The Best Action Lens for Ski Shots thread got totally overrun by Sony users discussing primes, astro-photography, and a bunch of other random stuff. So I started this thread for discussing Sony APS-C lenses.
A6000 isn't full frame. I have the 16-70mm, it's a great lens. Great color rendition also.
I wouldn't shoot full frame lens on a cropped sensor for a ski/travel set up. I like the small size of the 16-70mm for the quality and range it provides. Seems like a full frame lens kind of defeats the purpose of the A6000. Unless al
With that note we also have the 55-210, sigma 150-600 with Canon mount and adapter, 50 1.8mm and 35 1.8. All are really small and I can bring multiple lenses in most situations with the exception of the 150-600, that thing is a beast.
I initially had the same intention but decided we love the small size, it goes everywhere with us. if I get a full frame Sony it will be an addition and will build out appropriately or sell some of the crop lenses.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile appSince everyone here is talking about sony aps-c...
I have an aging NEX-5R... functional, lots of snaps. I'd like to get a new lens for it this winter. I've cheaped through with the kit lenses so far but want to get some better images, especially on a rare-for-me overseas trip approaching.
What should I get? I'm attracted to the idea of a compact prime lens for the travel sleekness, but worry about not having as much fun with it. Also attracted to the 16-70 Zeiss or similar for versatility with good quality... I thought I was afraid of the bulk but I guess it's not much bigger than the kit lens.
Or should I just buy a newer camera? The NEX is pretty basic next to the big Alpha ones... but with good glass can prolly still make some nice images.
Advice? This is the only decent camera I have and shares many duties.I'd keep the camera and add new lenses. A camera is only as good as its lens and Sony seems committed to keeping their cropped sense line. I think the camera you have has the same sensor as the A6000 series, which creates the image quality but I might be wrong. You can get a new camera next or later.
I'm no pro by any means but I have a few primes and the 16-70mm zeiss along with a few zooms for our A6000.
I really like the 35mm 1.8 for a prime. It's pretty affordable and does great for indoor shots like museums if your traveling. Decent for landscapes but not as wide as you might like. or photos of people indoors. It's basically the focal length of what your eye sees so it's a good one lense setup for travel or just carrying around. No zoom obviously so you may or may not have an adjustment for this. But great bright photos.
We use the 16-70mm the most. It isn't the best for indoors with f/4, but it's f/4 though the whole range. Gets wide enough for most circumstances and a decent amount of zoom to 70mm but won't get you super close. We like a small setup that I can throw in my backpack or whatever. If I could only have one lens with me I would keep this one. One Downside is the filter size is different than any other lens I have so if you use filters at all you will have to get an adapter or new filters. The 16-70mm is also pricey. It isn't bulky by a long shot, almost pocketable in a larger coat
Happy to answer any question specifically the best I can. Again I'm only an amateur but a gear junky for everything I'm into, including skiing and photo gear. Though photo gear has fallen behind a little due to a new baby and lack of funds to spend on lenses and such.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile appI really like the Samyang. MF only, but it's fast, sharp, and pretty easy to use. However, it's also not the most compact lens in the world.
I could see running a two lens combo of the 18-135 and 55-210 for skiing. Pick which one is on the camera based on what terrain you're skiing. In trees throw the 18-135 on, more open use the 55-210.
I like the 55-210 pretty well. It's pretty sharp, fast enough, and pretty light. I think I get better shots with it than either the 16-50 kit lens or the 18-200 that I rented.Note: I suck at astrophotography
I was SUPER intimidated by the whole manual focus thing, but turns out, it's really not a big deal for landscapes and night. You're basically going to always focus at infinity. Figure out where on the focus ring is sharp at infinity and you're golden. My lens is pretty much right on the markings, but some reviewers have reported that the marks on their lens are slightly off from the sharpest point.Since we've totally hijacked this into a "what Sony lens" thread....
I don't think it's really fair to compare the 55-210 with the 70-300. The 70-300 fuckin' better be better. It's a $1200 full frame lens vs a $350 crop sensor lens. It's also physically way bigger - 1-3/8" longer, 3/4" bigger diameter, and over 1lb heavier. I understand why GoldenBC is going that way since he's buying for a future camera, but I don't think it makes any sense to buy that lens if an a6X00 camera is your only rig and you don't have intentions of going full frame. Throwing a giant lens on a compact mirrorless kinda defeats the purpose of using a compact mirrorless.
So if you stick with APS-C lenses, I think your choices for a long (200mm+) telephoto E mount lens are Sony 55-210, Sony/Tamron 18-200, and Sony 18-200 LE. I haven't tried the standard 18-200, only the LE, but I think the 55-210 is better/sharper. Which is a bummer as I would have liked to have been able to just run one lens instead of carrying around multiple. Here are examples of 100% crops from both lenses, in similar shooting conditions:
Sony 55-210mm, shot at 150mm f9 1/640s ISO320
Sony 18-200 LE, shot at 170mm f8 1/800s ISO800
There's more noise in the second image due to the higher ISO, but it definitely is not as sharp either. Neither are perfect, but to me the 55-210 is better.
For a shorter range zoom, I'll probably have to try both the 18-135 and the 16-70 and decide if the 16-70 is $400 better than the 18-135. Either should be an upgrade from the kit PZ16-50.
I think this thread may have talked me into getting a 35mm-ish prime. Opinions between the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and the Sony 35mm f1.8? The Sony is smaller, the Sigma is faster and cheaper.
Bookmarks