Jump to content

Zoom lens options for A6000


Recommended Posts

Hey folks, 

 

I am looking for some lens options for my honeymoon in October... the kit lens is pretty good for everyday shooting. But I am going to Dubai and Japan, and I am sure I will need a zoom lens for capturing interesting things from far away. 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-SEL18200LE-Mount-18-200mm-Telephoto/dp/B0084YK0P4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490172513&sr=8-1&keywords=a6000+lens+200mm

 

Would this be the best all rounder for the money? It is pretty expensive, if anyone has one or has an opinion, I would love to hear from you. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bud, is the image quality good enough?

 

I was thinking about the 18-200 as it would mean less changing lenses as I would be all covered for a mix of wide angle as well as zooming.

 

I was also looking at the Sony E18-105mm f4 G OSS Lens, seems to produce better shots, but not sure if it would be a beast to carry and if it is more catered for video as opopsed to photography? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zola,

 

I have both the 18-105 and 55-210 on A6000. I don't have the LE 18-200 but did a lot of research. From what I've read, the LE 18-200 is the lightest and most compact all-in-one zoom for APS-C E-mount but also the one with worst image quality. The regular 18-200 is slightly better but also beefier. If you need long range, the 55-210 is better still and much cheaper. You will have to change lenses though as it's not nearly wide enough for normal use. But how often do you really need this focal length?

 

Food for thought: why buy an APS-C camera instead of a compact superzoom and then settle for both mediocre image quality and a crippled zoom range? IMO, If you want big zoom without swapping lenses, get an RX10 or FZ2000. If you want good image quality, buy a decent lens with a limited zoom range (or prime) for your A6000.

 

I've acquired the 18-105 recently to replace my 16-50 kit lens (though I mostly use it for video and use primes for stills). Even for stills, it is a great upgrade from the 16-50 and the 55-210 in their respective zoom ranges, and gathers more light. It is a bit large though, I suggest you try it in the shop first. And don't shoot RAW with it unless you plan to post-process, as the uncorrected distortions are quite severe. In JPEG you'll barely notice this as it's corrected in-camera. On the positive side: it covers nearly all my zoom needs. You only really need more than 105 mm to photograph wildlife etc, in which case the 55-210 probably won't have enough reach either. My 55-210 hasn't been used since I got the 18-105 but I'm anxiously awaiting something longer for APS-C (hoping for a 100-400 similar to Fuji's).

 

Pieter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

 

just an update- I bought the 55-210, got a great deal on it, got it for £90! 

 

I have also ordered a Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2 lens, which I cant wait to try out. 

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

I think if I got a 35mm prime lens that would cover most situations! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had and didn't keep the 55-210 because the image quality was poor, very soft.  I recently obtained a used copy of the 18-105 and optically it is far superior, the power zoom feature takes a bit of getting used to (but if you do video it is a real plus).  Another option would be the 24-240 FE but it is big, heavy, and only marginally sharper than the 55-210.  To get anything of quality you will need to budget around $650.  I always buy used, by the way.  Concur with markfireblade, the FE 16-70  Zeiss F4 is an attractive lens, but doesn't extend your current zoom range much....

Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thought...for our trip to Europe I purchased, for around $400 US, a used Sony RX10.  You get a constant 2.8 aperture, Zeiss optics, 24-200 range, and an amazing image quality.  It will equal or better anything you can add onto your A6000 at less cost and smaller size.  I used it for 90% of our pictures (over 2000) even though I had my A7R along with me.).  So you get an entire, wonderful camera, for less than a single lens for your A6000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

 

just an update- I bought the 55-210, got a great deal on it, got it for £90! 

 

I have also ordered a Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2 lens, which I cant wait to try out. 

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

I think if I got a 35mm prime lens that would cover most situations! 

 

Great choice Zola! The Samyang 12mm f/2 is an awesome lens as well. Be sure to practice manual focussing a bit but once you've mastered it it will get you some great shots. Or go easy mode: set it to ~f/5.6, focus at 3m and virtually everything will be in focus.

 

As a 30-35 mm prime: I'd suggest the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN, but be sure to check this comparison:

http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/e-mount-lenses/sony-35mm-f1-8-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-vs-sigma-30mm-f2-8/

 

Shame they didn't include the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 to complete the list but that one's much more expensive than the other 3.

 

I liked the sound of the 18-105 from the description by Pieter until I saw it's a power zoom. I didn't like that feature at all on the kit 16-50 so I never used it. Think I'd rather have the Zeiss 16-70 f/4, even though it's quite a lot more money...

The 18-105 is a video-centered lens and therefore has a power zoom, but the experience is much more pleasing than with the 16-50: the 18-105 zoom is very fast and accurate, near instantly responsive and totally silent. The only drawback is that you don't have hard stops at either end of the zoom range, and that it returns to 18 mm whenever you power off the camera. It's an internal zoom so the lens doesn't extend while zooming, unlike the Zeiss 16-70. Comparing the Sony 18-105 to the Zeiss 16-70:

 - Sony: bit heavier, and larger when not in use

 - Zeiss: 50% more expensive

 - Zeiss: larger when totally zoomed in

 - Zeiss: slightly better image quality at the wide end (16-40 mm), and wider field of view (16 vs 18)

 - Sony: slightly better image quality at the long end (40-70 mm), and narrower field of view (105 vs 70)

 

One other thought...for our trip to Europe I purchased, for around $400 US, a used Sony RX10.  You get a constant 2.8 aperture, Zeiss optics, 24-200 range, and an amazing image quality.  It will equal or better anything you can add onto your A6000 at less cost and smaller size.  I used it for 90% of our pictures (over 2000) even though I had my A7R along with me.).  So you get an entire, wonderful camera, for less than a single lens for your A6000.

That's why I suggested it tinplater: if you want a versatile high performance camera with a great zoom range, the RX10 seems really tempting. Though I have a hard time to believe your statement 'equal or better anything you can add to your A6000'. If you compare it to any of the 18-200 lenses on an A6000 then yes, the RX10 will probably produce slightly better results. But it obviously can't compete with a premium zoom or large aperture prime on the A6000 (or A7R for that matter) in terms of IQ and ISO-performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Pieter:

what I was trying to state was, within a given moderate budget, let's say $500, it is nearly, if not totally, impossible to equal the quality and zoom range of buying an entire camera, the RX10, versus trying to find a zoom that covers that range and matches the quality for less than $500.  Just amazes me what a great value that camera is...I have two copies, one in the car, another in our vacation home in northern Utah, and for many circumstances it is the go to unit instead of my A6000 or A7rII.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...