tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post8548045803747992463..comments2024-03-18T01:15:17.741-07:00Comments on Better Family Photos: Look Before You Leap: the Sony a6000 and a5100 lens guide360 Rumorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01173469932778454315noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-81348385498930958572015-02-20T11:20:12.281-08:002015-02-20T11:20:12.281-08:00Hi Andrey. I'm glad you like your Zeiss lens! ...Hi Andrey. I'm glad you like your Zeiss lens! I wish I had experience using the Contax G lenses, but I don't... :) <br /><br />Best regards,<br />Mic360 Rumorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173469932778454315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-59190342492944409622015-02-20T10:58:50.395-08:002015-02-20T10:58:50.395-08:00Hi Mike,
I have an a6000 with a 16/50, Zeiss Touit...Hi Mike,<br />I have an a6000 with a 16/50, Zeiss Touit 32 1.8 and just picked up a Contax G 90 with an adapter to kick around. I found I like the images from the Contax. What do you think about the other G lenses, 21mm/28mm/35mm/45mm?Andrey Enghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127075456669051999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-48392692065640101602015-02-15T13:05:20.416-08:002015-02-15T13:05:20.416-08:00Yes you're right. I suggest choosing systems b...Yes you're right. I suggest choosing systems before choosing cameras. In my case i chose Sony because of their sensors (it seems m43 and Fuji sensors have plateaued for a few years now) and the af technology as implemented in cameras such as the a6000. They do have limited lenses but they do have the lenses i wanted (35 1.8 for general purpose and 50 1.8 for portraits) so it was good enough for me. I knew they didnt have enough telephotos but I dont need one and I have a Stylus 1 for that. As for size, for me it is significantly smaller than Nikon and I wanted to use live view so thats why I switched from Nikon. <br /><br />Best regards,<br />Mic360 Rumorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173469932778454315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-22468831904489294912015-02-15T02:24:29.177-08:002015-02-15T02:24:29.177-08:00That's the problem with Sony E lenses, not muc...That's the problem with Sony E lenses, not much choice between kit ones and almost pro grade others. Also, they are big for a small camera.<br /><br />No I'm not really bashing Sony, I've 2 Nex ones...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-70426888860904205812015-02-13T10:09:39.060-08:002015-02-13T10:09:39.060-08:00Hmm that's a tough one. As far as I know, for...Hmm that's a tough one. As far as I know, for Sony E-mount, there is currently no do-it-all lens that is better than the kit lens and at the same time cheaper.<br /><br />If you are open to considering Nikon, I think the Nikon 18-140 VR might fit your criteria: it is sharper than either of the Nikon kit lenses, and a used one will be within the price range you want.<br /><br />If you are really decided in getting the Sony a6000 and sticking with the Sony E-mount, and your objective is to get the best lens for what you can afford, then my suggestion would be to forgo versatility in favor of quality. Specifically, I would get prime lens(es) instead of a zoom lens. When I first started using prime lenses, I was worried about losing the versatility of a zoom. However, I got used to prime lenses quickly, and now I don't feel dependent on zooms.<br /><br />If that is something you are open to considering, I would check out the Sony 35 1.8 and/or the Sony 50 1.8. If those are out of the price range, I would consider the Sigma 30 2.8 and Sigma 60 2.8, both of which are optically excellent yet very inexpensive, although they focus more slowly compared to the Sony lenses.<br /><br />Another possibility is if your shots are usually setup and not candid, you can get older manual focus lenses (even for other systems, as long as you have an adapter).<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Mic360 Rumorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173469932778454315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-9413055786851699342015-02-12T20:15:32.337-08:002015-02-12T20:15:32.337-08:00Thanks for the reply! I've been eyeing the 18-...Thanks for the reply! I've been eyeing the 18-105 f4, seems to be mentioned a lot on other forums as well. But my budget doesn't fit it at the moment. Do you have any suggestions for a good all around lens that is comparable to the price of kit lens, but better performance? Under 350-400? If there's such a thing... I read good and bad things about the kit lens and I just want to make sure I invest in the best piece for what I can afford. But again, I am by no means a professional, just looking for the next best lens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-4507599047217891792015-02-10T10:33:02.706-08:002015-02-10T10:33:02.706-08:00Hi there! Thanks for checking out the blog.
The ...Hi there! Thanks for checking out the blog.<br /><br />The lens selection looks bewildering, but if you look at only the categories that pertain to you, it's much easier to line up your choices. If you want a do-it-all lens, you may want to consider the 18-105 f4 (here is a review of it: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2014/12/sony-18-105-f4-g-oss-review.html ). It can be used for portraits. For sports, it depends on how far you are. 105mm (158mm equivalent) is not that long, so if you can't be at the sidelines, you may want to supplement the 18-105 with a lens with longer reach such as the 55-210 or if budget allows, the 70-200 f4.<br /><br />Also, do you need an APS-C size sensor? If you are ok with a smaller sensor, you may want to consider the Sony RX10, the Panasonic FZ-1000, or even a Nikon 1 camera. They all have 1-inch sensors which have substantially better image quality than a typical point and shoot. The FZ1000 also has DFD which allows it to focus quickly (useful for sports). The Nikon 1 cameras have very fast hybrid phase detection autofocus, and have a very high burst rate (as much as 60 fps) making them great for sports.<br /><br />As for macro, I'm not aware of a do-it-all lens that has true macro capabilities. The closest thing I can think of is the Nikon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 AF-D, an old and relatively inexpensive lens that could reach 1:2 macro ratio. On an APS-C body, 28mm is not wide, but you might be able to make-do without a wide lens. On the long end, again 105mm is not that long, so the same considerations apply as for the Sony 18-105.<br /><br />If you're going to get the a6000, I would suggest looking at the Sony 30 3.5, which is a true macro lens for E-mount, with a 1:1 macro ratio. Fortunately, it is reasonably priced. If you want to take your product shots to the next level, I would also strongly recommend learning about lighting and flash if you haven't already. I highly recommend the book Light: Science and Magic. You can use inexpensive radio-controlled flashes such as the YN-560IV.<br /><br />I hope this helps!<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Mic360 Rumorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173469932778454315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-63178636948945751102015-02-09T22:13:28.905-08:002015-02-09T22:13:28.905-08:00Hi there, I'm planning on purchasing the a6000...Hi there, I'm planning on purchasing the a6000 body only but i am having trouble trying to figure out the best lens to pair it with. I'm somewhat of a beginner with mirrorless cameras in general; I would be using the camera for portraits, sports and outdoors (I have active and crazy kids), and mostly for taking still photos of items for my shop. I take photos of items and objects up close so I'm looking for a lens that would be good for macro shots. Is there an all-around lens that I could purchase for most of my needs? Looking for something within the price range equivalent to the kit lens (both Sony 16-50mm and Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3). I feel like I should invest in a quality lens to suit my needs instead of getting the kit lens and ending up purchasing a better lens, not that the kit lens is bad. But from what I read especially from your standpoint, there seems to be endless possibilities and I'm not sure where to start.<br /><br />Thanks in advance!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-63329784659475248152015-02-08T14:05:32.816-08:002015-02-08T14:05:32.816-08:00Hi there! The 35mm and 50mm are different in purpo...Hi there! The 35mm and 50mm are different in purpose so it depends what you usually take photos of. The 35mm is general purpose, somewhat like the 16-50 in terms of versatility. The 50mm is somewhat like a portrait lens. It is less versatile than the 35mm but for portraits and other photos that require a longer focal length it will be better. <br /><br />Are you keeping the 16-50? If you are, you may want to get the 50 first because that is more different from the 16-50, so they complement each other better. If you are selling the 16-50, and you will have only one lens, the 35 will cover more types of photos than the 50mm. <br /><br />I hope this helps!<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Mic360 Rumorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173469932778454315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-73422362851273835292015-02-08T02:28:19.956-08:002015-02-08T02:28:19.956-08:00Hi! I would like to ask for your advice on choosin...Hi! I would like to ask for your advice on choosing a lens for my Sony a5100. I would be upgrading from a kit lens which is a Sony 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 Power Zoom with OSS. Between the Sony 35mm and 50mm primes, which of the two should i get?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-84817245083561472792014-12-03T14:02:41.644-08:002014-12-03T14:02:41.644-08:00Hi Chris! Sorry I don't have personal experie...Hi Chris! Sorry I don't have personal experience with that lens (other than seeing it in stores). It is nice that it is compact and seems to be very quick at autofocus. Despite those advantages, the reason I'm not interested in it is the narrow aperture. It is up to 2 stops slower than the Sony RX100 III or Panasonic LX100. If the 16-50 is the only lens you plan to get, then I think at around 800 ISO or above, you could use an ISO that is up to 2 stops lower on the RX100 or LX100, which would yield a higher image quality. (To be fair, if the conditions are such that you can use up to ISO 400 on the a6000, the a6000 would have better image quality, even if you use a lower ISO on the LX100 or RX100.)<br /><br />One alternative may be to buy used lenses. It seems that Sony E-mount lenses tend to have disproportionately lower resale values compared to their equivalents for Canon or Nikon.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Mic360 Rumorshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173469932778454315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361251099864607419.post-12109096100799787402014-12-03T13:18:59.486-08:002014-12-03T13:18:59.486-08:00Would you be able to comment on performance of the...Would you be able to comment on performance of the kit lens, Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS? I like the idea of a walk around compact small camera capable of making high quality images, but don't want to heavily invest in the higher end Sony or Zeiss glass.Chris S.noreply@blogger.com