Manual focus with the LA-EA4 adapter

[addicted2light]

Hi, 

 

could please someone who owns an LA-EA4 clarify this for me: in manual focus, can I still move the box for the focus magnification all over the image area, or I'm restricted to one of the LA-EA4 focus points (all grouped in the center)?

 

Thanks!

[Golem]

IIRC I've always just chosen amongst

the points that are displayed, which are

acoarst the group limited to the adapter.

 

It never crossed my mind to select any

spots not already displayed. How would

you know where else to select ?

[addicted2light]

Well, I use only legacy glass on my A7r, so with a "dumb" adapter I can magnify any point I want.

 

I understand that in AF I'll be able to only select one of the 15 AF focus points, but in manual focus I'd like to retain the ability to focus wherever I want.

 

I tried searching for a manual first (on both the A7r manual, and on the manual for the LA-EA4), but the only ones I found were kinda of a joke...

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

At least on the A6000 you can move the focus magnification box all over the sensor. I can't remember what it did on A7 cameras.

 

Presumably, as the adapter AF disengages, focus magnification just runs in the camera, off the sensor as usual.

[addicted2light]

At least on the A6000 you can move the focus magnification box all over the sensor. I can't remember what it did on A7 cameras.

 

Presumably, as the adapter AF disengages, focus magnification just runs in the camera, off the sensor as usual.

 

 

Thanks! That's exactly like I hoped it worked. Time to hit ebay

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

It's a great piece of kit so happy hunting on eBay.

[addicted2light]

Thanks!

 

By any chance, any experience with under-35mm A-mount lenses? From what I've read it looks the only really good one is the 24/2 Sony Zeiss, but I don't want to lug around all that weight (and spend all that money) if another lens comes close enough at f/11 in terms of corner performance.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Maybe the Minolta AF 24/2.8 will be good enough? It's worth a try, at least.

[addicted2light]

I have it in the 55mm filter size MC (manual focus) version, that's reputedly the best of the bunch. It's quite ok, but not great.

 

Given this is my second most used focal lenght I'd like to find something better.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The AF version is more contrasty, warmer and more saturated. The MD version is more neutral but has slightly better borders. If you want more heavy duty gear without paying Zeiss prices, the Sigma Art is always an option.

[addicted2light]

"More contrasty, warmer and more saturated"...your words are like honey for my taste

 

Considering that I've seen the 24/2.8 go for about a 100€, while the 24/2 Zeiss usually sells for 600€, I guess I might give the Minolta a try; worse scenario I'll sell it back for more or less what I paid for it.

 

I'm not too keen to the Sigma because (taking into account that I don't need f/1.4) it's almost the price of the used Zeiss if not more expensive, not to mention heavier. I'm sure that's a fantastic lens, but I plan to use it at f/11 or 16 most of the times anyway, so 1.4 is definitely overkill.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Yeah, give it a go. If you're lucky and it works for you, you save 500 bucks. If not, it's easy to sell on.

[Golem]

I use a Maxxum/Dynax 24/2.8, early style with the

narrow ribbed focusing ring. It's internal focusing

and one of my most fave faves, but then I'm from

the IILGIIG* school, so YMMV.

  

* If it looks good, it IS good.  

   

[addicted2light]

* If it looks good, it IS good.  

   

 

 

I'm from the same school, btw, but I don't like an excessive disparity in performance between my lenses. This because if I'm printing my shots as diptychs or as one unified project you (or at least I) can spot fairly easily differences in sharpness/rendering/colors if they're excessive.

 

So while I know that no wides is going to match, say, the 100 macro, I want at least for them to be close enough that one of the picture doesn't look like it has been taken with an Holga

 

In the meanwhile to have an idea of the performance of the AF model I tested my 24 MC (that is apparently slightly better than the AF version) directly against some of my other wides, with the same scene, light etc. The results are a bit discouraging: even at the lens best f/stop there is a fairly evident lack of fine detail compared to the others. There is probably a reason why I keep using it mostly on film and for "urban" shots.

 

At this point I narrowed down my choices to 3 lenses, and hopefully I'll be able to find them soon enough (I already placed offers in a couple of auctions):

 

- the 28/2 Sony FE, because apparently without distortion correction is more like a 25/26mm, and everyone is saying that is sharp

- the 24/2 Sony Zeiss, a costly proposition, but like I said 24mm is my 2nd most used lens so the investment may be worthy

- and (if there are no differences in terms of color rendering) the Canon 17-40. I've found a few raws with this lens on the A7r, and it looks a really good performer, with corner-to-corner sharpness at f/16

 

Thanks everyone for the suggestions!