What lenses for A6300 / APS-C

[hungryhorse16]

Hi,

    I've moved over from a full frame DSLR to an A6300. The reason for the switch was size and weight, the choice of A6300 over A7R2 was convenience of size, speed of focus and price at which it could be obtained - I wasn't keen on spending ~AU$4000 on a body. Now I have the camera I'm looking to expand my lens range. I sold my old camera but kept my 70-200 f4L and 85mm f1.8 lenses as I still have an older DSLR body.

I've attached a chart of APS-C equivalent focal lengths from my full frame shots. The spike in the 50s is for the 85mm f1.8, the spike at 70mm is for the maximum reach of the 24-105 f4L IS, the one at 133 for the end of the 200mm range of the 70-200 f4L, and the bulk of the low end covered by the 24-105 being the walk-around lens on the camera full time. As you can see from the low end spike I like to take landscape and cityscape shots but was limited at the low end by a lack of wide angle lens, although the distribution of shots is really dominated by kids portraits and kids action focal lengths.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

My main subjects are landscape/travel, portrait/kids and action (again mainly kids). I'm just not sure how I should start building up my lens collection from the kit 16-50 as there are a number of different options:

 

Sony 70-200 f4 + either Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Sony 50mm f1.8 and sell Canon vs Metabones IV + Canon + primes etc. Limiter here would potentially be how quick it focusses especially at 200mm. Also gives me the 85mm f1.8

Sigma 30mm f1.4 + Sony 50mm f1.8 + Sony 10-18 f4. Gets the wide angle, group portrait and individual portrait primes.

Sigma 30mm f1.4 + Sony 50mm f1.8 + Sony 16-70 f4. Lack wide angle and the 16-70 seems to be pot luck on quality.

Sony 10-18 f4 + Sony 24-70 f4. Wide angle plus a bit of coverage that could be used on a full frame should I move that way.

Sony 24 f1.8 + ... Not sure about this one but it has plenty of advocates. A lot more money than the Sigma 30mm though.

 

I'd be interested to hear what others have bought in their move away from the kit lens.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Congratulations on a fast and decisive move.

 

You have a big spike at 50mm and a lot of use around 30-40mm. Therefore, I think you could do well with Sony E 50/1.8 and 35/1.8. These are actually very nice lenses. Reasonably sharp with good colour, contrast and bokeh. Especially the 50 is very affordable. They work well with the autofocus too.

 

The 24/1.8 or 32/1.8 are of course in a different league optically but also in terms of price. I think most people would be pleased with the IQ of the plain Sonys.

 

The 10-18 is good for wide angle but you might be fine with the Sigma 19/2.8 for a lot less money.

 

The 2470f4 is a lens with issues, although the may be less apparent in APS-C.

 

So my recommendation is to start checking out Sony E 50/1.8 and 35/1.8. Lots of samples on flickr.

[hungryhorse16]

I guess one of the main shortcomings I see is that I got by with 2-3 lenses on the Canon with the 24-105mm being pretty much the always on option. This has its equivalent pretty directly in the 16-70 f4 OSS... but I've read such mixed views about that lens and many reports that say you won't notice much improvement over the 16-50 especially given the price. Out of around 8000 kept photos from the Canon 5000 are from the 24-105, 940 from the 70-200 and 1300 from the 85mm. I don't really want to be swapping lenses all the time but they are admittedly a lot lighter to carry. If Sony could release an improved 16-70 that justifies its selling price I'd be right there.

 

Can I ask what your thoughts are on adaptors? Some articles seem to indicate they are good if you have a range of top notch glass and a FF mirrorless but in my case with only 1 L lens and a good 85mm perhaps native is the best option.

 

At the moment I think I am erring on the side of the 10-18 for landscapes with the 50mm for portraits. Too many possibilities when moving from one system to another. Not sure about 35mm Sony v 30mm Sigma, possibly a little more width would be good in a prime. 

 

One concern I had with the 50mm f1.8 was that when I tried it out in a shop it did hunt around for focus (not on an A6300 body) whereas I'm used to my 85mm just snapping into focus even on the sub-par 5D MKII focussing system.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

It's a personal preference if you like working with adapted lenses. When you go from FF to crop, the lens will behave differently so you will probably have to try it to see if it works for you.

 

I generally don't like to recommend expensive lenses, because if you are inclined that way you'll find them anyway. The 50/1.8 isn't the fastest focusing lens but the IQ is nice for the price and realistically you'll use that focal length for controlled portraits so I think it works.

[markphoto4u]

I have the A6000 and the A7ii and am pleased with the Canon 17-40 L (for landscapes using manual focus with focus peaking); and the 35/2.8, 55/1.8, and the 90/2.8 macro. These three primes are a little pricey, but exceptional IQ. I bought and sold the Sony Zeiss 16-35/4 and 24-70/4, because the former was soft at 35mm, and the latter was soft at 70mm. Both

Lenses were excellent if not zoomed out all the way, but I felt like 1000 dollar lenses should be better; although I have read that other zooms suffer in IQ when zoomed out all the way. Hope this helps.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Zé De Boni]

As choosing a lens line is very personal, I will just share my choice for the Sony A6000 (waiting eagerly for the 6500).

I must explain that I use rather full frame, still using the A99 and slowly moving to FE (1 A7RII). I use mostly primes for my work from wide to normal angle. For long focal lenghts the new zooms can do the job (except for the 600mm that I rarely use). I usually carry 4 bodies fitted with the lenses that I will probably need. That's where my 2 light A6000's are mostly welcome. When needed, they keep the same standard with minor compromises, mostly because I am using good quality primes on the best F-stop range.

I test all my lenses on all possible bodies to check how much I can depend on them. That's how I have discovered that the FE 70-200mm f/4 is much better than my sacred Minolta G 200mm f/2.8 on the A7RII. At f/8 it is as good or better than my A-mount 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/1.8 (tested at 42MP). 

When not on assignment or for family shots I carry (always) just one A6000 and my personal Kit Zoom, the 18-105mm f/4 G. es

So this is what I own and recommend:

Primes:

Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye A-mount - no lenshood, useable on full-frame too

Rokinon 12mm f/2 - manual focus, but who needs it at this FL

Sigma 19mm f/2.8 - not that great, but much better than Sony's 16mm f/2.8 (I owned and sold it) and 20mm f/2.8

Sony Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 - good lens, just that, does not justify its price, but still better than a zoom

Sony 35mm f/1.8 - just the opposite from the above, good lens, very similar in quality as the 24, so it makes a nice pair with it at half its price

Sony Sonnar 55mm f/1.8 - super on full-frame 42MP, so I don't need the cheap Sony E 50mm/1.8, which has good reviews and so may be a good option

 

Zooms:

Sony G 18-105mm f/4 - great all around zoom and quite cheap, I wonder why so few reviews on it

Sony G 70-200mm f/4 - as I have mentioned, I do not dream on primes on this focal range, except for the 90mm Macro

 

[newenglandrocks]

There have already been a lot of good comments below, but I noticed that not many people weighed in on the 1670 zoom. Maybe I just have a good copy, but I do a lot of pixel peeping and I feel (totally unscientifically) that the images are just as sharp as from my primes (Rokinon 12, Sigma 19, Sony 35 and Sony 50). There is something about the look of the images from the 1670 that is better than any of the primes that I can't put my finger on. Colors or contrast - not sure. But the downside is it is only f/4.

 

My favorite primes are the Sony 35 and the Rokinon. The Rokinon is sharp, but has lousy colors, though and I am always tweaking the images for color in post. If I were to start over again I would get the FE55 as recommended in one of the responses to your inquiry. More flexibility for a FF body.

 

Albert

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pcoop]

FWIW, I had a Sony A6000 and the 18-105 lens. Pretty good combo. The only problem was the size/bulk of that combo. I replaced

my 6000 with a 6300 and although fairly expensive i purchased the Sony-Zeiss f/4 16-70 (24-105 APSC). That lens has not come off the A6300 since it's arrival at the release of the camera. Many bash this lens and I am not sure why since mine is very nice. It is the

only zoom I use regularly.

 

I had a bunch of lenses that sold with the 6000. The only regret was the sale of the Zeiss 32mm F/1.8. That is a superb prime. Looking back, I had never gotten better photos out of the 6000 than the pictures from the Zeiss 32mm (48mm APSC) lens. 

[Mihai M]

I use a6000 with Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 and it's awesome in all regards (image quality, speed (being a f/1.8), sharpness, focus accuracy, focus speed, weight & size).

 

I have just did a test with a6000 and Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and there's a serious limitation: the AF-C continuous focus only works on the 9 phase-detect focus points in the center of the sensor.

The Zeiss lens is able to use all the phase-detect focus points (from the entire sensor).

 

Can someone confirm if this limitation is true also for Sigma 30mm f/1.4?

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is also said to be slower to achieve focus than Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 http://www.alinpopescu.eu/blog/review-sigma-30-f1-4-dc-dn-contemporary/

Focus. I will start with the only minus of this lens, because it was the first that hit me after mounting it on the camera. Don’t get me wrong, almost all of the shots were in perfect focus, but the way to get there is a long one . I mean, this lens is slow focusing, with some hunt in front, behind and only on it’s 3rd step on the subject.
The problem becomes more noticeable while shooting bursts, where the lens cannot hold its pace with the camera’s fast focusing engine. This doesn’t mean you won’t get any in-focus frames, but the number of these crisp frames is lower compared to a native mount lens from Sony.

 

[hungryhorse16]

I've read a lot of things about the 16-70 f4 and seen some real world comparison shots to the 16-50 kit lens. Even accounting for those that simply expect perfection I'm not sure the lens lives up to expectations. The comparison shots I saw did not blow away the 16--50 in any way at all., although you do get marginally better colours and saturation which I'd imagine is from the Zeiss lens coatings. There's the rub, you pay top dollar for this lens and Zeiss only did the coatings. It really is expensive for what it is when you look at what L-series glass you can get from Canon at the same price point (or Nikon, or Panasonic, or Olympus etc). For me it's the one lens I should have (coming from a FF 24-105) but I'm just not sure I can justify it. With the A6500 coming out it feels like we're in for some new APS-C glass because sticking a FE zoom on an APS-C body utterly defeats the point of that body.

 

So far I'm thinking the 50mm f1.8 is a definite. It compares favourably with the FE 55mm given the difference in price. Comparison shots show differences but nothing outrageous given the costs.

As for the zooms I want the 70-200 in time (perhaps I'll sell my Canon L to finance that) as the shots I've seen from it and reviews sounds like it'll easily outperform my old L, but I'm tempted to wait for the10-18 and 16-70 to see if anything happens between now and year end.

[hungryhorse16]

I use a6000 with Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 and it's awesome in all regards (image quality, speed (being a f/1.8), sharpness, focus accuracy, focus speed, weight & size).

 

I have just did a test with a6000 and Sigma 19mm f/2.8 and there's a serious limitation: the AF-C continuous focus only works on the 9 phase-detect focus points in the center of the sensor.

The Zeiss lens is able to use all the phase-detect focus points (from the entire sensor).

 

Can someone confirm if this limitation is true also for Sigma 30mm f/1.4?

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is also said to be slower to achieve focus than Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 http://www.alinpopescu.eu/blog/review-sigma-30-f1-4-dc-dn-contemporary/

 

I think that's one of the downsides of Sony's lack of cooperation with Sigma and their need to reverse engineer. It's early days for them on the E/FE mount vs their work on Canon and Nikon mounts so I guess in time things will improve.