun (one of my signature compositions), it does NOT like to focus, at least not wide open. The limited focal spots aren't great either. However, switching to manual and magnifying works fine still and then you can get a great sharp image. Very little distortion too.

 

All in all, I'm very happy with the choice (for my current budget). 

[Arutemu]

I have the same combo: A7R II, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 A-mount and LA-EA4 adapter. The lens is a little gem and shines on A7R II, but the adapter itself annoys me. It is bulky and sometimes fails to power the lens at which point I have to disengage the lens and reattach it while the body is powered on. That seems to solve the problem, but having to do that annoys the hell out of me.

 

Here's waiting for Tamron or Sigma (or anyone else for that matter) to release a 24-70 in E-mount.

[kazooless]

I have the same combo: A7R II, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 A-mount and LA-EA4 adapter. The lens is a little gem and shines on A7R II, but the adapter itself annoys me. It is bulky and sometimes fails to power the lens at which point I have to disengage the lens and reattach it while the body is powered on. That seems to solve the problem, but having to do that annoys the hell out of me.

 

Here's waiting for Tamron or Sigma (or anyone else for that matter) to release a 24-70 in E-mount.

 

I haven't had the power problem you describe but I agree about the adapter. There are definitely drawbacks, but it is all minor in the scheme of things when you look at how much money you save. Image quality is NOT a compromise. For me, I had to remove my L Bracket because the adapter gets in the way so I can't use it anyway. In addition, I can't leave the tripod plate on the adapter because I can't remove the adapter from the body with it on. Nor can I use the regular plate on the body. So, yeah, very inconvenient. Maybe it would have been better to get this lens in a Canon mount with a Canon adapter instead.

[Arutemu]

Maybe it would have been better to get this lens in a Canon mount with a Canon adapter instead.

 

I tried that. The problem is, the Tamron 28-75 is an old lens. It is from a "third-party" manufacturer. There's just not any reliable way for to account for all the possible electronic quirks and incompatibilities between three different electronic elements - body, adapter, and lens (This applies equally well to LA-EA4 and Metabones).

 

I also have a Metabones IV adapter and tried the Tamron  EF mount 28-75 on it. Out of three (!) copies of 28-75, only one worked in the store with the Metabones and A7R II. I just didn't care to take the chance that at some crucial point the combo might decide to malfunction. So I got an FE 24-240 for my trip to Italy, and postponed getting a 24-70 until something comes along that I can afford.

[Username]

Don't tar the LAEA4 with that same brush. 

   

I've used various adapters ... am right now 

ready to return the Vello that just arrived a 

few hours ago :-(   

   

But my experience with 5 different OEM 

adapters [Nikon, Minolta, Sony] has been 

flawless .... all three entities, lens, camera 

and adapter from the same maker, seems 

toadally bulletproof. 

[tinplater]

I haven't had the power problem you describe but I agree about the adapter. There are definitely drawbacks, but it is all minor in the scheme of things when you look at how much money you save. Image quality is NOT a compromise. For me, I had to remove my L Bracket because the adapter gets in the way so I can't use it anyway. In addition, I can't leave the tripod plate on the adapter because I can't remove the adapter from the body with it on. Nor can I use the regular plate on the body. So, yeah, very inconvenient. Maybe it would have been better to get this lens in a Canon mount with a Canon adapter instead.

 

It just occurred to me that you might have considered a large aperture prime like the Sony 28mm 2.0 or the Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8 since your initial zoom gave you all the commonly used focal lengths.  The Zeiss 2.8 is one of my favorite lenses.  It is small and sharp; it makes a great carry around lens for everyday shooting.  And the lens will easily fit in a pocket.

[Arutemu]

Don't tar the LAEA4 with that same brush. 

   

I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean. What same brush? Same as what?

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean. What same brush? Same as what?

I think he meant that LA-EA4 is different because it has its own AF module. So you don't get three sets of electronic protocols that need to interact.

[Username]

I think he meant that LA-EA4 is different because it has its own AF module.

So you don't get three sets of electronic protocols that need to interact.

      

Re: "LA-EA4 is different because it has its own AF module".       

 

Tru dat, and thaz also significant. But I just meant that regardless 

of protocols involved, Sony adapters for Sony A-mount onto Sony

E-mount should not be tarred with the same brush as all the other 

3-part systems where the 3 parts [lens-adapter-body] are all from

different manufacturers. The latter is frequently problematic. The 

former [sony-on-Sony-by-Sony] is reliably problem-free.  

  

Frinstintz, Sony-to-Sony-by-Sony doesn't always use a separate

AF module independent of the camera body's AF system. The 

LAEA3 has no adapter-based AF module. It drives newer-style 

A-mount lenses in AF using data from the imaging sensor in the 

camera body ... no moving parts in the LAEA3 and LAEA1.    

     

As adapters in general are suffering a bad reputation then maybe  

Sony's LAEA devices should be called "Converters", so as not to 

tar them with the same brush as all them "Adapter" gizmos :-)

  

Same would presumably apply to Canon's converter for their EF

lenses onto their M-mount bodies. When there's no one else at 

whom to point the "fickle finger of blame" then you just gotta get

it right the first time ... or else fix it right, and fast :-) 

[jstevensphoto]

I hope you have better luck than me with Sony E to other brand adapters.   I have lots of great Nikon lenses, but was never able to find an adapter that would transfer auto-focus, metering and everything else to  my Sony A7Rii.   I finally broke down and paid dearly for the Sony G Master 24-70.   It's a great lens, but I really don't think it is worth $2200.   I'm hoping somebody will figure out a good adapter for Sony E to Nikon F mount.   

[Arutemu]

Re: "LA-EA4 is different because it has its own AF module".       

 

 The former [sony-on-Sony-by-Sony] is reliably problem-free. 

I wish that were true. I have the Sony LA-EA4 and would love to use it with my Minolta AF lenses on my A7R II body. The LA-EA4 just cannot AF them reliably. The worst of the bunch is the Minolta AF 70-210 f/4. The adapter powers it up, but cannot focus it 75% of the time. Then follows the Minolta AF 135mm f/2.8 - same problem. And so on... Drives me insane. I am willing to admit this may be my particular copy of LA-EA4. It sucks, because I have a Metabones IV, which works like a charm with my Canon lenses. I love Minolta lenses most, but am stuck with the LA-EA4 failing me more times than not.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

I wish that were true. I have the Sony LA-EA4 and would love to use it with my Minolta AF lenses on my A7R II body. The LA-EA4 just cannot AF them reliably. The worst of the bunch is the Minolta AF 70-210 f/4. The adapter powers it up, but cannot focus it 75% of the time. Then follows the Minolta AF 135mm f/2.8 - same problem. And so on... Drives me insane. I am willing to admit this may be my particular copy of LA-EA4. It sucks, because I have a Metabones IV, which works like a charm with my Canon lenses. I love Minolta lenses most, but am stuck with the LA-EA4 failing me more times than not.

Sounds like there's an issue with your copy. I've never had those problems. Your mirror could be dislocated. For me, some lenses require some AF micro adjustment but it's mostly spot on.

[Username]

Yes, that IS weird. The old huge 70-210 is no 

sooprize ... it's a truck. But the 135 has internal 

focusing, and so is a rather smaller load for the 

motor that drives the AF coupling shaft. 

   

Having 3 135/2.8s, I offered one to a friend and 

she stuck it onto her a7 + LAEA4 and it worked 

great. She's very picky, loves the instant AF of 

M43 stuff, but she had NO complaint about the 

135 on the adapter ... not that it was as fast as 

her tiny M43 stuff, but it was fast. I also use an 

old A-mount Tokina ATX 28-70/2.8 that is NOT 

internal focus, so it has a very heavy focusing 

cell. The camera actually torques in your hand 

as the AF fires up. No problem driving that one 

on my LAEA4. 

   

I cannot speak to variations amongst LAEA4

units, cuz I bought hers ! One thought tho, the

adapter is powered by the camera. It takes less 

power to wake up the AF sensors but more to 

run the AF shaft drive motor. So if the contacts 

need cleaning the AF sensors might be OK but 

the motor could be "malnourished" volts-wise.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The beercan also works with my LA-EA4. Not that it's my favourite combo, exactly. I'd say it takes about half a second to acquire focus in AF-S. Forget about AF-C.

 

But the LA-EA4 is totally dependent on tbe flimsy SLT mirror. If you mark it or shift it, it's game over.

[kazooless]

After several portrait sessions on the beach with the Tamron 28-75mm & the LA-EA4, I've had to use manual focus with magnify mode. The images are very sharp so it is a good quality lens in that regard. But boy do I hate the A-mount focus restrictions. Those very few little dots for focusing just don't cut it, especially when using a tripod. There is no way I want to using a focus and recompose method of old DSLR day. So I'm back to shopping.

 

I'm very interested in the new Sigma ART 24-70mm for Canon with the MC-11 adapter. But I guess it is so new that there are no real world reveiws of this combination yet (that I can find). Hopefully we'll see some in the next couple of weeks. That would be more palatable $$ wise than the G Master.

[Username]

22 posts down the road, it's clear that unbrainwashing 

oneself of the "need" for an f/2.8 zoom is the pathway 

to affordable quality reliable optics with full compatibility

for all the latest conveniences available from your outfit. 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

For portrait work, there are so many options to a 24-70/2.8 lens. Especially if you shoot outdoors. Most lenses of this kind has noticeable distortion, except somewhere in the middle. The f2.8 is too bright to use in daylight, yet it does not give enough bokeh in situations where you can use it.

 

I think a better setup would be a 70-200/2.8 and a f1.4 prime. For the 70-200 you have lots of adapted options that have been in use for years, such as Canon, Tamron and Sigma.

 

Your current gear is more like an allround setup so if you specifically go for portraits you could easily sell it and replace it with more suitable gear.

[kazooless]

22 posts down the road, it's clear that unbrainwashing 

oneself of the "need" for an f/2.8 zoom is the pathway 

to affordable quality reliable optics with full compatibility

for all the latest conveniences available from your outfit. 

 

LOL

 

Grumpy much? I don't recall mentioned I "need" this.