Help - a6000 lens selection

[sinsora]

Hi! I've always been on a lookout to buy the a6000 and now I just wonder what lens I should get. I like to take photos when I go on hikes (mix of landscape/nature/wildlife), vacations (mix of city outdoors and indoors), night photography and food.

Is the 16-50mm/18-55mm worth buying as a bundle kit with the a6000 for my purposes of use? I don't think I'll go for the 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 because I prefer to pack light for all the travelling. I think Sony's SEL 35mm f1/8 will be good for me, but will it be enough for all the above purposes of use? If not, what else should I get that is a low budget option but decent?

 

Thanks in advance.

[SpaceManSpiff]

Hi sinsora,

 

For your use, I would go with either the 16-50 or the 18-55 when bundled with the body.  When bundled with the body you get these at a great price...and they both work pretty well (but differently)...not without compromises but much less expensive than if you had to buy them separately.  The wide-angle is nice for landscapes (stepped down) and indoor shots (wide open).  

 

Consider getting the a6000 bundled with with either the 16-50 or 18-55 (landscapes, indoor and general purpose).  Perhaps also consider one of the bundles that includes the 55-210 --I think you would be missing the 'wildlife' aspect of your 'purposes of use' otherwise, the other mentioned lenses are lacking in reach.  It is a surprisingly lightweight lens.

 

The SEL35f18 is by all accounts a very good lens --having a 'normal' field of view, fast aperture, and being optically stabilized: it could fit into some of your 'purposes' nicely (night photography, food, low-light indoors)...but may not be wide enough for some applications (landscapes, indoors) or long enough (wildlife).

 

HTH,

[sinsora]

Thanks for the advice! I did notice that for most bundles, I could get the kit lens if I pay just $70 more so I'm gonna grab one for sure. 

 

Could you elaborate on the pros/cons for 16-50 vs 18-55? I heard great things about the 16-50 being 24mm equivalent. 

 

I think wildlife is more of a lower priority compared to landscapes, cityscapes, etc. I've also been recommended the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 for landscape shooting purposes. So I might first grab the 16-50, 35mm, then 19mm in the end.

[jake2]

Sigma 19mm is a very good low cost option for city- and landcscapes. I personally opted for the Sony 20mm f2.8 for it's conpact size, even when the cost is higher than the Sigma 19mm. I got mine from eBay, so the price was not too bad. Flare can be an issue when shooting into bright light, otherwise I'm very happy with it. Lens is very compact when you leave the hood off, noticeably smaller an lighter than the kit zoom.

[Golem]

I use both of the kit lenses.

 

The points in favor of the 16-50 are

concisely 2: 16mm, and compactness.

 

In every other parameter, the 18-55

rules. EVERY other parameter, so it's

pointless to list them, but for myself

one of the almost intolerable aspects

of the 16-50 is its insane operation.

But ... when I need a "pocket camera"

I am willing to face that. I know of no

pancakes with OSS, so when I really

need compactness, the 16-50 does it.

 

`

[mopswerk]

The 16-50 is always considered to be the most compact solution, at the expense of sub par Image quality (maybe with some exceptions, but my own copy of the 16-50 has mushy edges ... ). I do not know the 18-55, but possibly I'd go for this lens, when looking for a zoom lens. I have the Sigma 19 and 30mm > Cheap and good image quality, which also goes for the Sigma 60mm (according to DxO this is the sharpest lens you can get for APS C Sony Cams).

[Austerror]

The 55-210 lens is actually superb.  It is small and light. Wide open delivers great results and for the price it is a bargain.

 

The 16-50 has a purpose and that is being small and light. When the camera is powered off, the camera with this lens will fit in a pocket.

 

Having said that, I don't like the power zoom part of the lens.  So I don't own one. Putting my camera in a pocket is not something I need.

[Matteo]

I do a lot of hiking trips and my gear is: 

-A6000

-SELP1650

-SEL1018

 

mounted on the capture pro and a small lens pouch for the belt.

 

But I'm thinking of change the 1650 to a 35F18 or 28F2. With 24mp you can crop the rest...(28/35mm-50mm) But I would never miss my 1018 on a hiking tour...

[Aerial harmony]

The 16-50 lens does exhibit an issue with zoomed photos of distant objects. The aspect ratio of the distant object is changed (reduced) considerably.

[robk47]

I have the kit lens 16-50 and I rarely use it. For me, the 18-105 f4 is a gem. It is quite sharp and produces a dynamic image. I also have the 50 f1.8, but do not use that as much as the 18-105. It would be nice to see some small zooms 24-70 f2.8 or a 10-24 f2.8, but I gather they would be expensive. Bottom line: you cannot go wrong with the 18-105.