Lknack Loc: NOCO

After a couple years back into photography I finally have the kit that works for me, with the exception of a couple items, ok maybe 3.
I have been using a Sony a6400 with the Sony 18-135 and the Sony 70-350. Getting to this point I have accumulated some lenses and an a6000 body that I don’t use anymore.
I plan on selling the stuff I don’t use to pay for one of the following. I won’t have enough for both right now. I only do stills-no video.
Sony 90mm macro or Sony a6600.
Now here’s the questions—
-Is the 6600 worth getting over the 6400? Basically, larger battery, stabilization and a couple extra custom buttons.
-Is the 90mm macro worth getting over a set of extension tubes and using with the 2 lenses I already have. Both the 18-135 and the 70-350 are pretty sharp.
Thanks for any advise.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

A larger battery and stabilization is definitely worth having. Also, I was a no video guy for a long time, then I gave it a try. I now usually carry at least 2 cameras, one for stills only and one for video.
As for the lens part of your question; I don't use Sony gear so I can't really comment. I use Canon and Nikon gear. I do have a Canon 18-135 lens I use often and my utility lens is my Canon 28-300.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

The Sony 90mm macro lens is a very good lens, and a dedicated macro lens is the best choice. Also, a 90mm, you won’t have to get so close to your subject, which is a good thing if you’re shooting things like spiders and other creepy-crawly things that don’t like you infringing on their space. I have the same 18-135 zoom lens that I use on my A6300, as well as a set of extension tubes. I have to get pretty close to my subjects, but fortunately I just shoot flowers!!

repleo Loc: Boston

Your existing lenses have OSS in-lens stabilization, so you won't gain an awful lot by going with IBIS in the A6600. The FE 90mm Macro is an excellent lens and is also OSS. I think it would open up much more opportunities for you compared to a body upgrade.

1Feathercrest Loc: NEPA

Do you know the difference between "advise" and "advice"?

1Feathercrest Loc: NEPA

Do you know the difference between "advise" and "advice"?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

My advice is always the same. Read the online reviews and comparisons. "In normal shooting conditions it’s very unlikely that you are going to spot any differences in image quality between these three cameras."

https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+a6400+vs+sony+a6600&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS911US911&oq=sony+a6400+vs+sony+a6600&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l6.9631j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

[quote=Lknack]After a couple years back into photography I finally have the kit that works for me, with the exception of a couple items, ok maybe 3.
I have been using a Sony a6400 with the Sony 18-135 and the Sony 70-350. Getting to this point I have accumulated some lenses and an a6000 body that I don’t use anymore.
I plan on selling the stuff I don’t use to pay for one of the following. I won’t have enough for both right now. I only do stills-no video.
Sony 90mm macro or Sony a6600.
Now here’s the questions—
-Is the 6600 worth getting over the 6400? Basically, larger battery, stabilization and a couple extra custom buttons.
-Is the 90mm worth getting over a set of extension tubes and using with the 2 lenses I already have. Both the 18-135 and the 70-350 are pretty sharp.

NO and YES.

Leitz Loc: Solms

A macro lens is best for flat copy and handier for moving subjects. For static three-dimensional subjects your present lenses with extension tubes will produce excellent results, little or no loss of image quality up to at least 1:1 magnification. I set my lens at infinity, select the magnification with the zoom and move in or out to focus.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Watch out you are risking getting lambasted by the Holier than thou crowd. And "oh geez" you did it twice!!! LOL

Eric Bornstein Loc: Toronto Canada

Diction and syntax are often disregarded, inadvertently. However, one should not ‘lambaste’ the perpetrator for we don’t know the facts behind. I know that the ensuing discussions can be humourless but they are usually mean. You lost an opportunity of a teaching moment x

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Grammatically correct or not, I think we all know what the title to the thread is. Why nitpick? Pointless.

Lknack Loc: NOCO

Thanks to all who took the time and effort to get around my grammar for the responses.
Thanks to Billnikon---his answer is what I was looking for.

Thanks all--

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

A true macro lens will give you better image quality than most zoom/extension tube combinations. So I would think that would be your best purchase.

But there's no way I'd spend $1100 for the Sony 90mm macro lens. That's overpriced. That's one of the most expensive 90-to-105mm class macro lenses from any manufacutrer.

Get the Sigma 105mm instead. It costs $569 and is one of the best macro lenses available. It compares very, very well to the Sony and is almost half the price. Here the Sigma lens I'm referencing is the current model, which has been available for several years. There's a new version of the Sigma 105mm coming soon. Both versions are part of Sigma's "Art" series. The new lens also has the "DN" designation Sigma has begun using on their lenses for mirrorless cameras (both lenses are also "DG", which is Sigma's designation for lenses that are full frame capable). I don't know much about the new 105mm other than the published specs, which don't tell us much other than it will use a different optical formula. The new lens is going to be more expensive too, at least initially ($799). The older model also used to be more expensive, over $900 at one point. But Sigma has been offering it with significant discounts for about a year, so I'm not surprised to see a new model introduced.

There also is a Tokina FiRIN 100mm f/2.8 macro for Sony e-mount. I don't know much about it. It is a little more expensive than the Sigma and it's not an internal focusing lens (the Sigma is), which means it will grow longer when focused closer, reducing working distance between the front of the lens and the subject (which is different from the minimum focus distance or MFD spec that lens manufacturers cite).

And there are two versions of 90mm Tamron macro lenses... but AFAIK they aren't offering either for e-mount. There are also a number of manual focus macro lenses from various manufacturers.

I'm not terribly familiar with all the nuances of the different Sony APS-C models. But after a glance at some of the many websites comparing the a6400 to the a6600, it appears to me that the primary difference between them is what you mention: In-body stabilization offered by the a6600, but not on the a6400. And the larger battery in the a6600 (which makes its grip larger and the camera a little heavier).

OTOH, it appears the a6400 has a built-in flash (probably of questionable usefulness, like most built in flashes), which the a6400 doesn't? The a6400 also rated to have slight higher dynamic range and color depth than the a6600. Very little, though. Probably not enough that you could tell any difference looking at images from both cameras side-by-side.

It looks like a6000 are selling used for $300 to $500... so you could end up spending an additional $800 to $1000 to get an a6600.

Not sure that the upgrade is worth it, since both your lenses are OSS with in-lens stabilization (the Sony 90mm or Sigma 105mm macro are also stabilized... the Tokina is not).

A spare battery is a whole lot cheaper than an a6600.

Some comparisons of a6600 to a6400:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-alpha-a6600-vs-a6500-vs-a6400-comparison-33943
https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-a6100-vs-a6400-vs-a6600/
https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-a6600-vs-Sony-Alpha-a6400
https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/sony-a6100-vs-a6400-vs-a6600/
https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/a6400/vs/sony/a6600/
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6975583891/sony-a6000-a6100-a6300-a6400-a6500-a6600-what-s-the-difference-and-which-should-i-buy
https://versus.com/en/sony-a6400-vs-sony-a6600

Edit: In other words.... Almost the same as what BillNikon responded! I just can't bring myself to be that succinct.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hey, picking nits is one of the things we do best here!

Where would we be without the grammar police? Our dialogues would become unintelligible nonsense!