Sony a6000? And which lens?
Dec 15, 2015 04:25:00 #
Wingpilot wrote:
You're right about the A mount lenses. Unfortunately, they don't fit on an E mount camera without an adapter. The dedicated E mount lenses seem to be just OK, or pretty good. Not saying they're bad, and for a lot of folks they are just fine. But it seems that they don't meet critical analysis compared to others.
Greg, when you write "dedicated E mount lenses", I take it you're referring to their zooms, specifically ~ no?
Dec 15, 2015 04:36:26 #
Wingpilot wrote:
It would seem that Sony lenses, while they're ok, don't appear to be superb lenses. And they're expensive for what they are, at least as pertains to the zooms. Unfortunately, unless one wants to invest in a huge number of fixed focal lenses in order to cover all distances, a zoom lens is necessary. Given that, one will have to learn to operate within the parameters of the lens and accept whatever shortcomings there might be.
I've been led to believe that most zoom lenses, regardless of manufacturer, tend to have some rather similar shortcomings ~ "sweet spot" being just one of them (which may actually be a blessing, rather than a "shortcoming", once the photographer has discovered exactly where that setting is). Apparently, there are some that do a significantly better job of avoiding the inherent weakness of the zoom concept than do others.
"Trust" in consistent quality control on zooms, is my biggest doubt.
Dec 15, 2015 09:06:15 #
le boecere wrote:
Greg, when you write "dedicated E mount lenses", I take it you're referring to their zooms, specifically ~ no?
Dedicated E-mount lenses, otherwise called "native" lenses, ones specifically designed for that mount. That applies to both fixed focal length and zoom lenses.
Dec 15, 2015 09:11:55 #
le boecere wrote:
I've been led to believe that most zoom lenses, re... (show quote)
When you look at the lists of lenses, such as B&H, Best Buy, etc. you see the inexpensive lenses, the ones most of is can afford. These ones are most likely to have "issues." Going down the list, we come to the "pro" lenses, which many of us would like to own, and these are the ones most likely to have the quality and performance the most consistent. Unfortunately this high quality comes with a hefty price tag. So we learn how to use the less expensive gear and work around those areas that aren't so sharp.
Dec 15, 2015 13:44:55 #
le boecere wrote:
Rob, I've often wondered why some folks spend a lot of time and money seeking out a camera with the perfect IQ, and then they put one of these huge zooms on it, that are not known for their IQ prowess, except when set to their individual "sweet spot".
It's just human nature, to crave all of that Zoom Range! The more, the merrier! But it's a straight trade off, with the image quality. You get away with it very nicely with the expensive ($1,498.00) FE 70-200 G OSS; that is, a very specially made lens, that is really built properly, and does "it's thing," just right! I've seen, so many reviews, on that lens, that my head spins! It is expensive! You must pay, for that kind of sterling performance. it is the kind of a lens that you may need to decide to save up for, to get one,...but when you do...you will be a happy camper! That lens scored a very high, 27, on DXOMARK.com's, Lens Test! It is VERY High Quality, Glass! To get a great, very wide, focal length lens, you MUST, pay for it! Otherwise, you MUST, either, limit the focal length range, or, compromise on the image quality, somewhat. For example: The E PZ 18-105 G OSS, is a good example of nice lens, where they compromised a bit, on image quality, and kept down the focal range. It scored a 15, on that same DXOMARK,com test, which is decent for a lens of this design. The E 18-200, is a lens, where they had to take things a bit too far; it scores as low as 9, the lowest of all of the Sony lenses, yet a 12, for it's "LE Version." (Which is actually made by Tamaron.) There are always trade offs in lenses, due to the laws of physics, and cost. It is simply a matter of selecting the ideal balance point, for your own needs and desires.
Dec 15, 2015 14:01:49 #
Wingpilot wrote:
When you look at the lists of lenses, such as B&am... (show quote)
The E 50mm f/1.8, has been tested, and rated at 25, which is very high! by DXOMARK.com, in their very thorough, and scientific testing!...you cannot, say, that all, E-mount lenses, are poor!
That, is incorrect! It does, depend, on the individual lens! You must, research, the individual lens! To determine it's quality...
Dec 15, 2015 14:44:14 #
BIG ROB wrote:
The E 50mm f/1.8, has been tested, and rated at 25, which is very high! by DXOMARK.com, in their very thorough, and scientific testing!...you cannot, say, that all, E-mount lenses, are poor!
That, is incorrect! It does, depend, on the individual lens! You must, research, the individual lens! To determine it's quality...
That, is incorrect! It does, depend, on the individual lens! You must, research, the individual lens! To determine it's quality...
But you need to read my post. You will notice that nowhere did I say that ALL E-mount lenses are bad, but I did say "most likely." I did say that Pro quality series E-mount lenses tend to be of superior quality. But every once in awhile, you run across one of the others that scores well.
Dec 15, 2015 15:10:20 #
le boecere wrote:
Rob, I've often wondered why some folks spend a lot of time and money seeking out a camera with the perfect IQ, and then they put one of these huge zooms on it, that are not known for their IQ prowess, except when set to their individual "sweet spot".
They just have to have, that zoom range!
Dec 15, 2015 17:37:31 #
le boecere wrote:
If you mean the 18-105mm f/4 G, it appears to me that this may be the most reasonable be all/do all zoom compromise in the E-mount line. Thanks for the testimony.
That's not a huge zoom...but significant...a wide to medium/long zoom.
I love the range of my 18-135 APS-C Canon lens. (29-216 eqiv.),
better than my 70-200.
Hey! I just ordered, a Metabones, Canon EF/EF-S to Sony E, Adapter!!!
And my Canon EF 50f/1.8 STM & EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM just arrived by UPS!
Dec 19, 2015 19:22:23 #
Dec 20, 2015 13:46:31 #
casanmark wrote:
Go with Zeiss 55/1.8. Expensive but worth it
That is, Sony's sharpest Lens by far, with a Rating by DXOMARK.com of 45! It costs $998.00, and I just had $2,400.00, to spend on Photo Gear, and I seriously considered, buying it, but finally, decided that it wasn't "worth it," to me, personally.
Everyone evaluates there own individual equipment needs and requirements differently. It certainly IS, an Ultimate, Lens! I just finally decided, that I, didn't want, to soak, a grand, into it, relative, to how often, I expected, to be using, that Focal Length!
I finally, bit for the Nikon D7200, w/AFS 18-140, f/3.5-5.6, G ED VR DX, and an AFS 50 f/1.8, D and a Metabones Adapter, for my Sony A6000, to Canon EF/EF-S Lenses, and I also bought a Couple of Canon Lenses: EF 50 f/1.8, And EF-S 10-18, f/4.5-6.3; I already own, the EF-S 18-135, f/3.5-5.6 IS, and EF 70-200, f/4 L ; and I just bought Lens Hoods, for three, and Filters for six Lenses, and three Books, on the Nikon D7200, and had some cash left over!
I've also got, a mint Canon T2i, that I love. For the Sony A6000, I have an, E PZ 16-50, and an E 55-210, and I still need to Pick Up a Tripod! ... I have a Good Mono Pod. I also need to get Lightroom 6 and some Books on it!
It is getting rough to store all of this stuff...any ideas? I only have a couple of small to medium small bags...a Lowepro 202 and smaller.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.