Oh Arthur you really made me excited after a while! I'm just so curious to see some other A mount lenses performance on this little adaptor.....specially Minolta lenses which are so damn cheap!
It's a huge miss for Sony that they couldn't use this adapter to take advantage of their A mount lenses. Sony could've built a variable ND, focal reducer, or CPL inside the adapter to satisfy videographers while boosting their lens sale. Just look at what Canon did.
Well at least it made it, and it was made when The system was very mature. They could have pulled the Nikon and not made an adapter with a built-in motor to force everyone to move away from their legacy system unless you have a legacy lens with a built-in motor which were newer AKA profitable.
This wasn't fungus inside of the lens, but balsam separation. Unfortunately this is a common problem with this great lens, under hot weather conditions.
The 16-50/2.8 was Sony's first entry in that range, it was priced much lower than the new 16-55/2.8 and at the time it was competing with Tamron and Sigma 17-50/2.8 entries. I originally bought the 16-50/2.8 when I ordered the a77. Its a good lens but I never expected it to perform like a higher end lens. I consider it very good for what it was competing against. Unfortunately the autofocus on mine stopped working, I haven't bothered to find another copy. I am also holding out on upgrading to any body with full support with the la-ea5, for now.
Hey Arthur The comparison is super interesting. But I come to a different conclusion. The E-Mount G lens is ideal for landscape / architecture. BUT for portraits the SSM 16-50 is much better. Your wife looks much better (and more natural) through the color of her skin. In addition, the G lens is absolutely "too sharp" for faces. But that's just my opinion. Greetings from Germany (and sorry for my bad english ;-) )
Hey just a thought, maybe the camera adjusted automatically for vignetting, CA and distortion on the G lens, because of integrated profile and didn't do anything on the older SSM lens. Maybe in another RAW converter it will show up a bit different IQ. Still very impressive imaging from the new lens this is why it is sooo expensive.
I've done quite a few A Mount lens reviews including the 70-210mm F4 and 100-200mm F4.5 They are excellent lenses, with a few drawbacks (CA on the beercan is one)
I bought one for 189 that came with a a77 with a broken screen.... I bought a replacement lcd for 20$ and sold the body for 200. that fungus is actually balsam separation in the sealed front element (common issue with these lenses) I ended up doing an hot alcohol bath on it a couple of times to slowly clean it out with a heated air fan. now its clean not bad for a free lens.
Great video, but for the distorsion difference I feel like it could be that the E -mount is corrected directly in camera as the lens communicates more infos to the body (same for chromatic aberration)
Sony's support site states that lens compensation does not work with that lens on the adaptor which accounts for the barrel distortion. On a-mount bodies it was corrected in camera.
I'm using the 17-50 2.8 Sigma EX HSM with this adapter and it works great on my A6500. Excellent lens and can be had for under $200. But yeah I was upset that I couldn't use screw drive lenses (which most of my A-mount glass are) unless I upgraded to an A7RIV or newer.
I noticed you’re comparing JPEGs. Could it be that the E-mount version has straight-to-jpeg lens corrections and with the A-mount lens you have to do this in post processing? Of course, sharpness, contrast and bokeh are going to be better with a new G lens, but the barrel distortion and CA from the 16-50 can be easily cleaned up in Lightroom
No video AF? Well that's how to cripple a product. I wonder how this adapter would hold up with older cameras like the A6000 and telephoto lenses, i.e. for wildlife photography. As always a fine video, Arthur. Love to see you sticking to covering the APSC cameras.
My girlfriend is using the SIGMA 18-35mm f/1.8 (SA Mount) with the MC-11 on her a6600 and is highly satisfied. I think that's one of the best combos available at all
@@LucaBono.Studio actually she got that lense for free. I used it on my sd Quattro and had no use for it after upgrading to full frame. So she got it for free for her birthday (with an MC-11)
good video but I think you got it wrong since your 1 video with that lens. you get the wrong adapter since day one. why you choose sony la ea4 with is wrong. because that adapter is for older minolta lens that actually don't have motor on it. that lens the adapter that need is the la ea3 and actually works very well.i use it with the la ea3 with my sony a6400 since that lens is an apcs lens and not full frame.
I'm pretty sure SSM-lenses aren't mechanically engaged. That would be the SAM-lenses. The reason A-mount lenses don't work in video mode on the LA-EA5 is that their controls were designed to work with the translucent mirror AF technology, not with on-sensor AF. The LA-EA5 doesn't work very well on my Nex 7, if at all. I'm just glad that it allow me to use my A-mount macro lenses on the A6600. For video, I prefer power zoom lenses anyway.
So glad to see that you made a video about this adapter! I'm using an a6400 and was super excited because I have a small collection of Minolta AF lens that I'd love to adapt to that camera. I love the vintage feel and look. However, very disappointed with the lack of autofocus support for the a6400. An easy add on with a firmware update because I really don't wish to buy a whole new camera to use this adapter?
May you show more of the distortion performances of the 2 lenses when auto-correcting distortion turning off? I've owned a 16-55 lens and it has a pretty strong barrel distortion (even the very edges of the frame are missing, unfortunately).
I thought the new LA-EA5 adapter is for screw driven lenses which are not the SSM lenses..this lens should have the same performance on a LA-EA3 or LA-EA 5..theoretically it should not matter? Correct me if I am wrong
Just checked it; NO Autofocus in video on the LAEA3 adaptor either!. I do get fast autofocus for bursts so it's a bit better than the new one apparently
I actually liked the SSM lens in a lot of shots. The CA was the biggest offender, but I liked the style in most of the shots and the lighting more often produced a pleasing skin tone on your wife's face, but I think that's something that can be dialed in a little more since the G lens had pleasing tones sometimes too.
I did get the LA-EA5 so I could use my old Minolta screw drive lenses on my A7R4 and this combo works very good. I do have the Sony DT 16-50 AF f/2.8 and use it with the LA-EA3 on my A6500 for time lapse, sunrise and sunset photography. I am sure Sony will do a firmware update. Nice video by the way.
@@aw614 The older bodies (and the A7c)..or the LA-EA5. No one knows whether it's a deliberate fw limitation of the LA-EA5 or something else but limiting screw drive AF to two cameras seems a bit cold.
Most interesting. I own the a99 with a lot of the very best minolta and zeiss a mount lenses. But I want to upgrade either to the a99ii or the a7r iv (or v) with the LA EA 5 adapter. My question is, does the adapter work well?
I dont think distortion is a fault of the lens, the new one is just corrected in camera, uncorrected version might actually be worse than the old one, since new lenses are designed relying on in camera corrections. Sony crippling this adapter concering fps and video af is just a dick move, kinda remniniscent of canon and their cameras ^^, probabaly afraid it would question their ridiculous prices on the new lenses.
The 16-55 has extreme distortion and vignetting at the wide end. I shot a few samples in store and was surprised looking at the raw files. Fine after correction of course.
Hi Art...Really love your reviews. You are my go to guy. I also listen to John Sisson (that camera guy) and Christopher Cross just in case I can't make up my mind. Currently I have the Sony A6100 and based on your recommendations I currently own 7 native Sony Lenses and the Sigma 16 and I was thinking about getting the Sigma trio. But based on your comparison I got the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 today(used near mint condition- ebay $948) and decided to scratch my idea of purchasing the rest of the trio. I will now put my hardly used Sigma 16 on ebay. I haven't had a chance to use the 16-55mm yet but I put it on the camera. Immediately I could tell I was going to like it based on the aperture only. Me I struggle a bit because it doesn't have OSS but I know you said it is something I would get used to. I also have the Sony 35mm and 50mm F1.8 OSS the 18-135mm OSS the 55-210mm OSS, 10-14 mm and the 70-350mm. I have used the 18-135 the most along with the 55-210mm until I purchased the 70-350mm. I was doing a lot of sports shots and vacation shots but I want to do more model street scene pictures etc. So with all that said, I want to streamline my lenses to 4 or so. This is what I thought.... beside getting ride of the Sigma 16, I would also sell my 55-210mm, the 55mm f1.8 and perhaps the 18-135mm. The latter is perhaps my favorite lens solely base on the fact it was the most used. What would you recommend? I kept the 35mm purely for its low light capability and your recommendation to keep the 35mm over the 50mm. Thanks Rick
@@LucaBono.Studio thanks Luca. You are right. I do spend a lot of time thinking about which lenses to take with. Many years ago I had a Minolta SLR and a 35 mm lens and my Koda home film. That was it and I did just fine.. With all these lenses and technology it makes it harder to choose. I really like 18-135mm and the 35mm. That will be my choice for my next venture south out of the cold winters of Wisconsin USA. Thanks 😁
Tamron 17-70, 2.8 stabilized (!) will wipe the SONY 16-55G away from January 2021 on. Then, definately no other alternative to the 16-55G will be needed any longer. It was a heavy mistake from SONY to build a standard zoom without stabilization. And to neglect APS-C. Tamron 12-24 APS-C will be the next strike.
@@LucaBono.Studio just how to trust sellers who are not store owners and just people like me? How to not get trapped buying damaged used products? Bidding sniping? returns when sellers don't accept returns? Returns when buyers pay for returns? What not maybe
Hey RU-vid people 👋 I was researching what camera to buy my fiancé. And I could really use your help. Maybe I’m over thinking this but I just want to make sure I got the right camera. My fiancé isn’t a professional photographer, but she loves taking pictures while we are out on hikes, on vacations, we live in Alberta Canada so we are close to the mountains and she would also do some vlogging. As for cameras I was going between the Nikon Z50 and Song A6100. The guy at the camera store convinced me the Sony was the way to go because the cameras are so similar and Sony has more lens options. Did I make the right choice?? Would really appreciate and help you guys can give me.
Most interesting. I own the a99 with a lot of the very best minolta and zeiss a mount lenses. But I want to upgrade either to the a99ii or the a7r iv (or v) with the LA EA 5 adapter. My question is, does the adapter work well?
Hi Arthur, Nice comparison, but I’m not surprised of the outcome at all. Like you, I’ve used the LA-EA3 and the LA-EA4 - first with the NEX-7 and later with the A6500 - in combination with the Sony f2.8 16-50 plus the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 edition 3. The LA-EA4 holds it`s own 15 point PDAF system through a translucent mirror, which is why it allows for video on an APS-C e-mount body like the NEX-7 / A6000. The AF-system improved hugely on the A6300/A6500 and allowed the LA-EA3 adapter to be used with camera on body sensor PDAF sensor and hence achieve decent AF in photography with 3 fps in C-AF or 11 fps with AF on the first frame. Video is not supported with the LA-EA3. On my A6500, Eye-AF isn’t supported either, BUT some A-mount lenses produced like the ZA 24-70 f2.8 does support eye AF. Still it’s disappointing that Sony is unable to provide a functional solution for it’s own adapter for it’s own camera with it’s own lens. I’m not surprised with your image comparison though. I used the 16-50 f2.8 as my go to lens for quite some years and was pleased with it, as nothing else at the time came close in terms of optical performance. If you handle the lense visely and only use f2.8 if sharpness in the center matters - or constrain yourself to 24mm if corner to corner is important at f2.8 - your good. And do note, the the a6xxx series does NOT perform in body corrections to the JPG output. That will have to be done in post either way you try to adapt an A-mount lens. So I would advise anyone to go with the G 16-55 or perhaps wait for the all new Tamron 17-70 f2.8 - the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 does a great job for Sony Full Frame for a decent investment. Kind Regards
Hi I have bunch of minolta lenses, can you tell the af performance on LAEA3 compared to the native E lens on a6500? The laea4 look it's only transfer 2/3 light to sensor.
one thing you should consider, that the SSM lens is never claimed the G badge, in fact, it was lunched as a kit lens with sony a77. So there shouldn't be any surprise out there. One interesting aspect, I wish you did cover, is the focus speed between these two lenses. It would be interesting to see how much the mechanics have developed. Good work, thank you
Don't be surprised that video Autofocus does not work with any camera using this adapter. It doesn't make any sense, but it makes plenty of cent$ for Sony. Everything Sony does is completely on purpose, including disabling what should be working so that you're disatisfied, disappointed and spend more and more and more on their lenses. Hey, I'm a Sony fanboy, but they're nickel-and-diming has always been something that irks me over and over again.
since it's a SSM, doesn't the LA-EA3 work just as good? Or didn't the APS-C cameras get firmware updates to enable all the native-focus features like the A7 series got? (Even the older A7 / A7m2 ones).
You could have used the LA-EA3 adapter, which was released long ago along with the 4. The 16-50mm F2.8 A-mount lens has internal SSM focus motor, so it doesn't use the screw drive from the camera (or adapter). Should work with all e-mount cameras since A7II/A6300.
Not sure how good AF with LA-EA3 is with the camera that he used in the old video. But there's a huge difference between the Nex 6 and the A6400 when trying LA-EA3 with the 55-300.
The older adapters don't AF well, because the LA-EA1/3 only support CDAF and the LA-EA2/4 have the poor PDAF unit from the A65. The LA-EA5 is the only adapter that supports on-sensor PDAF with SSM lenses. Note you do need one of the handful of bodies which properly support the LA-EA5 for PDAF, otherwise it's basically an LA-EA3.
@@adam_mawz_maas That's not true - it depends on the camera body. Older camera bodies - e.g. a6000 and A7 and older - only work with CDAF, but later bodies can do PDAF with practically any A-mount lens that has in-lens focusing motor (SAM or SSM) on LA-EA1, LA-EA3, and LA-EA5. The only difference between LA-EA5 compared to 1 and 3 is that it has built-in motor for screw-drive lenses. Sony has a compatibility chart on their site where you can check for any camera + adapter + lens combination.
Arthur, will you consider testing the LA-EA5 with the Sigma 18 35 1.8 (Sony Alpha mount) or the Sigma 17 to 50 2.8 (Alpha mount)? Those Sigma lenses were popularly more superior than the Sony 16 to 50 2.8 SSM.
I have the LA-EA3 and LA-EA4 adapters and also tried it with my 16-50 f2.8 A mount lens on my A6300, exact the same conclusion on the purple fringing. On my A mount camera (A57): no issue. So I concluded the adapters are 'nice', but don't expect to much from it.
@@JeffCorcelius 17 - 28 mm F2.8 is for full frame the 17- 70 F2.8 will be for APS-C. Source : www.sonyalpharumors.com/size-comparison-between-the-soon-to-be-announced-new-tamron-17-70mm-f-2-8-and-the-sony-16-55mm-f-2-8/
Arthur you are the man, I too was thinking if this would be a good substitute for the g version? The lack of auto focus in video was a great piece of info. Thanks for the video. Spot on
I can't afford the native 16-55mm lens. That's why I'm using sigma 18-35mm f1.8 with mc11 on my a6400. The only disadvantage are the weight, slightly slow on auto focus and it drain the battery faster compare to native lens but I don't mind that because it's cheaper and it is the only crop lens with a constant f1.8 aperture available right now. If I got the budget, I'm also planning to buy the sigma 50-100mm f1.8 and sell my sony 18-135mm
Doesn't look like a good buy, but thank you for the review, now we know. I guess we will still have to wait for a G lens competitor from Sigma or Tamron. $1400 is way too much for an APSC glass
thanks for the video. I actually sold my 16-50 2.8 SSM that I used with the EA3 on the a6500. I‘m curious about that you say the EA5 brings Eye-AF to the Lens if used with a6600. So many says that there are no advantages to SAM/SSM lenses with the EA5 against the EA3. Only with Lenses that don’t have an AF inside will get more features with the EA5. ? Looking forward for a comparison between the Sony 16-55 G and the new Tamron 17-70 2.8. Thanks in advance!
16-50 F2.8 SSM никогда не хватал звезд с неба. Это дешевый аналог 2470/2.8 для кропа. На открытой диафрагме мыло мыльное. Спасибо за обзор, информация полезна, но результат предсказуем.
Зачем смотреть видео на английском, а в комменты писать чушь? Сам автор говорит, и примерами показывает, что кроме бочки разницы супер критичной нету, уж точно разницы не на 1200 бачей, форумы сониклаба завалены хвальбой этого стекла
@@sirduke2761 чушь - это твоя писанина. ты точно весь обзор смотрел, англичанин? Имея на руках 16-50 не пользуюсь им совсем просто потому, что у других моих стекол картинка сильно лучше. Основные косяки 16-50 в этом обзоре показаны. Платить или не платить лишние 1200 бачей - это личное дело каждого. Кому-то и китового дерьма с головой хватит.
I remember I tried this lens with ea3 version adapter on a6500. The photo single shot auto focus is pretty decent. I would say you can use it professionally for portrait and event. The tracking is not good. And there is no video auto focus.
Of course it doesn't work, you need to use the la ea2 which is designed for apsc. I used the 16-50 ssm for 2 years with the laea2 on the A6000 for 2 years with absolutely no issues.
I have the 16-50..i used it on a57 and on a77.. This lens always focuses wrong on both my cameras.. But i can get tack sharp results if i do manual focus.. Af microadjust is not perfect.. If i do microadjust in 16mm..it works good only at 16mm..but tbat works fine for me.. I do autofocus on 16 mm.. And when i do portrait.. I go at 50 mm and do manual focus
Somebody from Sony seriously hates the A-mount. I am not even sure why they even released the LA-EA5 with all these ridiculous limitations. No video autofocus. The screw drive only works with 2 camera's(3 when people get the A1). Sony knows we can see the Camera continually autofocusing when we take pictures.... its ridiculous if they try to blame the lens for these limitations.
Please please please! Can you make a review of the vintage pentacon 50mm 1.8? I have it and I've seen other reviews but want to hear your opinion. Very special and cheap lens with dream like bokeh.
Tamron just announced a 17-70mm f2.8 lens (B070) for sony e mount apsc cameras! (with oss!) According to dpreview, the price will be ~799 usd. In my opinion, the MTF is comparable to the one of sony 16-55G. Can't wait to have one! The full name of the lens is 17-70mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD (Model B070) and Tamron expects the lens to begin shipping on January 14th, 2021.
@@robertlester9566 www.dpreview.com/news/6450850157/tamron-announces-17-70mm-f2-8-for-aps-c-sony-cameras Tamronjp, tamrontaiwan, and tamronhongkong also share the post on their instagram accounts a few hours ago.
Arthur, I sure was hoping this would have been a good combination. I'm a new DAD like you, my baby was born June 19th 2019 and really relate to your personality and style of communication. Bought my A6400 this summer and have been loving it. I think it was your video that sold me on the a 6400. Keep it up. If you come to Tahoe, Truckee reach out, and I would love to show you around.
What about the sigma 16-35 f/1.8 + MC-11? I know image quality is amazing, but my biggest concern before picking one up, is the length of the overall combo. Does it feel awkward? (I think the 16-55 GM is nice, but the price and the f/2.8 are drawbacks to me)
its another oportunity. But the Sigma is a 18-35mm f1.8. So it lacks 2mm in wide angle and of course 20mm at the long end.. And because of f1.8 its much heavier. I think for video its a good choice...but as a zoom in standard range its bad balanced.
I've used the 18-35, while it's definitely an amazing piece of glass, it loses 2mm on wide and 20mm on telephoto. Autofocus is pretty good or okay with the MC11, depends on what body you're using it with. It is a bit heavy on APSC bodies unless you have a battery grip.
you are not comparing apples to apples. The SSM lens is cropped sensor lens hence the DT on the name, that also why is so cheap, it does no even have the G badge, as it was released as a kit lens
looks like the ssm is letting a bit more light than the G lens. is a combination between the amount of light and the shit in color that make it brighter images.
Probably a good vid, as all your others, but...Not useful to me because I have an a7iii. Do you think Sony will come out with something better than the LA-EA4? since the LA-EA5 is not compatible with the a7iii.
Have you tried the lens with an A-Mount camera and compared the photos with the ones from the lens + LA-EA5, to see if it was the lens or the adapter? I am certainly disappointed with the findings, since I already own that SSM lens. I also own the 70-200 F2.8 G (A-Mount), which I hope to use with the LA-EA5 (still waiting for delivery). I would be disappointed if it was the adapter.
The adapter is simply an extension tube with no optical elements. It ensures the flange focal distance corresponds to what the lens was designed for. The sensor may be designed for lenses with a shorter FFD, which could result in various issues.
@@adrianwong4655 agree, f2.8 is as good as it gets for native e-mount apsc/ff lenses, but there are other popular & more affordable choices like Sony apsc 18-135/18-105
SSM is f2.8 and G certainly not (at least 1/2 stop darker). SSM is not corrected via software for distorsion,vignetting and LoCa's.Sony did it 1/2 work again.
You .. Sir ... are an inspiration. Plain and simple. You are honest and relatable. For that, you should pat yourself on the back and I will raise a glass in your honor. Being “human” is often frowned upon these days, but IMO, you appear to tell things as they are. This is sincerely appreciated. Keep up the wonderful work and I wish the best for you, your extended family ... and your friends. Cheers 👍. Thanks for teaching me so much, and making me appreciate my Sony Camera equipment.
I bought an A6400 after a D7200. The advantage is not for price but for dimensions and weight. The heavy D7200 stay at home most of the time. The same it will happen with an A7iii+big lenses. However, a6xxx in my point of view, is to use with small and light prime and it's 16-50.
@@josephrossi4062 for pro work A73 must be your choice. For travel, street ...A7c is better choice. 16-55 F2.8 G lens heavy and big not small and light weight like you think. 16-55 F2.8 G's weight is 770 g .A6400=403 g. total 1170g. archive same DOF, bokeh on FF you just get 24-70 F4 not F2.8. Sony system doesn't have that lens but sigma just release 28-70 F2.8 . The weight of that lens is 470g. A73's weight is 650 g. total 1130g. if that lens's F4, it will be less heavier A73+sigma 28-70F2.8 is less heavier than A6400 +16-55GF2.8 lens =)). with better bokeh ,DOF, lowlight,... If you buy A7c. they even are less heavier. The dimensions store it even less
