NEX 6 lens choice - 18-55, 18-105, 16-70 ... or new system?

Started Mar 31, 2014 | Discussions thread
Caris Regular Member • Posts: 319
Re: NEX 6 lens choice - 18-55, 18-105, 16-70 ... or new system?

trax87 wrote:

After about a year of using my NEX 6, I have determined that, while I am not averse to using primes, for the type of shooting that I do I generally prefer zoom lenses for convenience. I am not, however, happy with the 16-50pz kit lens I have been using -- I love the size and wider angle, and I am not particularly unhappy with the image quality, but I find it awkward to use because of the power zoom. So, with that in mind I have been thinking of replacing it. That has opened up a can of worms.

I could get the 18-55, which is pretty inexpensive, but if I am buying a new all-purpose walk around lens, I would prefer something a little longer so that I wouldn't be changing lenses as often. Also, as I do use the wide end of the 16-50, I would probably miss it. The new Sony 18-105 G lens is a nice range on the long end, but I do lose the wider angle. Plus it’s big and is also a power zoom, so I probably should rule that out. The new 16-70 is the obvious solution, but at about $1k it is not inexpensive and it has also gotten somewhat mixed reviews.

So where does that leave me? I can pay up and buy the 16-70, but the price is a little hard to swallow, especially when I know I can get the 18-55 for about 1/10th the price and I already have the 55-210 and the 16mm pancake. Not as convenient to use those as the 16-70, and probably somewhat less quality, but certainly less expensive. So that's question #1. What are your thoughts as between those two options (18-55 vs. 16-70)?

Assuming I decided I was willing to invest an additional grand, I then start to wonder about alternative systems. If what I am looking for are two good zoom lenses to cover at least 16-200mm combined (i.e., 24-300mm equivalent) and a fast prime (I currently have the 35/1.8), could I get better quality/price compared to what Sony offers in e-mount if I went to micro 4/3. I haven't really done any research lately, but I know there are more options for lenses in that format.

At the end of the day, I’m a hobbyist at best and photography isn’t my only hobby. For my use currently, a good walk-around zoom lens, a tele-zoom and one fast normal prime are probably the three most useful lenses, with the first likely to get the most use. Going forward, who knows?

While money is always a consideration, and I have noted my concerns about cost, it is not necessarily the primary one. A good value and flexibility to grow as my interest and skills grow are also considerations.

So, any thoughts about the above are appreciated. I ask realizing that all of you will have your own biases, finances, experiences, etc., but each of you can nonetheless provide a fresh perspective. And that's what I can use.

Thanks for reading this far and indulging my rather long post.

We are all in the same boat. The price of the 1670 is a joke. Yes, you will gain additional 20mm ( or 15 if you compare to the 1855 ) plus a little bit more contrast but not sharpness. Unless you shoot models at the tele end or kids portraits where you want a bit more subject isolation at f4 ( which I suspect you don't ) , the 1670 will not give much more than you already have.

I bought a second ( black ) copy of the 1855 for $70 and there is nothing except additional reach that I can't do with it comparing to the 1670. I have yet to see any photo ( here or on Flickr ) taken with the 1670 ( except for the models shots ) that will convince me otherwise.

On another note, I am wondering why Sigma has not come up with a walk-around zoom for the e-mount. Sony restrictions?

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