Jump to content

Which Sony E/A adapter for 70-200 G SSM 2.8 lens?


Robin W
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I have an e-mount Alpha A7iii camera body and have just bought a used A mount 70mm-200mm G SSM 2.8 FE lens.  Which is the correct or best Sony adapter to buy, is iy the LA-EA4 or LA-EA3.  I am using the camera for sports/action photography so good continuous focus is important.

Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Pieter, I think that answers my quesion, LA-EA3 seems to be the one.

I was also thinking of buying a 2x Teleconverter to make the lens 140mm-400mm lens at f/5.6.  In your opinion would the combo of Alpha A7 III > SEL20TC FE 2.0 Teleconverter > LA-EA3 E to A adapter > A mount 70mm-200mm G SSM 2.8 FE lens work?

Any advice appreciated, would this even all work together and if so are there any compromises you can think of in this set up?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No that won't work, the E-mount teleconverters only fit a select couple of lenses. Maybe if you fit an A-mount teleconverter between the adapter and the lens, but be sure to check if the 70-200 is compatible with teleconverters.

Regarding the best adapter: be sure to try before you buy. Based on the specs, the LA-EA3 has more advanced AF-capabilities but apparently it's quite slow. The LA-EA4 on the other hand focusses fast but only in a limited area.

Out of curiosity, why did you buy an A-mount lens for your A7iii? For the price of the lens plus adapter you can likely get the new Tamron 70-180 F/2.8. Also, the 2× teleconverter is half the price of the new E-mount Sigma 100-400.

Edited by Pieter
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

    • I mostly see posterization artifacts, which are the result of lossy compressed RAW files (or bad jpeg conversion). Unfortunately, the A6400 doesn't offer uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW. The noise might indeed result from the smaller sensor than what you're used to. If you're not shooting at max aperture, you could try shooting at wider aperture and lower ISO. When you're not shooting at max aperture, fullframe versus APS-C shouldn't matter much in terms of ISO-performance combined with depth of field: at the same ISO and aperture value, fullframe offers better noise performance but with a narrower depth of field. This can be offset by choosing a larger aperture and lower ISO on the APS-C camera. If you want a fullframe camera the size of an A6400, try the A7C(ii).
    • ..unfortunately, the lighting was correct. The shot required deeper shadows. The K1 ff didnt have these banding issues [yes, I know the sensor is larger]. The film shots had details in the same light. The sony files, both the jpg and raw, had this banding/noise - with NO retouch or post adjustments [straight out of the camera]. the camera was purchased new a few years ago and I am trying to determine if there is something wrong, or the settings are wrong, or the camera just cant handle this kind of lighting [studio + softbox]. No shadow detail is one thing... banding/noise in the shadows is unacceptable. Does sony have a body this size that is FF ? Im wondering if that would make a difference..  dw
    • The root causes for banding are uneven lighting, incorrect exposure settings, or compression artefacts or certain kinds of artificial lighting, especially LED lights. Also the lens used plays a role, I have noticed it more with my sharpest lenses, looks like they outresolve the sensor when I have a uniform blue sky. There is more than one solution, and ultimately post-processing, but the root cause has to be identified first.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...