I shoot landscapes. I have the a6000 with the kit lenses 16-50 and 55-210. I use the 16-50 most of the time. I also have the Sony a99ii and a65. Granted that the a99ii give a much better image, I shoot the a6000 about 50% of the time. That is because the a6000 is much smaller and lighter. When hiking and climbing around the mountains of Oregon I prefer smaller and lighter. I have a bunch of $10 adapters for older Zeiss, Canon, and Minolta lenses. I also have the Sony LA--EA3 so I can use some of my Minolta A mount AF lenses. I'm guessing I should have purchased the LA-EA4 because it will not autofocus all of my AF older lenses. The newer A-mount Sony lenses will AF with the LA-EA3 but slowly. To the point of being frustrating. But on the other hand, I find that I can focus manually almost as fast as the autofocus. I have a Sigma EX 10-20mm DC (A-Mount) and the LA-EA3 won't autofocus. It is OK since almost everything is already in focus at 10mm. The Sigma does a great job. At age 65, If I had to chose the a99ii vs the a6000, I could be quite satisfied with the a6000 and Sony lenses. Moral of the story: the a6000 works best with Sony E-mount lenses.

Hi all,
I’m rather new to this forum but a daily reader for the past couple of months. I have a new (Christmas) A6000 that came with the 16-50mm kit lens. I guess I have two questions. First for background I want to do landscape photography and have been looking at wide angle lenses. At first I thought about getting a Rikonin 14mm made for e mount. Then I was looking at getting an adapter and using a Canon lens. I did some research on adapters and there’s a lot of opinions about them out there both good and bad and varying on which ones are good and bad. I have narrowed down my choices to the metabones mark V or the Sony LA-EA4. Then I got to thinking about it more and thought why not just stay with Sony e mount lenses and forget about the cost of the converter and possible issues that could go with it. The problem with that is the cost of the Sony prime lenses and zooms are pretty steep for my budget. I have been wanting a Sony 16mm with the VCL-ECU2 converter for my wide landscapes and the 18-200 or possibly the 18-200 Pz for some wildlife photography and even on eBay it’s a lot more than what I paid for the camera. On the other hand, my experience is with old Canon 35mm film photography (which I really miss, everything has gotten so complicated now with these new electronic menus) and I still have some pretty good lenses left hanging around and the price of some of the newer Canon, Rikonon and Sigma lenses compared to the Sony e mount make it possibly worthwhile to get the converter and go that route.

Getting back to my two questions and knowing from my hedgehog reading that I will get mostly good advice here goes:
1. Do I bight the price bullet and stay with the Sony e mount lenses, also knowing that they have the stabilization built in that I wish was in my camera body?
2. Do I get a converter and if so what’s the general consensus on preference?

PS Sort of a new thought that’s been rolling around in my head lately, did I get the wrong camera to begin with and go ahead and move up to the full frame Sony or Canon models that not only have full frame sensors due to wanting wide angle shots and the 1.5 conversion I now have makes even a 16 really a 24mm plus you get in body stabilization not in lens.

Thanks in advance for any input and I hope this really gets everyone thinking about this. I haven’t had time for the photography I so much loved when I was young and now that I’m finally getting ready to retire in a few years and want to visit places like Iceland and the Patagonia mtns and take some great shots that I can blow up to 3’ x 5’ or larger like that Peter Lik guy does. I have a few years to practice and get used to these new cameras so please help put me on the right path equipment wise before I invest any more money and time on equipment.

Hi all,
I’m rather new to this forum but a daily reader for the past couple of months. I have a new (Christmas) A6000 that came with the 16-50mm kit lens. I guess I have two questions. First for background I want to do landscape photography and have been looking at wide angle lenses. At first I thought about getting a Rikonin 14mm made for e mount. Then I was looking at getting an adapter and using a Canon lens. I did some research on adapters and there’s a lot of opinions about them out there both good and bad and varying on which ones are good and bad. I have narrowed down my choices to the metabones mark V or the Sony LA-EA4. Then I got to thinking about it more and thought why not just stay with Sony e mount lenses and forget about the cost of the converter and possible issues that could go with it. The problem with that is the cost of the Sony prime lenses and zooms are pretty steep for my budget. I have been wanting a Sony 16mm with the VCL-ECU2 converter for my wide landscapes and the 18-200 or possibly the 18-200 Pz for some wildlife photography and even on eBay it’s a lot more than what I paid for the camera. On the other hand, my experience is with old Canon 35mm film photography (which I really miss, everything has gotten so complicated now with these new electronic menus) and I still have some pretty good lenses left hanging around and the price of some of the newer Canon, Rikonon and Sigma lenses compared to the Sony e mount make it possibly worthwhile to get the converter and go that route.

Getting back to my two questions and knowing from my hedgehog reading that I will get mostly good advice here goes:
1. Do I bight the price bullet and stay with the Sony e mount lenses, also knowing that they have the stabilization built in that I wish was in my camera body?
2. Do I get a converter and if so what’s the general consensus on preference?

PS Sort of a new thought that’s been rolling around in my head lately, did I get the wrong camera to begin with and go ahead and move up to the full frame Sony or Canon models that not only have full frame sensors due to wanting wide angle shots and the 1.5 conversion I now have makes even a 16 really a 24mm plus you get in body stabilization not in lens.

Thanks in advance for any input and I hope this really gets everyone thinking about this. I haven’t had time for the photography I so much loved when I was young and now that I’m finally getting ready to retire in a few years and want to visit places like Iceland and the Patagonia mtns and take some great shots that I can blow up to 3’ x 5’ or larger like that Peter Lik guy does. I have a few years to practice and get used to these new cameras so please help put me on the right path equipment wise before I invest any more money and time on equipment.