The 200 2.8 solution

Switching to Sony from Canon, I knew I was going to have to go the adapted lenses route if I wanted a 200mm f2.8 lens. I had some hope that my Canon 200 2.8 L ii was going to focus somewhat fast on my a6000 once I got a Metabones IV and updated all firmware.

The good news? It focuses!

The bad news? It takes three or four seconds to focus!

I half-expected this with the incomplete information I received from various forums, but it still is disappointing that I couldn't give my old sports workhorse lens new life. So it's on to the next lens.

A few Alpha shooters out there swear that the Minolta 200 2.8 G operates as a native lens with the La-EA4 adapter, and they rave about the quality of the lens to boot. It seems like this is solid choice for both sports and outdoor portrait. Anyone have experience with this stark-white beast? I know Minolta also made a non-G version of this lens, as well as an 80-200 2.8G and a 70-200 2.8 and those seem plenty available.

They are tough to find in the States. I've found a few on eBay, but several more in Japan. Does anyone have experience with paying import fees/taxes/ etc . . .? How much am I looking at around the $700 range?

There is a big part of me that is still considering the FE 70-200 f4, as native mount and AF is ideal. But, I would really like to keep a long 2.8 in my bag.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17791322
Switching to Sony from Canon, I knew I was going to have to go the adapted lenses route if I wanted a 200mm f2.8 lens. I had some hope that my Canon 200 2.8 L ii was going to focus somewhat fast on my a6000 once I got a Metabones IV and updated all firmware.

The good news? It focuses!

The bad news? It takes three or four seconds to focus!

I half-expected this with the incomplete information I received from various forums, but it still is disappointing that I couldn't give my old sports workhorse lens new life. So it's on to the next lens.

A few Alpha shooters out there swear that the Minolta 200 2.8 G operates as a native lens with the La-EA4 adapter, and they rave about the quality of the lens to boot. It seems like this is solid choice for both sports and outdoor portrait. Anyone have experience with this stark-white beast? I know Minolta also made a non-G version of this lens, as well as an 80-200 2.8G and a 70-200 2.8 and those seem plenty available.

They are tough to find in the States. I've found a few on eBay, but several more in Japan. Does anyone have experience with paying import fees/taxes/ etc . . .? How much am I looking at around the $700 range?

There is a big part of me that is still considering the FE 70-200 f4, as native mount and AF is ideal. But, I would really like to keep a long 2.8 in my bag.

As you say, there are two Minolta 200 F2.8 versions, but both are G lenses. The difference is that one is HS (High Speed AF) while the other isn't. Optically both are the same. The complete names are Minolta AF 200mm F2.8 G APO and Minolta AF 200mm F2.8 G APO HS. This lens is very sharp, compact and fast to AF. I have one, the HS version.

There are also two Minolta 80-200G versions. There are some optical differences between both, and also one is HS (most modern, white color), and the other isn't (older, black color).
The Minolta 70-200 2.8 is exactly the same as the Sony 70-200 2.8 first version. This lens has a supersonic motor, while the other two are screw drive lenses. It focuses noticeably slower than the other two. Yes, screw drive doesn't mean slow, it means noise.

Thank you for your detailed reply.

It is definitely the HS model I'm after, as it seems like it will give me very similar performance to the Canon 200 2.8. The zoom 200 lenses don't interest me as much as of right now.

One thing that did catch my attention was the affordable price of the Minolta 300 2.8 prime. It has given me something to think about, although it is probably more lens than I want to shoot without a monopod on either the a6000 or a7r bodies.

I've had the Minolta 200 2.8 HS and the Sony LEAE4 A-mount adapter for about a week now, and I've had the chance to test it on the A7R and the A6000.

The results on the A7R are similar to the results I got from my 6D/EF 200 2.8 combo in terms of IQ. In terms of AF, it is a little slower and I haven't seen any evidence of tracking.

On the A6000, the loss of light and sharpness from the adapter are very apparent. Color reproduction suffers. Very little going on in the way of tracking, even if it does acquire AF relatively well.

The testing with the A7R was done in a church at high ISO--6400 to 1280. A great deal of the time I was stopped down to F5.6 to get a few people in focus during a baptism. I didn't expect miracles, but I did expect usable pictures--and I got them, thanks to shooting in RAW and post-processing.

Testing with the A600 was done that afternoon out side in harsh, lighting from noon until 2pm. With no CPL, the lens didn't reproduce colors particularly well and was not real sharp. All shooting was done wide open for those two hours. I made no adjustments to the AF or tracking, and what I got was lots of OOF kids as they ran about the yard playing. Took a few series of my nieces on a swingset, no tracking.

So, I'm going to try and tinker with the settings and see if I can get it to track better. I'm going to a bowl game on Jan 1 and have seats that will be good for some in-game photography. If I have to, I'll but an A77 body as a fast and cheap solution to shoot the game with--but it definitely isn't my first choice.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17819408
So, I'm going to try and tinker with the settings and see if I can get it to track better. I'm going to a bowl game on Jan 1 and have seats that will be good for some in-game photography. If I have to, I'll but an A77 body as a fast and cheap solution to shoot the game with--but it definitely isn't my first choice.

Why not just buy a 7DII for your EF 200mm f/2.8? If autofocus is a priority, use the Canon lens and body combo. Seems like a waste of time to dabble with the A77II unless you're going for the $3k 70-200 f/2.8 SSM there, but if I was dual system with Canon / Sony, I'd get the 7DII instead for action and tracking and the 70-200 f.2.8 non is or 200 f/2.8 options instead of going spendthrift with the Sony options.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17819408
I've had the Minolta 200 2.8 HS and the Sony LEAE4 A-mount adapter for about a week now, and I've had the chance to test it on the A7R and the A6000.

The results on the A7R are similar to the results I got from my 6D/EF 200 2.8 combo in terms of IQ. In terms of AF, it is a little slower and I haven't seen any evidence of tracking.

On the A6000, the loss of light and sharpness from the adapter are very apparent. Color reproduction suffers. Very little going on in the way of tracking, even if it does acquire AF relatively well.

The testing with the A7R was done in a church at high ISO--6400 to 1280. A great deal of the time I was stopped down to F5.6 to get a few people in focus during a baptism. I didn't expect miracles, but I did expect usable pictures--and I got them, thanks to shooting in RAW and post-processing.

Testing with the A600 was done that afternoon out side in harsh, lighting from noon until 2pm. With no CPL, the lens didn't reproduce colors particularly well and was not real sharp. All shooting was done wide open for those two hours. I made no adjustments to the AF or tracking, and what I got was lots of OOF kids as they ran about the yard playing. Took a few series of my nieces on a swingset, no tracking.

So, I'm going to try and tinker with the settings and see if I can get it to track better. I'm going to a bowl game on Jan 1 and have seats that will be good for some in-game photography. If I have to, I'll but an A77 body as a fast and cheap solution to shoot the game with--but it definitely isn't my first choice.

It's strange what you say about the colors, because all old Minolta lenses were color calibrated and the contrast must be pushed in post-processing for the same reason: https://sites.google.c​om …ta-lens-design-philosophy

The Sony A77 and the LEAE4 have the same AF module, so don't expect any miracles in comparison. But the new A77 II is in other league, with much better AF. The Sony 70-200 F2.8 AF is slower, the new II version I think must be faster, but I've never tried it, and it's very expensive. Both have less sharpness than the Minolta at 200mm. The Minolta has nearly instant focus on my A900 when the lens focus limiter is at 2mts, but this camera don't track well no matter what lens is used.

idkdc wrote in post #17819427
Why not just buy a 7DII for your EF 200mm f/2.8? If autofocus is a priority, use the Canon lens and body combo. Seems like a waste of time to dabble with the A77II unless you're going for the $3k 70-200 f/2.8 SSM there, but if I was dual system with Canon / Sony, I'd get the 7DII instead for action and tracking and the 70-200 f.2.8 non is or 200 f/2.8 options instead of going spendthrift with the Sony options.

About the EF 200 2.8, I sold it a few weeks ago. I loved that lens, but the dust was starting to become an issue. That said, if worst came to worst, I would have no qualms about buying another one and slapping it on a Canon crop body to shoot sports if I had a paid assignment that warranted that action. I no longer own any Canon gear save my 580exii, and that is going on the block soon.

To be clear, the Minolta snaps to focus--with the LEAE4-- very fast. The adapter just doesn't seem to want to track. An A77 or A77II would let that very decent piece of glass track as well as snap to focus very similar to a 7D body. And a zoom 2.8 is not in the cards, as I wouldn't be able to get it into the bowl game without credentials--I'm just a civilian for this one, just like I am for Spring Training. The 200 2.8 meets the size requirements. $350ish for a used A77 is pretty reasonable, $700 for a used A77II is obviously creeping towards 7Dii range.

$3K for one piece of glass? Nope. That is almost as much as I paid for my entire kit--used and refurbished here.

The Minolta looks so much better on the A7R than on the A6000, there is definitely some greatness in it.

It looks like I may have to spring for the A77II for the bowl game and keep it through the end of spring training. I've heard some great things about this camera, so maybe it is time to see for myself.

I am late to this discussion but I have a Minolta HS 200 2.8 and use it on my A7RII. It is a truly fantastic lens and the focus is very quick. I have not tracked with it so can not comment there.

I decided to go the economy route and snag an A77 in V condition for $353 with 3-day shipping. I'll try it out at the Citrus Bowl on Jan 1 and see how I like it paired with the Minolta HS 200 2.8. Noon kickoff, so it will be shadowfest under the helmets from even the 12th row of the stands.

If I really like it, I'll keep it through the end of Spring Training.

If I kinda like it, I'll upgrade to the A77ii for Spring training.

I don't expect to hate it, especially because I've only shot sports with the Canon 6D, 60D, T4I and Nikon D40 (yikes). No 7D or 1D series to spoil me.

The LA-EA4 is going up for sale, as I have no plans to upgrade to an second series A7 body anytime soon.

Let us know what you think. I am impressed with my HS 200 2.8.

Jim

Will do, looks like Adorama will have it here Tuesday.

I flirted with the idea of switching to the A77 a few years back when I was using my 60D a lot to cover high school sports. So, I'm excited to see what that beast can do with the Minolta 200. I suspect I won't miss the 60D/EF 200 2.8.

My A77 arrived last night, and I've had a chance to mess around with it.

Some thoughts:

--I bought this camera in "V" condition from Adorama for $339 before shipping. This is a lot of camera for that kind of money, and it is in solid 7.5/10 condition. Slap a new LCD on it, approaching 9/10.
--The button layout and menu isn't as bad as I expected.
--The way it is set up, I have to hold down the same button I back-button focus with to make it track AF. It is taking some getting used to, we'll see how it goes at the game tomorrow.
--It is bigger in the grip than I thought it would be, which isn't a bad thing.
--Tracks AF on my kids running around the yard at 30' with the Minolta HS 200 2.8. I suspect it will do OK tracking college football from 50-100 yards out.
--Images at ISO 1250 and below look pretty good. Images 1600 and up are shockingly poor.
--Not as sharp or fast-to-focus as my old 6D or 60D/EF200 2.8 combos, but close enough for now. I suspect I will shoot with it for a few weeks and then flip it on eBay . . . maybe the Minolta 200 as well.
--I like the joystick, I understand now.

Sorry to hear your first impressions are not fantastic. I have never shot with the A77 but my Minolta 200 2.8 is as sharp as any lens I have ever used and I have had many. Did you micro focus adjust it? I needed to do that on many of my Canon lenses.

jmaher wrote in post #17839361
Sorry to hear your first impressions are not fantastic. I have never shot with the A77 but my Minolta 200 2.8 is as sharp as any lens I have ever used and I have had many. Did you micro focus adjust it? I needed to do that on many of my Canon lenses.

I haven't done MFA on it, may be able to do it on the way to the game tomorrow riding shotgun.

I have a feeling I will get the hang of it with the A77 by kickoff and I'll get a few dozen images I really like.

So far the Minolta 200 2.8 isn't the lens the EF 200 or 135L are, but that's no knock--those are two stiff comparisons. If the Minolta is 95% the lens those two were I'll be OK with it.