Sony E-lenses or FE-lenses on Sony a6000

Started Mar 13, 2014 | Discussions thread
wb2trf Veteran Member • Posts: 3,037
Re: Probably should stick with APS-C emount

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I wouldn't buy FE lenses now. They have only disadvantages for the A6000 over native e mount: they are larger, don't have OIS and are more costly. They are not meaningfully sharper than available emount glass. You can always sell your emount lenses on ebay or CL, if you want to do so later. What I might do, possibly, is carefully buy used lenses on ebay or CL so that you minimize your costs now and later, or if so convinced that FF was in my future, buy A7 now. It's shipping. A6000 is not yet.

FE35 is smaller than E35 (by virtue of being f/2.8)

OK, so it has a different disadvantage. It's slower but not larger.

and FE55 is virtually identical to E24 in size.

but larger than the E50.

The E50 isn't quite a small lens either.

We're not talking absolutes.  The question is not "should I get 4/3 because the lenses are smaller" it is "comparing these two," which should I do?

As for OSS, it is largely because these two primes are Zeiss and place IQ above all else.

Not to any significant benefit do they delete that feature however.  When looking at DXOMark's comparison of the E50 vs. FE55 on the Nex 7 there's no big IQ edge of the FE55. Sometimes IS is useful for stills, and it always for video.

It is also you will find Canon using IS on cheaper lenses but not on L primes except at very long FL.

That might explain a fact is not present: if the FE55 on the Nex7 was much better than the E50, which it is not, then it would be useful to see that Canon L agrees with Zeiss. But, since it is not materially better, why is it relevant what Canon does?  This isn't a church where we pay homage to certain demigods like "L lenses".  We're just trying to offer current best rationality.

One could go E lenses even with plans to upgrade to FF at some point but now you will have to also replace each of those lenses (E24 with FE35, E35 with FE55, E50 with FE85 and so on). Or, you could invest in FF lenses now and simply pick up a FF body.

Yes but you a) you will add bulk and lose features, as I have said, b) and you will have fewer lenses, or lower quality ones, because of the much higher cost of FE lenses that deliver no benefits now.  For the price of the FE55 (no better than the E50 on APS-C) you can get the E50 and the E35 and the Sigma 19  or whatever.  How does one argue that the FE55 delivers advantages that offset such lineups at the same aggregate price on the A6000?

Lenses are like currency. When you want something new, you put them on ebay and in 7 days you have bumped up your paypal balance and they're gone.  No biggy.

I bought DT 35/1.8 (A-mount) and that will remain my last APSc prime on A-mount. I have since replaced it with E35 as I plan on staying APSc with E-mount. But on A-mount, none of my primes are crop sensor. They are all FF. When shopping for a macro lens, I skipped over Tamron 60/2 and picked up Sigma 70/2.8 because the former is APSc lens. Such planning can help make moving to FF easier. I keep two APSc zooms (16-50/2.8 and 18-250 OS) but only because FF zooms go from 24mm.

But these aren't arguments, except ad hominem.  The OP could have said "What did you do?" but I think he asked "What should one do?"  We're trying to help him, not commend ourselves.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow