Longer lens for Sony A6400
Jun 9, 2020 12:04:49 #
iamimdoc wrote:
I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ).... (show quote)
Good morning lamimdoc. I reading your question, I note that you routinely shoot up to 200mm eq. I’ve been a Sony A6xxx series for several years, and currently have the A6300 with both the 16-50 and 55-210mm zoom kit lenses. And yes, while neither lens gets rave reviews, I find them both to perform quite well. However, I found that I needed more zoom than the 16-50 gives me, and I picked up the very good Sony 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens. This lens satisfies the vast majority of the focal lengths I need. I rarely need more, however the E-mount 18-200 zoom is a great lens, and with it you reduce your kit to one lens. It’s a little heavier than the 55-210, but much lighter than the 24-240 FF lens, and a lot less expensive, plus it gives you a wider range of focal lengths. Sony also has a 70-300 E-mount zoom for the APS-C format, but it looks to be pretty heavy. Personally, based on what you describe, the 18-200 would be a great lens, and by using clear image zoom (JPEG, only) you extend your zoom range to 400mm eq.
Jun 9, 2020 12:27:54 #
I also have the a6000. I like the 55-210 because it will fit in a pants or shirt pocket when traveling light. If you are not thrilled with the Clear Image Zoom feature then you may consider an older Minolta lens 70-300mm plus the LA-EA4 adapter. The older Minolta lens is dirt cheep on eBay. You will most likely pay more for the Sony adapter than the lens but you can use it with the hundreds of A-mount lenses out there.
Jun 9, 2020 12:42:20 #
Bazbo
Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
iamimdoc wrote:
I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ).... (show quote)
I had the dm frustration. The Sony crop sensor lenses are not very good teles. I finally settled on the Sony FF 70-200 and am quite happy with it.
Because it is FF, it is a little heavy and long for the 6xxx series, but it is fast and sharp. And because it is FF you have a little more reach than 200mm.
Jun 9, 2020 13:24:03 #
I really like the 70-350 that I use with my A6600. It's a bit short for birds, but a lot lighter than my 150-600 Sigma alternative!
Sample attached at 350mm, f6.3, 1/1600
Sample attached at 350mm, f6.3, 1/1600
Jun 9, 2020 16:26:38 #
skylinefirepest
Loc: Southern Pines, N.C.
I have the A 77 and I use a Sony 18-250 on it all the time...because of what I do ( wrecks and fires mostly ) it's ideal because I can get right in the car with a rescue and not be in anyone's way. Then I can back off to near the 18 end of the lens and get the whole scene. I really love the combination except for the weight...I did a three hour fatal wreck last week and could hardly move my head at the end of the day!
Jun 9, 2020 19:28:47 #
I have the Sony a6000 plus the 55-210, which at times comes up short for me. I’ve got my eye on the Sony 70-350 which is specifically designed for the crop sensor cameras (as compared to the Sony 70-300 lens for full frame). I’ve heard great things about the 70-350 when paired with the 6400, 6500, and 6600! Good luck!
Jun 9, 2020 19:34:44 #
The Sony 70-300 is actually a full frame e-mount lens and you are right it is a bit big and heavy for the a6xxx cameras. The newer Sony 70-350 is specifically designed for crop sensor E-mount cameras.
Jun 9, 2020 19:43:23 #
iamimdoc wrote:
I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ).... (show quote)
My BEST recommendation for you is the Sigma MC11 adapter with the Canon 70-300 IS II nano lens - which I have used on the 6400 ......a match made in heaven ....! about $600 .....or better if you shop
.
Jun 9, 2020 23:04:36 #
timcc
Loc: Virginia
I have used the 55-210 on my a6000 for about 4 years and am very pleased with it. In good light, it focuses well and provides images that are sharp and have good color. It is small and light-weight, so perfect for travel, hiking, etc., and it balances on the a6000 very well. All the Blue Angel photos on my website were taken with the 55-210, as well as the bird and other distant shots in my other albums. I recommend the 55-210 except for low-light shots.
https://timcrossphotos.shutterfly.com/pictures
https://timcrossphotos.shutterfly.com/pictures
Jun 10, 2020 00:39:45 #
timcc wrote:
I have used the 55-210 on my a6000 for about 4 yea... (show quote)
Those are some pretty nice photos. Thanks for the link.
I got the 18-135 because that is the focal range I use the most, and it relieves me of having to change lenses. Were I looking for a longer lens, I think I’d still go for the 18-200, for the same reason. The 70-350 provides a great telephoto reach, but it’s a bit long on the wide end. I don’t know what it weighs, but I’m guessing it’s quite a bit heavier than the 55-210.
Jun 10, 2020 13:26:28 #
timcc
Loc: Virginia
Wingpilot wrote:
Those are some pretty nice photos. Thanks for the link.
I got the 18-135 because that is the focal range I use the most, and it relieves me of having to change lenses. Were I looking for a longer lens, I think I’d still go for the 18-200, for the same reason. The 70-350 provides a great telephoto reach, but it’s a bit long on the wide end. I don’t know what it weighs, but I’m guessing it’s quite a bit heavier than the 55-210.
I got the 18-135 because that is the focal range I use the most, and it relieves me of having to change lenses. Were I looking for a longer lens, I think I’d still go for the 18-200, for the same reason. The 70-350 provides a great telephoto reach, but it’s a bit long on the wide end. I don’t know what it weighs, but I’m guessing it’s quite a bit heavier than the 55-210.
Thanks! I agree that there are better telephoto lenses. I don't make large prints or shoot many birds in flight, so higher image quality may be more important for those who do. As you suggest, any higher quality, more expensive lenses are likely to be considerably larger and heavier. The 55-210 is light and easy to store.
Jun 10, 2020 19:07:46 #
timcc wrote:
Thanks! I agree that there are better telephoto lenses. I don't make large prints or shoot many birds in flight, so higher image quality may be more important for those who do. As you suggest, any higher quality, more expensive lenses are likely to be considerably larger and heavier. The 55-210 is light and easy to store.
Yeah, I never saw a problem with the 55-210, other than it was just inconvenient to have to change out lenses all the time.
Jun 10, 2020 20:19:03 #
I checked the specs for the Sony 70-350. If I didn’t already have a Nice setup for FF Sony cameras a7riii and a7iii with the 70-300G as well as the 200-600G I would opt for the 70-350 for my a6000. That extra reach vs the 55-210 would be nice. But the pocket ability of the 55-210 is very desirable
Jun 10, 2020 20:48:44 #
ORpilot wrote:
I checked the specs for the Sony 70-350. If I didn’t already have a Nice setup for FF Sony cameras a7riii and a7iii with the 70-300G as well as the 200-600G I would opt for the 70-350 for my a6000. That extra reach vs the 55-210 would be nice. But the pocket ability of the 55-210 is very desirable
That’s right.
Jun 10, 2020 23:16:59 #
iamimdoc wrote:
I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ).... (show quote)
This new 28-200 F2.8 zoom from Tamron may be worth waiting for.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/tamron-reveals-28-200mm-f28-56-all-in-one-zoom-for-sony?utm_medium=Email%201810869&utm_campaign=NewAnnouncement&utm_source=Tamron%20200610&utm_content=Explora&utm_term=tamronReadmore&encEmail=4E9995C1E9C9F11FFE0E87526E0A2628C574E3FA7E8C0E167ED16E5B57A89D70
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.