Sony a6000 with "Kit Lenses" does not seem sharp.

[Smorton]

Greetings,

 

I bought a Sony A6000 in a kit form a few months ago.  I have not been using it nearly as much as I should be.  It cam with a Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS and a Sony E 55-210mm lenses.

 

My last camera was a Canon EOS REBEL T3i which also had a kit lens. 

 

The photos from the Canon EOS REBEL T3i seem quite a bit sharper then from the Sony, using the 16-50mm.  I know that kit lenses are not usually that great but I have read fairly thorough reviews that indicate the 16-50mm is fairly descent.

 

Here I am comparing kit lens to kit lens.  I could make a much fairer comparison if I still had the Canon but I don't.

 

I wonder if others have experienced this or have any suggestions. 

 

I assume it is the lenses and not the camera but is this a correct assumption?  Also, I have not updated the firmware, partially out of fear of doing so.  I don't need to make large posters but I had hoped the Sony A6000 and the kit lens would be as good as the Canon EOS REBEL T3i with a kit lens.

 

Any thoughts or input is highly appreciated.

 

Smorton

 

 

[chrisqphoto]

before I answer your question, why on earth are you scared of updating it? the features that you get by updating it are well worth it, and I believe the firmware includes software for new lenses that were released after the a6000 was. this firmware update doesn't harm your camera, but you need to be VERY careful to follow the on screen instructions TO-THE-LETTER!!! it can royally make things difficult for you if you do not.

 

secondly, the reason it does not appear sharp is because that lens is not that sharp. DXOMark.com did tests on both the Canon T3i with its kit lens, and the Sony a6000 with its kit lens, and discovered that the Canon can resolve 7 "P-Mpix". that's 7 "perceptual megapixels", meaning that while your camera maybe be 18 megapixels, when you use that lens it basically knocks it down to a 7 megapixel camera. that's how un-sharp it is. Meanwhile the Sony a6000 when combined with its kit lens goes to a 6 "P-Mix" rating.

 

now what this all means is that they took these two camera and lens combinations and used highly calibrated machines and charts to measure these cameras to a very high certainty that these tests are accurate. meaning that if you took a print from a 7 megapixel camera that has exactly 7 perceptual megapixels, and a print from a Canon T3i w/ kit lens, you might have a really really hard time distinguishing the prints from the 2 cameras apart.

 

basically, when you use the kit lens on ANY camera, you might as well expect right out the gate you have thrown away any chance at a sharp image. no way of dancing around that. but we should be feeling sorry for Nikon users. their kit lens has a "P-Mix" rating of 4, depending on what it's mounted on.

 

this is not he camera's fault, it's just a 24 Megapixel camera that has been essentially reduced to a 6 megapixel camera. currently the sharpest APS-C you can get with a Sony a6000 is the Sigma 60mm f/2.8, which is about $200 last I checked, and has 16 "P-Mix", and if you use full frame glass, you can get a Sony 90mm f/2.8 for 18 "P-Mix".

[Gilgenberg]

Hi Smorton,

 

it also depends on the amount of sharpening from the jpg engine 

 

i have both kit lenses, the E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS and the E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6  OSS and the 18-55 is much sharper then the 16-50

 

but the 16-50 has the advantage of being very compact!

 

but as chrisqphoto already said:

 

both lenses are not comparable to a prime lens like E50mm F1.8 or Sigma E 30mm 2.8 DN or E 60mm 2.8 DN

 

they all are tak sharp with the A6000!

 

i got my Sigma E30mm 2.8 for €99 ......it has 12MP sharpnessrate from DXO

[Smorton]

Thanks for the response.  Very helpful.

 

I was just thinking about getting a  Sigma 60mm f/2.8 after having read reviews about it.  Does the auto-focus work just the same as with the kit lens?

 

Thank you.

 

Smorton

[glitterball]

I have to disagree with the other posters, I used to have a T3i and the 18-55 kit lens, and found it a lot softer than the Sony 16-50.

I think that the Sony 16-50 loses a lot of resolution at the wider end and uses a lot of software correction (just look at the RAW files), but it gets much better when used at the middle of its range). In fact, after about 24mm, it is quite respectable even compared to primes. My old Canon Kit Lens seemed to suffer from lots of CA as well.

 

You could have a dud though, and maybe my old Canon was a dud too.

 

Do you find 100% crops at the centre of the frame to be a lot softer than the Canon?

 

 

[Gilgenberg]

yes AF is the same as with the kit lens with the sigma lenses but you have no OSS

 

if you look for the sigma 60 i would recommend the sony 50mm 1.8 OSS over the sigma

maybe the sigma is a little bit sharper but the sony is already very sharp at 2.0 has 1.8 over 2.8 and has OSS

and a better focal length wit aps-c

[Smorton]

Yesterday I bought the Sony 50 mm 1.8 OSS.  Impulsive move to a degree.  Nice lens.  The only problem is prime lens are super hard for me to get used to.  I like to travel.  Take photos of people on the street, buildings, etc.  Using the Sony 50 mm 1.8 OSS on the way home was an eye opener.  Tried to photograph things I like to photograph.  Had to move all over the place.

 

Any good zoom lenses out there that are recommended?  What about the Sony FE 28-70 F3.5 OSS.  I know it is a compromise.

 

Thanks

 

Smorton

[glitterball]

I had the Sony FE 28-70 F3.5 OSS, but sold it as it was dreadful - really soft on the left side.

My copy of the 16-50 is much sharper than the 28-70.

[Smorton]

Confession time:

 

The Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS isn't as bad as I thought.  The wife took some photos with it and I looked at them when I wrote this post.

 

The kit lenses is not that bad unless you are a pixel peeper or whatever that is called.  Not for the pros perhaps or even super serious amateurs.

 

Any recommendation on another zoom then?

 

Smorton

[Gilgenberg]

i have the FE 28-70 and like it very much, also on my NEX-7 much better than 16-50 PZ and 18-55, maybe glitterball had a bad copy

 

for trevel i use the 18-55 on my NEX7 and I like it also, much better than 16-50 but not as good as the FE 28-70

 

the FE 28-70 is very good on the short end ...at 70 it is decent but o.k. .....it has not enough contrast and detail...... but from 28 to 40 it is great

 

so if you have the 50F18 (good choice) you could use the 28-70 in addition but the 18-55 has a shorter focal length so from 18-28 it has an advantage but it is not as

 

good as the FE28-70 on the short end but o.k.

 

Zeiss is a little bit better but you can ad contrast in PP with the FE28-70, if you have the money go for the zeiss but this lens is also not perfect

 

i would go for the Sigma 30mm 2.8 and use your feed as zoom

 

or the FE 28-70 plus the sigma 19mm 2.8 as a wide angle addition

[glitterball]

To be honest, I only ever used the 28-70 on my A7s, so it could be that the worst aspects of that Lens only affect a full frame camera.

Makes me think that I have a good copy of the 16-50mm and that there is a lot of inconsistency in Sony's lenses.

[chrisqphoto]

Confession time:

 

The Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS isn't as bad as I thought. The wife took some photos with it and I looked at them when I wrote this post.

 

The kit lenses is not that bad unless you are a pixel peeper or whatever that is called. Not for the pros perhaps or even super serious amateurs.

 

Any recommendation on another zoom then?

 

Smorton

that's not 100% true. you don't need perfectly sharp lenses to be considered a pro. I've used that lens in some of my work and at web resolutions you'd never know that there was a problem.

[Smorton]

Thanks for the input.

 

I will take a look at these options.

 

Smorton

[Smorton]

I make need to see a shrink.  I worry about changing lenses on the Sony a6000 and getting the sensor dirty.  I am looking for reassurance that:

 

1.  I really don't need to see a shrink.

2.  The sensor won't get dirty if you are careful and don't change the lens in a dessert windstorm and hold the camera down when  you change lenses.

3.  I actually had a Sony a6000 before this one and I changed lenses while on a trip and the camera quit working and that has stuck with me.  The electronics were faulty and I was able to return it for a new one.  I hope that is an isolation situation.  At the camera store they thought I was full of it by tested it and then claimed it damaged one of their lenses just by using it.  I thought about buying a second one from Costco because they have a 3 year accidental damage policy and you can return it for up to 3 years.

 

Thanks

 

Smorton

[Lioneye]

I'm a shrink. So, since you asked,  I will always recommend seeing a shrink no matter what. You're a photographer? We'll start with that as a working diagnosis. Dx = photographer! 

 

Anxiety is quite normal when doing new things. I wouldn't worry about your needing shrinking. You sound like you would be very careful in handling your equipment. I think many of us have had cameras in the shop for one thing or another. I know I did. Sometimes things just happen. Try your best to relax, breathe a bit, and enjoy your hobby.

 

As to the rest of it, I'll let those who know what they're doing respond to that.

[Austerror]

Everyone above has been discussing which lens is sharper and which other lens to buy. Or at least I didn't see them say what I'll say below:

 

Do a test for yourself with the kit lens.  Use a tripod, or set the camera down on a solid surface like a table and take a photo of something with texture, like a pair of socks, or a toy bear or something that does not move.

 

Shoot in A mode, set ISO100 and shoot from wide open down to F22, without moving the camera. Then load all the photos into your editing software (which should be Capture 1) and compare.  The F8 will most likely be the sharpest in the centre of frame. From this you will be able to see at which F-stop the lenses are at their best.

 

Then, once you have that F-stop range, you can shoot around that sweet spot and maximize your sharpness.

 

As an example, the ZA24 1.8 is pretty good at 1.8, but it is at its best at about F4.  Anything past F4 does not really gain much in sharpness.  The 55-210 zoon is super sharp wide open at F4.5, stopping down that F-stop does not gain much sharpness, but helps to keep things in focus.

 

Anyway that is a simple test that you can do.  If everything is blurry, try manual focus, if everything is still soft and blurry your camera or lens might be broken. Keeping in mind the lens' minimal focus distance.

 

In relation to the other question, which zoom to get, get the 55-210 e-mount. Cheap and awesome.

[Smorton]

Thanks Austerror.  I actually did a test similar to this and took the files to a camera shop that is very well respected.  He said the images were good and I can see myself that the lack of sharpness occurred when my wife used the camera and she has taken about 14 photos in her life.

 

I already have the 55-210 e-mount.  No complaints with that.

 

I would like a zoom something like the Sony 18-105mm F4.0 G OSS E-Mount to take the place of the 16-50 mm kit lens.

 

Thanks again.

 

Smorton

[Austerror]

I use the Zeiss 24 1.8 in combination with the 55-210 zoom.

 

Well, more specifically, my partner uses that combination on her Nex-5n whenever she is travelling.  The ZA24 is hard to beat.

 

But if you are looking for reviews and stuff of e-mount lenses check here:

 

http://kurtmunger.com/lens_reviews_id21.html

 

Kurt does a great job and has reviewed most of the e-mount lenses.

[1950n]

After reading all this I get the unpleasant feeling that Sony's QC is not very good with regard to lenses. Is it a question of luck to get a well adjusted Sony lens? Maybe Sony is not that quality company anymore. Is it arrogance??

 

 

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[Smorton]

Thanks for the responses.

 

Smorton