Birds So a first test of sony 70-400 a-mount on a9 with lea-5 just 20 minutes in the garden

[spudhead]

So this might be of interest to some as if you still have a-mount glass or can pick up some cheap a-mount glass, so I think I need to change a few settings but the lens is fast to focus on the a9, all shots in falling light and images a tad soft and flat , but I am sure I can get this lens working well. This has never been a lens I used much on a-mount but I know a lot of users liked this lens.

• ILCE-9
• Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II (SAL70400G2)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 3200

• ILCE-9
• Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II (SAL70400G2)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-9
• Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II (SAL70400G2)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-9
• Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II (SAL70400G2)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 5000

• ILCE-9
• Sony 70-400mm F4-5.6 G SSM II (SAL70400G2)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 4000

 

[Ralph]

Great details in one and all of these shots. I like them all.

 

[spudhead]

What are you using to sharpen?

Wondering, do you have any experience with any of the 70/80 - 200 /2.8 lenses? I may have limited need for a fast zoom in lower-light situations. Not enough use to spend on an E-mount Sony.

I have the "Beercan" 70-210/4 but I think faster and better quality. Was looking at the Minolta 80-200 APO. It doesn't need to be incredibly fast focusing for the application.

I have the 70-200 g1 sony did you see the cheetah pictures I posted they were taken with the 70-200 g1 although on a-mount but it works really well on the lea-5 ? I use c1 and sometimes topaz denoise tool. I have had the minolta 80-200 nice lens, the minolta 200 2.8 is at least in the lens I have super sharp and cost has fallen rapidly, I will not sell the sony 70-200 g1 its too good compared to what it would sell for now , to sum up all the sony ssm lens work really well on the lea-5 on a9. I can not test minoltas as well as I would like because the lea-4 has limited options on the a9.

 

[spudhead]

Ok. I looked at the 200/2.8 but need the zoom for the intended use, I sometimes need to adjust where I stand. The 70-200 is a nighttime under the lights compromise from the 100-400 for daytime. Usually not as many people by that time of the day so a bit more flexibility where I can set up.

Both the Minolta 70 and 80 - 200 APO lenses get excellent reviews and image samples are exemplary. They seem to sell for around $500, much less than their Sony counterparts and certainly less than E mount. For the once or twice a year the races get delayed and I end up out there late, I think it's just what the doctor ordered.

Thanks!

what do you take pictures of ? the minoltas render super colours ,How are the lenses working on the a74 you have and which adaptor are you using? the problem with the sony 70-200 and 70 -400 is the hood they have the apsc petal hood but are full frame if I am correct and that drve me crazy at times.

 

[spudhead]

Don't have the adapter yet, a Sigma 100-400 and Sony 24-105 were more pressing. The adapter should be next. I am going to do some experimenting with different FLs to make sure.

The 24-105 is on my wants for me it would be a travel street lens for me, I have the 24-70 f4 zeiss for travel and 70-200 f4

 

[spudhead]

Yes. My favorite walking around for M-4/3 is the 12-60 (24-120 equiv). The 24-105 doesn't have quite as much range but will still do the job. MPB has about 10 listed. I bought one in Like New condition with original packaging for $934, quite a good amount off the new price.

well good point I have the whole family into photography and my daughter has an oly om 1 mk2 and 12-60 2.8 and 40-150 2.8 and 1.4 tele so since she does not use it so much dad gets to use it and its a much under rated system in my opinion and she has 2 cracking lenses as I am sure you are well aware