Newbie lens choice?

[deebs07]

Hi, I'm starting out and looking to get an a6400 (or possibly a6500 as I've seen quite a few lightly used examples for for a decent price) and not quite sure which path to go with lens choice. I've largely narrowed it down to the following:

• Sigma 16mm F1.4
• Sigma 30mm F1.4
• Sigma 56mm F1.4
• Sony 18-105 F4
• Sony 18-135 F3.5-5.6

I have little experience past borrowing my friends spare DSLR and I'm wanting to keep my initial costs down to see if this is really for me. The obvious choice seems to be one of the two zoom lenses but I find myself really swayed by the low light performance and sharpness of the Sigma F1.4 range. Would having only the Sigma 16mm and 56mm be too restrictive when starting out compared to one of the zoom lens options? I guess another option would be to start with one of the zoom lenses and then add the Sigma 16mm F1.4 at a later date. Any advice would be appreciated, thanks

Edited November 22, 2019 by deebs07

[Pieter]

If you don't have much experience in photography, an advantage of a zoom is that you can experiment a bit with what focal lengths you really like, then in the long run buy a prime at that focal length. It can be really personal which focal length you enjoy shooting at. It'll also be very personal how much you dislike changing lenses a lot.

I find myself deciding on which lens to use before the occasion, and only bring one backup lens just in case. I have the 18-108 zoom and 12, 24 and 56mm primes. I find myself using the 18-105 a lot for convenience during daytime outings (18-135 is a fine alternative) and bring the 56mm f1/4 when I hope to shoot some nice portraits. It's really an incredibly nice lens but the focal length can be a bit restrictive.

When I expect to be indoors (tight space) under limiting lighting conditions, I put on the 24mm f/1.8. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a great alternative but can be a bit tight indoors.

I've thought about the Sigma 16mm as well but I don't shoot wide angle much. Somehow a narrower field of view forces me to think more about composition, resulting in more interesting pictures. Occasionally when I want to go really wide I use the Samyang 12mm f/2. Landscapes shot that wide tend to get boring to me as there's no clear subject, so I use it for closeups instead.

The lenses you suggest are all great for what they are so it comes down to your personal preferences. The Sigma trio really makes Sony APS-C shine.

[Thad E Ginathom]

On 11/22/2019 at 10:01 PM, deebs07 said:

Hi, I'm starting out and looking to get an a6400 (or possibly a6500 as I've seen quite a few lightly used examples for for a decent price) and not quite sure which path to go with lens choice.

 

It depends, of course, on what you want to photograph. I started out (again, after a break of some years using compact P&S cameras occasionally and casually) with an a6000 and the two-lens kit set. In many ways, the two lenses were a waste of money: just not fast enough to do the photography I wanted to do. Result: noisy pictures, not better than the compact. I didn't start getting the pictures I wanted until I invested in a faster prime. Or two. OK, now four.

Also, although I've never heard this complaint from anyone else, zoom adds another factor to composition. It's simpler to fit one's subject into a nice, fixed, prime rectangle (assuming it's the right-sized rectangle of course). In fact, I now feel ready to try composing with zoom again! So next thing, I'll fill that wide-to-30mm (30mm being my widest prime) gap that I don't find the kit 16-50 fast or good enough to fill.

The lesson for me was to buy lenses as and when I found that I needed them (and could afford them, of course) rather than trying to fully equip oneself at the beginning. Are you really going to go out and photograph everything from day one? Plainly, some people will say yes to that, and my lesson won't work for them.

[Pieter]

3 hours ago, Thad E Ginathom said:

zoom adds another factor to composition. It's simpler to fit one's subject into a nice, fixed, prime rectangle (assuming it's the right-sized rectangle of course).

While this is very true for experienced photographers, for people new to photography it can in fact be sort of a handicap. I found my photo's got more interesting when I bought my first prime. A prime forces you to move around to get the framing you want and you'll become much more aware of perspective effects and environmental elements when composing a shot. With a zoom people are often tempted to just stand where they are and zoom untill the subject is the right size in the frame, disregarding the effect of perspective changes when zooming. This approach will hardly get you any 'WOW'-shots.

So while a zoom may seem ideal for new photographers, it will help you less on improving your skills than a prime imho.

[Thad E Ginathom]

16 hours ago, Pieter said:

While this is very true for experienced photographers, for people new to photography it can in fact be sort of a handicap. .... .... ...

It's another thing to think about, another thing to wonder if one is getting right. Another thing to play with until... I miss the shot. Maybe I just find it easier to fit the subject into the rectangle, rather than fit the rectangle around the subject!

But, as I said, I am ready to try it again, perhaps with a 16-28. That would be the Tamron, which is affordable. f4 just wouldn't do for my usual photography: Indian classical musicians in not-much-more-than-lightbulb lighting. Even f2.8 is pushing it (hardly like rock musicians, but they do move the head a lot). But it would give me access to wide, and, no doubt, be a great general lens for my next holiday, whenever that is.

I really does come down to what experience shows us we need. I wasted a lot of money on tripod. monopod and stuff, that barely get used (partly because of those fast primes). Thankfully, not too much on unwanted lenses

[Pieter]

6 hours ago, Thad E Ginathom said:

I am ready to try it again, perhaps with a 16-28. That would be the Tamron, which is affordable.

You sure you won't consider the new Sony 16-55 f/2.8? The Tamron is in fact 17-28 so the Sony is wider and a whole lot longer. Size and weight is pretty much identical. In my country the Tamron is about €1000, the Sony €1300. Neither is exactly cheap by my standards.

Then again, if you don't mind about the long end, €300 for 1 extra mm on the wide end does sound expensive.

[Thad E Ginathom]

2 hours ago, Pieter said:

You sure you won't consider the new Sony 16-55 f/2.8?

I will indeed consider it! I think the Tamron will be cheaper in my country, but spending money is allocated for the next three months at least, so I am some way away from making any serious comparison, let alone decision.

I am covered by primes 30, 50, 60 and 85. The proposed zoom would fill the wide-end gap --- but I can *imagine*  having a complimentary set of 3 zooms, which would also extend the long end. I'd have everything except really-long wild-life stuff covered. A bit like our OP's proposals in the first post.

Imagination is one thing. The two longer zooms would be an extravagance not merited by frequent use, which all my primes get every week. 

So far, I have not spent over 1,000 GBP on any one single photographic item. That's a big barrier to cross mentally as well as financially.

Edited November 24, 2019 by Thad E Ginathom

[Pieter]

7 hours ago, Thad E Ginathom said:

So far, I have not spent over 1,000 GBP on any one single photographic item. That's a big barrier to cross mentally as well as financially.

Me neither so I'll wait for a year hoping I can find it discounted for 999 at some point ?

Regarding the long end: I have a kit 55-210 collecting dust as it's neither fast enough nor sharp enough for my liking. Only gets occasional use when travelling but the images always turn out dissappointing. I have high hopes for the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, which seems like a nice size for APS-C camera's and would do great as an event lens. That and the 16-55 sounds like a great set to me.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Pieter

[Thad E Ginathom]

16 hours ago, Pieter said:

Regarding the long end: I have a kit 55-210 collecting dust as it's neither fast enough nor sharp enough for my liking.

Me too. Unlike the 15-50, which almost always disappoints except in really great light, though, I have had one or two nice surprises from the 55-210.

I have high hopes for the Tamron zoom trio. I think they will win on size, cost and any performance compromise may be acceptable.  They will probably be able to take better photos than I can.

But a brief with-wife spending review, 2020/21, today, puts a trio of zoom lenses well down the priority list! ?

[Pieter]

27 minutes ago, Thad E Ginathom said:

But a brief with-wife spending review, 2020/21, today, puts a trio of zoom lenses well down the priority list! 

Swap the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75 for the Sony 16-55 and tell her you cut €550 of expenses ? (€1000 + €850 for the Tamrons versus €1300 for the Sony here). As a dedicated APS-C shooter without plans to go FF anytime soon, to me the Sony sounds much more compelling. Maybe talk to the shop owner and see if you can pay in two terms such as not to cross that looming €1000 barrier ?