Marc Galer made that nice and simple Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM II introduction video. It’s a great A-mount lens to use on your E-mount camera too!
Price check here: [shopcountry 41708]
Reminder: Open Box Sony and Zeiss lenses for sale:
[shoplink 41436 ebay]$300 off on the A7rII on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]
[shoplink 41213 ebay]FE 24-240mm on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]
[shoplink 41214 ebay]FE 24-70mm Zeiss on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]
[shoplink 41215 ebay]E-mount APS-C 16-70mm Zeiss on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]
[shoplink 41216 ebay]E-mount APS-C 18-200mm on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]
[shoplink 41437 ebay]Silver A6000 kit on eBay (Click here)[/shoplink]
75 Responses
2000usd ? Nope thanks
Price of Nikon 80-400? Canon 100-400?
Those systems have seen an update in the last few years. Trying to sell us that a-mount and e-mount are the same system is lame.
The Canon 100 to 400mm went over 15 years without an update.
Yet somehow Canon doesn’t go over a year without releasing a new EF mount camera. It’s like optics technology doesn’t move as quickly as camera technology or something.
Yep with a new rebel ever year they offer an extraordinary lineup of mediocre cameras every year.
Yes at the entry-level Canon offers iterative updates (Sony obviously has pushed the entry-level to e-mount bodies and updates these often enough), but the Canon 1D-X and the Canon 5D3 are as old or older than the a99. The 7D went a lot longer between updates than the a77 to a77II (close to 5 years).
They also have more than two models, with the same lens mount! People aren’t running around the Internet declaring the death of the mount, which makes it a lot easier to drop a couple grand on a specialty lens.
Sony has 7 ILC full frame models, 2 upper aps-c models and 4 entry models for sale currently. Three are a-mount.
If a-mount goes another generation, I tend to doubt there will be more an 3 models. If it’s not dead, it is obviously being phased out and users migrated to a-mount.
Personally I was going to upgrade from the 24-70 (and possibly 16-35) to the newer SSM2 versions but have decided to hold off unless an a99 successor is released. Otherwise I’ll wait for the eventual e-mount 2.8 zoom.
Yeah, this is what killed A-mount, everybody wants it to be cheap.
You can stick to your 55-200 lol
and make better pictures than you 🙂 sure, but i like my legacy lenses more, save the money and travel with the people i like, you should try it someday 😉
sounds great! just wondering why you think 2000usd is overpriced? Compared to what? your beercan? would love to see your work.
i already did ask for yours but since you are the one who EAAARNS huge money i gues you’re afraid. sure i can show you 🙂 i am not ashamed for my pictures, since i have to do something real besides taking pictures 🙂 https://www.flickr.com/photos/120269608@N03/albums
You didn’t answer my question! Why do you think 2000usd is overpriced? Your work isn’t bad. Whats up with your attitude? Some of us are just having a discussion here. You can see my work in Luxury Destinations, Turks & Caicos Magazine, LUXE villa rentals, Isaras Yachts, Sothebys, Miami Airport, Turks & Caicos International Airport, or browse my portfolios here: http://www.frankwithersphoto.com, http://www.myparadisephoto.com
cheers
nice pictures but why is there so much noise ? heavy post processing or simply the artifacts from compression ?
Artifacts from compression. Many of our clients are sent compressed portfolios with terrible artifacts and none of them care- there are some images posted that just have noise, but quite frankly I don’t really care. the image is more important. When they go to print, these artifacts are not visible.
The Tamron 150-600mm in A Mount looks like a much better deal. From what I have read it is only 400 Grams heavier, it is Black, it beats the Sony in sharpness through the same focal range, it is brighter at same focal lengths & it is about half price. So you lose the 70-150mm range but you get an extra 200mm on the long end. Seems like a no brainer to me. Also the AF on the A7RII w/ LAEA3 is supposed to be very good, better than the Canon version on Metabones.
And the “alpha mount” idiocy continues.
There is no 70-400 for FE, stop trying to pitch the BS “A-Mount lenses work just as fine on FE” story from Sony!
Still works better than on your A65.
Most likely. Do you have a point or just trolling again?
probably better af-c with a65, specialy at longer focal lengths?
Well do you use A-Mount lenses on your A65? If so is that then idocy as well?
What does the A65 have to do with anything? You gotta start making sense
So let’s get this straight, it’s better at AF with A-Mount lenses than your poxy A65, but it is idiocy to use A-Mount lenses… But fine (good even) to use them on your A65?
Not me who needs to start making sense champ.
What?
A65 is a cheap entry-level camera, it didn’t have good AF, and it didn’t need to in its product category. It was very good for its price.
But what does A65 have to do with this video?? It’s about very different products in a totally different price range
Stop trolling. At least A65 can use Sony SAL14TC and SAL20TC teleconverters. If you do the same with E-mount and LA-EA adapters, you will get a nasty surprise… No AF and no aperture control. How is that better than A65?? And a65 at least could AF-C faster than E-mount cameras.
This lens won’t AF with the Sony TC’s on an A65 either troll.
Are we talking about the lens or adapters. Decide once and for all because it seems you’re talking about adapters being just as good as any A-mount camera…
Where did I say that? This article talks about using the 70-400mm SPECIFICALLY. Duott calls it idiocy. I said that it likely still works better than his A65. You come in with some nonsense about the A65 being able to use a Sony TC and now you want to make ME accountable? Grow up mate. You hate E-Mount, good for you! I find it appalling the way people like you respond where people DARE suggest doing something that you personally wouldn’t do. Get a grip, by everything in this world is hand crafted just to appease you. There are some people out there who ARE interested in this combo, maybe instead of constantly trying to prove them wrong, let them decide for themselves?
Calm the f*ck down. Does Sony pays you? Do you have stocks on Sony Corp that any negative comment woulf affect your finances? You said that a 70-400 would work better on E-mount than on his a65, which it is false because it doesn’t perform all functions that any a-mount could do. And btw, the 70-400 on E-mount with TC should be able to at least change aperture and transmit EXIF info, in reality it doesn’t do any of that.
Finally, I own both A-mount and E-mount. How could you say I hate E-mount?
So you call me a troll and tell me to calm the f down. What is your issue? Your statement was wrong and you’re trying to wriggle out of it. Get over yourself.
You began by saying that it works better than a native A-mount camera. A65 can AF-C faster than any FE camera shown in the video. And if you put the TC, you end up with a cold lens which you can’t change aperture at all (and I mentioned AF because there are people here that have the tendency to glorify E-mount cameras without knowledge on their downsides).
That’s bunk! Considering at worst you have the exact same AF as the A65.
Just curious, outside of native ff e mount, is there any advantage using an A- mount with adaptor vs using Canon glass with adaptor? Assuming you don’t already own the A- or EOS lenses in the first place.
Adapters are made by third parties and are (while much improved) can still have quirks. Also the Sony 70-400mm has been better than the older Canon 100-400mm since forever, but the new one is supposed to be very nice. The only lenses you can actually ‘choose’ between the two mounts rather than choosing between two different t lenses are third party lenses.
As a Canon shooter I’m going for an A7Rii. However, I manual focus my Tilt/shift work anyway. I tried my Canon 16-35 f4 on an original A&R earlier this year along side a FE 16-35 and I give a slight edge to Canon as far as sharpness goes. However, that could have been just copy-to copy variance. And if not pixel peeping side by side, nobody would see any difference. I was surprised that the 16-35 Canon was only a tiny fraction slower at all distances when autofocusing (I did not try in low light). I hear it’s much improved on the new A7Rii with metabones update. Unfortunately, that quick focus is not shared with the telephoto Canons past 120 or so mm.
I guess it all comes down to what you need. If you need super quick AF, native lenses is the way to go. If you are heavily invested in Canon glass, do not need quick AF, and you just want to take advantage of the super Sony sensor (like myself), the A7Rii is a winner
Personally have no desire for the Canon 16-35mm, there were some tests when the Sony came out on the same body and in that instance the Sony was better. But a slight difference in whatever that you will never really notice doesn’t bother me compared to the 50% weight increase of just the lens plus adapter and limitations on available focus modes etc.
There are plenty of interesting Canon lenses, just not so much ones that already exist for E-Mount especially if you don’t already own either.
Metabones have released FW to actually support the PDAF rather than it being basically accidental. This has hugely improved zoom lenses and some primes that simply wouldn’t focus at all prior to the update/s.
Early reviews / reports were running on firmware that predates the A7R II. But there are still some bugs / quirks and as such A-Mounts are more trouble free.
I agree. The differences in the Sony vs Canon are so minute that a person, like myself, would be better off using the $$ somewhere else vs buying a duplicate SONY version of the 16-35. If one did not already have that focal range and needs faster focus, Native SONY is the way to go. If starting from scratch, with no lenses already, the only Canons at this time that is really unique are the Tilt shifts and possibly the 24-70L 2.8 since the Sony version has been ripped pretty bad review wise. However, usually people who use the 24-70L on Canons are looking for fast Autofocus in lower light and probably would not benefit using it on a SONY body.
I really think SIGMA could really hit a goldmine if they produced native FF E mount zoom versions of their ART lenses. Right now only two primes are e mount native and I believe they are for crop sensors. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/art
sony adapter should behave better I guess,
Going with a-mount is an all first party solution. When Sony designed e-mount they must have done it with some degree of adaptation in mind since they have been making adapters done launch. The SLT adapters perform (ergonomics aside) about the same as the native SLT cameras from which the adapter is derived.
far from it. The AF is piss poor in the LA-EA4, definitely a step backwards.
A step backwards from what? The A99 or A77 cameras, maybe, but the LA-EA4 performs as well as all the other SLT cameras to date, plus it has micro adjust, which was missing in all the A3x/A5x/A65 models.
A step backwards in af performance for those of us using those same lenses on the A99 or A77 or A900/A850 (A99 and A850 in my case)- the tracking and overall speed/accuracy is highly unreliable especially in dim lighting and backlit situations. I was using my 70-200 on LA-EA4 on A7 and it was no comparison for performance on the A99, before we even get into the ergonomics comparisons. Thus, I disagree with Christopher’s statement: The SLT adapters perform (ergonomics aside) about the same as native SLT cameras from which the adapter is derived- because this is false- the LA-EA4 is on par with the A65, which is far from professional standards for AF peformance..
I am curious to try in person the LA-EA3 coupled with A7RII focusing system, however this setup will not work with older screw-drive zeiss lenses if I am not mistaken? Which means I will either have to continue using the LA-EA4 for those lenses, or purchase newly updated models with the SSM motor, if I choose to convert to E-mount. Still holding out for the A99 update but I’m trying to start planning if this doesn’t happen! http://www.frankwithersphoto.com | http://www.myparadisephoto.com
I did say that they would probably be a step back from the A99 and A77, but neither of those camera are particularly great cameras in terms of AF either. I’d say the A77II is the only SLT camera that is truly an above average performer. I’ve never had problems with overall speed with either LA-EA adapters or older SLT cameras, but I think all of them are poor in terms of accuracy compared to the older A700 and A900 models, due to the lack of f/2.8 AF sensors. AF micro adjust is a must, and that is one of the advantages the LA-EA adapters have over the A65 or any camera that used that module.
Like you, I would be interested to see how the A7RII/LA-EA3 combo fairs. Yes, it’s limited to SAM/SSM lenses, but I suspect it may well be a better solution than any SLT camera in terms of AF, bar the A77II. It sounds like it is very competitive in terms of speed, and accuracy will not be an issue whatsoever. The total lack of need to micro adjust lenses gets rid of one of the biggest pains in the neck with DSLR/T cameras.
A-mount adapters are worse than SLT cameras. At least on SLT cameras you could put SAL14TC or SAL20TC with no issues at all, but with adapters, that isn’t feasible because you loose aperture control and AF. You end up basically with a cold lens. It’s definitely a step backwards.
Also, E-mount cameras don’t have AF-Depth Range. Another win for A-mount.
So, as long as you don’t use teleconverters or care about AF-D, there’s not much else to complain about. Let’s be honest, the A99 and original A77 were hardly AF champions.
e-mount just plain sucks!
Great response! The other guys who responded with reasoned arguments may as well not have bothered.
Currently, not really. The newer EF adapters have Canon lenses auto-focusing better than A-mount lenses on E-mount.
Totally useless video. Just a commercial for Sony and a promotion for the e-mount since he talks about a nail in the coffin for dslr. It’s a totally JOKE to mount this on a7x and not at all balanced especially not when zoomed out. Not even my Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G is completely balanced on the a900.
Untrustworthy.
So now you have to make lenses that are balanced on bodies? :/
Just buy a bigger body…
Sony loves you.
No but it certainly helps with a bigger body with a decent grip instead of a miniature body like the a7x!
One holds the lens not the body when one uses a telephoto of that girth and length. See our NPS School for future courses. http://www.nikonpro.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDsx3-FWfwk
More adapter is better than the original A-mount crap!
Do you even know what your above statement means?
Yes Sony is spewing more BS about adapters are better for A-mount users switch to e-mount!
No adapter wanted. Need to update the firmware of its A-mount systems. Hardware too. Sony sensor division has all the bucks so it seems. The could have spent less on multiple itterations over such a small span of time and spent some time updating its A-mount system.
Sexy lens on an A99 body. Big guy in a little coat on an A7 body.
hardly that. That’s a big ass lens on a puny body. Any way you look at it. And will handle the same way too
Nope. No way. “Not the mama”. A-mount please!
So nice, if you don’t mind carrying around a camera the size of a chain saw. I’ll just keep waiting for APS-C, thanks.
A-mount lenses have generally been priced at a premium compared to comparable lenses by competitors (see Sony 70-200mm SSM2 vs Canon 70-200mm L II). The passing of a-mount will ultimately have little to do with lens pricing and everything to do with Sony’s move to mirrorless.
uh and uh uh the sony uh category uh uh uh… wow… After a few minutes I couldn’t concentrate on anything he was saying all I heard was “uh uh uh and uh sony uh uh now uh”
Are these guys for real?
I used the 70-400G on my NEX-5R for a while with LA-EA2… great IQ (very sharp wide open and great colours/contrast, though sometimes ‘busy’ bokeh) but a *horrible* user experience! I bought an A77II in the end as it was much nicer to use with the lens
The E-mount interface is not at all adapted for fast user interaction with such a lens (eg. focus point selection and quick access to the other necessary config parameters) and the combination when with an adaptor wobbles like anything (big, heavy lens amplifies any slight wobble noticeable with smaller lenses)
They also claim the lens is ‘very fast focusing’… not true, I even swapped to the 70-400GII and disappointed to see that even the latest version is no speed demon, at least on the A77II
Bird photography with an A7 system? I can’t even really recommend it with the A77II, at least if the birds are moving! I have seen nothing that suggests the A7RII focuses faster than the A77II…
All just marketing… and I feel rather misleading marketing at that
Not one mention of Amount cameras on an Amount lens review. Repulsive.
Not one mention of the mk1 version it replaced, or the touted advantages it’s supposed to leverage. Ignorant.
Not one mention of the tracking performance or difference between adapter performance. Deceptive.
Instead of talking how big the lens is, talk more about how small the camera is. There is need for the lens size. But no need for the camera size… or adapters for that matter… except for the fact that Sony insists upon crippling large lens users in one way or another. Unacceptable.
Whaaaa – I want my mommy
The A7 is a punk camera!
I’ve used this lens once. It’s one heavy mother Fkr. It’s heavy, it’s big. It’s heavy and big. It needs a big gripy grip to handle all that mass. It doesn’t belong on an A7 body though. That’s just hilarious. I have to actually suspend my disbelief that someone would knowingly attempt to do that and at such a cost….all with a straight face.
Did I mention how freaking heavy that lens is?
I think people get so excited about the idea of an adaptor that lets them use expensive lenses from other camera systems – “wow, it works” – that they completely lose sight of everything else – size, weight, ergonomics, cost, convenience.
At the end of the day – image quality is what matters. And this combo clearly delivers
That is why those lenses have their own tripod adaptor
I really wish Sony would hire people who actually speak English to write their manuals etc….it’s Super Pathetic, the errors I see
interested in your account that the 70-400 focuses slow on your A77II? Granted I’m not shooting moving birds but it is very snappy on my A99s and A850