I was reading the reviews of the LA-EA5 on Sony.com...

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
Ricky 92rt Forum Member • Posts: 60
Re: I was reading the reviews of the LA-EA5 on Sony.com...
1

SQLGuy wrote:

I agree with most of this, but I don't think A mount lenses really hold that much competition to either Sony E or Canon EF lenses for most users.

It depends there are some unique offerings that are in some cases good optically and more than a bit of a deal cheapness wise. In some areas Minolta were well ahead on their lenses (not all some weak spots)

There's not much where a Minolta is that much better a deal than a Canon lens. Minolta has the advantage of undesireability, while Canon has the advantage of large production numbers. Both mounts offer plenty of decent lenses for cheap prices for people who don't need the fastest and/or quietist autofocus. You can particularly see this when comparing pricing on used 3rd party lenses that were made in both mounts. The EF versions are usually pretty close in price to the A mount ones.

Couple of obvious examples the 70-210mm F4, 100-200mm F4.5. Good copies can be quite sharp, and the 100-200mm is unique for it's super compact size. They have their issues with CA etc, but they are bargains for what they offer.

The Canon 70-200mm EF F4 is a good lens and relatively affordable (compared to the E mount version quite a lot more cost wise), however it's nowhere near as super bargain prices as the beercan.

Some of the old guard Minolta lenses can't be matched. I've not used an EF 70-200mm F2.8 (any version) that can touch a Minolta 80-200mm HS APO G one of the best lenses they ever made, and it's got a look second to none in bokeh

There are plenty of offerings now for good and good value E mount zooms and primes.... unless you want a slower decent zoom. There a Minolta 24-105 or 24-85 doesn't have competition at the price, but for a few more $$$ you can get the Sony 24-105 or Tamron 28-75 and have a better lens, with better AF. I guess new 3rd party primes are also more expensive than old Minolta ones, but, still, a new Sony 28/2 is only twice the price of a good used Minolta 28/2, and the Sony comes with a warranty.

There is a big big price cost on the Sony SEL 24-105mm F4 v the older Minolta. No question the new lens is better, however a good copy of the older Minolta is quite good and very small. Lenses like the 24-85 can be decent or the 28-105mm is another gem for it's cost. you just can't get similar lenses at these prices. Even the original 28-85mm is a solid lens . Canon's 28-105mm is pure garbage v the Minolta equivalent it's a no go

The 17-35mm D is alright too for a budget FF UWA, the new Tamron on E mount is way more costly (17-28mm), and likewise 28-75mm Tamron not hugely expensive but not exactly cheap either.

I think there are some nice lenses out there for low cost that can plug gaps or even make up a system for people with a modest outlay. If you bought native glass it would be very expensive overall even with Sigma/Tamron, less expensive but still costly. Canon do have some very fine lenses, however they also have some turkeys too, and much of the good L glass isn't that cheap

So overall it is desired to have a good adapter solution long term. Otherwise people might just keep buying used A mount gear, no shortage of it around. A better adapter solution with more bodies would be welcomed. After all they bothered to make the LAEA5, all that is needed is better wider support for it to be worthwhile.

A1 might be a dream camera for some, reality check is few will ever use or own one, it's massively expensive and overkill. A lot more would be interested in an A7iii or some of the crop bodies. Expanding the adapter to those would make a difference. Otherwise we're back to LAEA4 land, or doing the monster route later on

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow