Switching from Nikon to Sony?

lélé777004 · Aug 31, 2015

Hello!

I'm considering switching from Nikon to Sony.

My current gear:
- Nikon D300 DSLR,
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR DX 17 - 55 mm f/2.8G IF-ED,
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G,
- Nikon PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D (a very special lens that I struggle to use with the small viewfinder and the dated Live View mode of my D300),
- Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 AI (another very special lens - at leat, very special to me because it comes from my mother former gear),
- Nikon SB-900 flash.
(It would clearly need a the addition of a fast 35mm equivalent lens.)

The issue:
I now have two young children (2.1/2 and 1.1/2 years) and this equipment has become too heavy and too cumbersome to carry. Additionnaly, I don't have enough time to spend to process RAW files, like I used to do during many years and I would like very good JPEG straight from the camera. (D300's JPEG details and colors are far from superb...) I'm also interested in video that my D300 doesn't propose (but it would be a secondary use, just to capture some memories.)
At first, I considered buying a compact camera (Panasonic LX100 or Sony DSC-RX100 Mark III) or a mirrorless camera (Samsung NX500, Panasonic GM5, Fujifilm X-T10...) to complete my gear. But, I quickly realized that I would like one or two (very) fast compact primes in addition to the kit lens, which means injecting quite a lot of money in an additional gear, what I can't/don't want.
On the other hand, I love my 55mm micro and my PC-E 85mm micro and absolutely want to keep them.

The Sony option:
After some thoughts, switching from Nikon to Sony appeared as an option...and I would like your opinion about that !
The plan would be:
- buying a Sony Alpha A5100 or A6000 with the - poor - kit lens (just to have a compact and lightweight 'all-around' lens),
- buying a Nikon lens adapter for the 55mm and PC-E 85mm and progressively sell the rest of my gear,
- progressively, buying two or three fast primes to replace it (probably used lenses for obvious budget reasons), including a fast compact prime that I could carry easily, and probably some vintage lenses (who said Helios?),
- maybe adding a more 'serious' body, when money is OK.

Sounds a good idea?

What would be the restrictions using the Nikon PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D (new version, not the old 'PC') and Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 AI ?

Regards,

Fred

GaryW · Aug 31, 2015

lélé said:
Hello!

I'm considering switching from Nikon to Sony.

I dunno specifically about adapting Nikon lenses, but it seems to me to be a good idea. I consider this range mostly for portraits, perhaps macro, etc., and not something I use every day, so manual focus is more of an option.

If you're able to use both systems -- in other words, not sell your Nikon system immediately -- you could always test the waters and see what you like. You might find occasions where the Nikon makes more sense. But you might also find that the compact Sony is the one you keep taking with you. Yeah, the kit lens is not super, but it is good enough, particularly stopped-down by one stop. But if you really want good quality, you are right about putting on a prime. Even some cheaper primes are good and compact, such as the Sony 20mm and Sigma 30mm. (While everyone recognizes that the 30mm is super-sharp, the 20mm is no slouch, although there continue to be debates about it.)

I agree with you on video. With kids, you want a bit of video of them running around, even if it's some short clips. You never know what interesting things will pop up.

As for raw, I spend very little processing raw files, once I made some tweaks to the settings of the software I currently use. With other software, I felt like I had to spend a lot of time to customize one photo, but now, not as much. However, you can't always expect JPEGs out of the camera to be perfect. I use RAW+JPEG mode, and if the JPEG is good enough, I just use that, but sometimes I want to get more out of a photo; often there is more dynamic range that can be extracted. Out of camera JPEG files are OK, but not the best; noise reduction can be heavy, so I turn that to low.

lélé777004 said:
Regards,

Fred

Dstilio · Aug 31, 2015

lélé said:
Hello!

I'm considering switching from Nikon to Sony.

My current gear:
- Nikon D300 DSLR,

- don't expect durability like the D300 from a Sony mirrorless camera.

lélé777004 said:
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR DX 17 - 55 mm f/2.8G IF-ED,

- You will not find lens equivalent to 17-55 f/2.8 in the Sony field. So, you have to consider whether you use tyhis lens a lot or not.

lélé777004 said:
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G,
- Nikon PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D (a very special lens that I struggle to use with the small viewfinder and the dated Live View mode of my D300),
- Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 AI (another very special lens - at leat, very special to me because it comes from my mother former gear),
- Nikon SB-900 flash.
(It would clearly need a the addition of a fast 35mm equivalent lens.)

The issue:
I now have two young children (2.1/2 and 1.1/2 years) and this equipment has become too heavy and too cumbersome to carry. Additionnaly, I don't have enough time to spend to process RAW files, like I used to do during many years and I would like very good JPEG straight from the camera. (D300's JPEG details and colors are far from superb...)

- Sony jpeg engine is not famous for something. You have some profiles and some settings, but that's it. Not sure what you expect. No special colour rendition or anything.

RAW files from a6000 are also heavy (24 MPixel files).

lélé777004 said:
I'm also interested in video that my D300 doesn't propose (but it would be a secondary use, just to capture some memories.)

- Sony is great at video. The XAVC-S codec (availablt to a6000 via firmware update) offers 50Mb bitrate which is excellent.

- However the NX500 you mention later offers 4K video (even better if you ask me).

lélé777004 said:
At first, I considered buying a compact camera (Panasonic LX100 or Sony DSC-RX100 Mark III)

- both these compacts are great. You should still consider these.

lélé777004 said:
or a mirrorless camera (Samsung NX500, Panasonic GM5, Fujifilm X-T10...) to complete my gear. But, I quickly realized that I would like one or two (very) fast compact primes in addition to the kit lens, which means injecting quite a lot of money in an additional gear, what I can't/don't want.

- The Sony cameras you are looking at are also mirrorless...Also the Sony lenses are quite expensive. Sony will also require to add the fast primes which will be expensive (unless you buy the Sigma e-mount lenses which however support the autofocus functionality only in the center area and not as wide as the native Sony lenses.

lélé777004 said:
On the other hand, I love my 55mm micro and my PC-E 85mm micro and absolutely want to keep them.

- Keep them. You may end up to Nikon again...

lélé777004 said:
The Sony option:
After some thoughts, switching from Nikon to Sony appeared as an option...and I would like your opinion about that !
The plan would be:
- buying a Sony Alpha A5100 or A6000 with the - poor - kit lens (just to have a compact and lightweight 'all-around' lens),

- the kit lens is bad. Think again the compacts you mentioned that have great lenses or the NX500 that has better kit lens.

- or the only alternative, the 16-70 f/4 zoom lens. Unless you are ok with primes. Sony now covers the majority of usual prime lengths.

lélé777004 said:
- buying a Nikon lens adapter for the 55mm and PC-E 85mm and progressively sell the rest of my gear,
- progressively, buying two or three fast primes to replace it (probably used lenses for obvious budget reasons), including a fast compact prime that I could carry easily, and probably some vintage lenses (who said Helios?),

- In total, buying Sony lenses while selling your rest of your Nikon equipment...will require more money from your side than you may think. I suggest to you to search again the prices for the system you are going to enter.

Nikon is cheaper as a System if you consider the plastic fantastc lenses (35,50,85), the third party lenses (Tamron, Sigma), the big second hand market.

lélé777004 said:
- maybe adding a more 'serious' body, when money is OK.

- that's another issue. However the only more serious body in the Sony area are the Full Frame a7 series. Which means different lenses.

lélé777004 said:
Sounds a good idea?

- No. At least from my point of view. I have both Sony a6000 and a Nikon d3300 with lenses ( I need to update my signature...). Two systems, each for different use. I don't see how a Sony will replace your gear. Only if you change your shooting style. I suggest you to borrow/rent and play for some days with a Sony.

lélé777004 said:
What would be the restrictions using the Nikon PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D (new version, not the old 'PC') and Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 AI ?

- Depends on the adapter. Manual or Autofocus?

Apart from any issues to the lenses functionalities, the adapters add size and weight. And the ergonomics will not feel the same. I don;t like using adapters in my a6000. It doesn't handle well. I attached my Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 with an adapter to the a6000 and it felt so wrong. I spent two days trying to shoot...I only used it twice...it feels so wrong...you don't have balance, you feel like the camera mount will break, etc.

- I also have a Helios with an adapter. I never use it nowdays. You play with manual lenses at the beginning, and then you will realize that you cannot shoot photos of your kids running with a manual lens that does not offer something great...so you store it somewhere and you forget you have it. My advice, don't spent money on vintage lenses unless you know that your style and subject allows for slow pace photoshooting.

lélé777004 said:
Regards,

Fred

OmarCCX · Aug 31, 2015

Take a look at the lens lineup. As a body, the A6000 is an excellent camera, but if you can't click with the lenses it has then you won't find it as enjoyable.

I want to build a system around it and I'm thinking, Samyang 12mm ƒ2, Zeiss 24mm ƒ1.8 and ZA 55mm ƒ1.8. That's almost two grand in lenses.

Nex man · Aug 31, 2015

Are you planning to switch to FF eventually? If you are avoid the APS-C lenses. They would need to be replaced when you switch to FF. Its been years since Sony released a new APS-C lens, and after more than a year there are still no updated APS-C bodies on the horizon. Sony stated on several occasions they are 'focusing' ont FF now. I am sure someone will reply with a wild rumor from a forum or blog, but all in the past couple years have turned out to be fake.

If you want to switch, look at an inexpensive A7 and an adapter for legacy lenses. The Sony FE lenses average about $1000 each and may be out of your price range though.

val1 · Aug 31, 2015

OmarCCX said:
Take a look at the lens lineup. As a body, the A6000 is an excellent camera, but if you can't click with the lenses it has then you won't find it as enjoyable.

I want to build a system around it and I'm thinking, Samyang 12mm ƒ2, Zeiss 24mm ƒ1.8 and ZA 55mm ƒ1.8. That's almost two grand in lenses.

....the sigma 19, 30, and 60 are 200$ each and are EXCELLENT performers. The sony 28mm f/2 has some issues on the A7 with field curvature BUT on the A6000 it is a good lens. All of these lenses will give you an image that is plenty sharp. If you want to shoot primes the sony system is excellent. The problem is if you want to shoot zooms. The APSC 10-18 and FE 70-200 are the best E zoom options. All of the mid zooms are weak. So there is nothing on par with your f/2.8.

I will point out that I bought the 18-105g. For the size weight price and performance it is pretty reasonable. It is fantastic for video on the A6000. (yes the lens is parfocal like a video lens...) This set up is a bit larger than you might expect for mirriorless but it does do alot of things well. It is not the best or great at anything but it does alot of things well.

bravomail · Aug 31, 2015

may be try Nikon 7200 ? It has "video"

without AF and of poor quality, but video ;P

See, I've been in the same boat with Pentax. I wanted video. And I thought adapting lens is no problem. But I sorely miss AF. And with kids running and family growing impatient your MF affairs are bound to fail.

So. Get A6000 with whichever lens you like - even kit, just to try waters with video and handling etc - for video I suggest 18-200OSS lens. Your D300 is functional I assume, so keep it.

Ambulater · Aug 31, 2015

For what it's worth, I shoot with some Nikkor glass on my NEX-6 and a6000. You can get pretty inexpensive adapters with decent quality and metal construction. I find this setup works well and produces good results as long as you don't mind manual focus.
--
Chris Lee

MoreorLess · Aug 31, 2015

bravomail said:
may be try Nikon 7200 ? It has "video" without AF and of poor quality, but video ;P

See, I've been in the same boat with Pentax. I wanted video. And I thought adapting lens is no problem. But I sorely miss AF. And with kids running and family growing impatient your MF affairs are bound to fail.

So. Get A6000 with whichever lens you like - even kit, just to try waters with video and handling etc - for video I suggest 18-200OSS lens. Your D300 is functional I assume, so keep it.

Another option might be to sell both the D300 AND the 17-55mm F/2.8 then buy a D610 with a 24-85mm VR kit. That's a drop from 1.7 KG to 1.3 KG and a notably smaller camera/lens package that has VR, a wider zoom range AND still better overall low light/DOF control., it solves your issue with the smaller viewfinder on the D300 as well.

OpticsEngineer · Aug 31, 2015

"I now have two young children (2.1/2 and 1.1/2 years)"

You are so fortunate. Kids are so much fun.

Unfortunately Sony does not have touchscreen displays.

With my kids, I have found touchscreen AF to be very useful. It was the only way I was able to get the shots I wanted when my 6 year old would line up all the stuffed animals in her room like a classroom and she would be on the edge of frame being the teacher.

If it weren't for that one omission I would say a Sony A6000 is the perfect camera for taking kid photos.

Instead, I get a bit more out of my Olympus EPL5 or EM5II. Face detect AF on Olympus is awesome. It follows the kids faces around with a small square showing where the focus is and when you see the shot you want, click the shutter.

Sony face detect AF is still really good though. Just not as good as Olympus.

Lens selection for MFT is more satisfying than the Sony selection... expensive though. Consider that a really good Canon 50 mm f/1.8 is $125 and the Olympus equivalent is $400.

PhotoFactor · Aug 31, 2015

lélé said:
What would be the restrictions using the Nikon PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D (new version, not the old 'PC') and Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 AI ?

Hi Fred,

I made the switch from a D40x to the NEX-6 and am pretty happy, so I've traveled a path similar to yours.

However, a few issues:

- you want fast primes but the ones listed are not that fast

- there appear to be emerging auto adaptors for Nikon to E mount but at the moment I think it's all manual, which might be an issue for you

- The lenses you mention are pretty long focal lengths - I assume these are what you want?

As far as the mirrorless move, I liked it because I get the same (actually better) quality photos with a much smaller camera. I'm mostly a prime shooter so like the small package; traveling even with a few lenses is a lot easier.

Biggest downside for me was shorter battery life, but that is a fairly minor quibble as they are cheap and light so I carry a few spares.

Good luck.

snapa · Aug 31, 2015

OmarCCX said:
Take a look at the lens lineup. As a body, the A6000 is an excellent camera, but if you can't click with the lenses it has then you won't find it as enjoyable.

I want to build a system around it and I'm thinking, Samyang 12mm ƒ2, Zeiss 24mm ƒ1.8 and ZA 55mm ƒ1.8. That's almost two grand in lenses.

Or, for those of us that do not do that much low light shooting and don't have such deep pockets, there is always the Sigma trio, 19mm, 30mm & 60mm for about $600, total. If the majority of your shooting is done inside or when there is very little light, (and money is no object), the lenses above would be better for you.

Most (>90-95%) of my shooting is done outside mostly in sunny daylight, so f2.8 should be more than fast enough for me. When shooting indoors, the flash does come in very handy, when used correctly. I had the Sigma 19mm, but sent it back since it was not THAT much better than the 16-50mm kit at 19mm when used used from f5.6-10. The Sigma 19mm was also a bit larger and not nearly as versatile. I'm planning on picking up a Sigma 30mm very soon, I think I'll like that lens much better, it is very sharp and I use that focal range a lot. If that works out as well as I think it will, I'll take a look at the Sigma 60mm next.

Vincent Walter · Aug 31, 2015

I've done it...

Got real serious this week. My D700 is gone, my last lenses soon to be gone. My F6 is gone.

I love so much the Sony system. I had to buy something new. I sold the Nikkor 300 F2.8. Replaced my looooong reach with a Canon 400 f4.5 FD for shooting golf tournaments. I have 620mm "reach" at f4.5 for less than $500. And it doesn't weigh much more than the superb 70-200mm f4.

So nice to be mobile, ready for anything with a tiny case full of stuff. I cary 4 old Nikon speedlights for studio like-lighting, two sony bodies, and 3 or 4 lenses... extension tubes and I'm ready for about anything.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/vincentseyecom/235446256200?fref=ts

Loading…

www.vincentseye.net

Vincent Walter · Aug 31, 2015

Don't dare adapt a Nikkor until you actually use the native Sony lenses. I thought I would go "that" route... aside from my 400/640mm long reach Canon FD on adapter. The Sony gear is awesome great. Afraid the a6000 is too dainty? Buy two! They are cheap and as I said before "focus like a mind reader 2 seconds in the future". I do find the facial recognition snatches the "wrong" face... but turn it off.

Sorry if I sound like an overly caffinated version of Brian Smith.

I couldn't be happier with ditching my Nikon gear. Sold my F6 today. The D800 has been gone for months, and selling the D700 and last couple lenses on e-bay at this moment. The past 30 years of Nikon and Hasselblad are just that... in the past. Never ever thought I'd go down this path. The a6000 is so easy to cary, I should never leave the house without it by my side.. my photojournalism professor would strike me down if I were to be presented with "spot news" and not have that camera with me... as there are no excuses for a professional image maker to not have a utterly capable machine at arm's reach at that tiny price.

Loading…

www.vincentseye.net

MrCPH · Aug 31, 2015

lélé said:
Hello!

I'm considering switching from Nikon to Sony.

My current gear:
- Nikon D300 DSLR,
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR DX 17 - 55 mm f/2.8G IF-ED,
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G,
- Nikon PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D (a very special lens that I struggle to use with the small viewfinder and the dated Live View mode of my D300),
- Nikon Micro-NIKKOR 55mm f/3.5 AI (another very special lens - at leat, very special to me because it comes from my mother former gear),

For zooms, you have the options of the 16-70z f4 or the 18-105 f4. You have to step down from your 2.8 lens but you win some reach and save a lot of size and weight. Both are excellent lenses with pros and cons.

For your 50mm, you can get the SEL50f1.8 ($200-300). Again, you have to step down but you win the OSS.

Your 55 and 85mm, you can get adaptors for. If you are fine with going manual, an adapter can be bought from around $25. If you don't want to go manual, an adapter will cost you just around the same as an a6000

lélé777004 said:
The Sony option:
After some thoughts, switching from Nikon to Sony appeared as an option...and I would like your opinion about that !
The plan would be:
- buying a Sony Alpha A5100 or A6000 with the - poor - kit lens (just to have a compact and lightweight 'all-around' lens),

The IQ of the kit lens is actually not too bad. It's not the fastest of lenses - kits usually aren't - but the IQ is not bad at all for a kit lens.

lélé777004 said:
- progressively, buying two or three fast primes to replace it (probably used lenses for obvious budget reasons), including a fast compact prime that I could carry easily, and probably some vintage lenses (who said Helios?),
- maybe adding a more 'serious' body, when money is OK.

Sounds a good idea?

If f2.8 is fast enough for you, you can get the Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm at around $150 - 200 each, so you might not have to buy second hand. If you you are willing to spend more, there are many faster primes as the Zeiss 32mm f1.8 Touit, sony 35mm f1.8 and previously mentiod sony 50mm f1.8.

In addition to these you have the complete sony FE lineup, which will also work full auto on the a6000 without adapters - but with the added weight and size and this brings me to a very important thing to consider. You mention "adding a more serious body". Are you thinking A7's? If so, you need to be aware, that you can use the E-mount and FE-mount lenses on the a6000 but you cannot use the E-mount lenses on the A7's. So if you consider getting one of the A7's, you might want to go for the FE lenses from the start.

Other than that, I am sure you will feel much more free with the smaller form factor and the a6000 is a killer camera!

PhotoFactor · Aug 31, 2015

MrCPH said:
MrCPH said:

Are you thinking A7's? If so, you need to be aware, that you can use the E-mount and FE-mount lenses on the a6000 but you cannot use the E-mount lenses on the A7's.

Click to expand...

Actually I believe you can use E lenses on the A7s - you just use crop mode, and a few even cover almost the entire FF circle.

Sony's terminology is a bit unfortunate. There is only one E mount. All the E mount lenses are... E mount! Some of those lenses cover a full frame (The "FE" lenses) and some don't (The "E" lenses). But they are all E-mount. Like a Nikon DX vs. FX. The implication of people saying E-mount or FE-mount makes people think there are two different mounts. There are not. (not counting the A mount from the original Minoltas).

MrCPH · Aug 31, 2015

PhotoFactor said:
MrCPH said:

PhotoFactor said:

Are you thinking A7's? If so, you need to be aware, that you can use the E-mount and FE-mount lenses on the a6000 but you cannot use the E-mount lenses on the A7's.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Actually I believe you can use E lenses on the A7s - you just use crop mode, and a few even cover almost the entire FF circle.

Correct, but most would not invest in a FF camera to be limited to shooting in crop mode.

PhotoFactor said:
Sony's terminology is a bit unfortunate. There is only one E mount. All the E mount lenses are... E mount! Some of those lenses cover a full frame (The "FE" lenses) and some don't (The "E" lenses). But they are all E-mount. Like a Nikon DX vs. FX. The implication of people saying E-mount or FE-mount makes people think there are two different mounts. There are not. (not counting the A mount from the original Minoltas).

Correct again, although I was actually trying to simplify to OP, that there were two lines of lenses with various advantages. My intention was in no way to confuse anyone

CarlosMP · Aug 31, 2015

Sony doesn't exactly have the snappiest of Jpegs out of the box, that is more for Fujifilm or

Olympus.

Have you considered a Nikon D5500 , it outputs nice jpegs with Nikons color profiles, has in

camera raw processing so you can take raws an tweak and tailor them to the jpegs you want

without a computer.

The video quality is great, its better than any Sony mode other than XAVC, although it will have

slower on sensor contrast detect AF and no EVF.

It weighs half as much as a D300s and has a touch screen and works with your existing gear.

And a D5500 + the 35mm AF-S 1.8g is pretty compact

If not a LX100 or RX100m3 as a travel camera would work too.

PhotoFactor · Aug 31, 2015

CarlosMP said:
Sony doesn't exactly have the snappiest of Jpegs out of the box, that is more for Fujifilm or

Olympus.

There are a lot of parallels between photos and audio.

I have an Acura TL that was reviewed in its original days as having one of the best sound systems around. Yet I found it a bit "dull" after my previous car that had a Bose system. Why? Because the Bose system had lots of deep bass and the Acura system is more "flat".

Similarly many makes of cameras boost colors and saturation to have photos that "pop". And that's because those colors are not natural or realistic. They're just pleasing.

One thing I've found moving from P&S to better cameras is that many better makes have more "flat" jpeg response, which can look dull if you are used to a boosted P&S jpeg output. Both my Nikon and Sony ILCs have more "dull" images than my P&S cameras did. However, many cameras can select a vivid mode or similar on their jpeg engines. Still, sometimes the jpegs may not "look as good" if there are not default processing options that mimick what many P&S cameras do naturally.

rlyons · Aug 31, 2015

I'm also coming from Nikon and while I've sold some of my lesser-used Nikon lenses to fund some of the Sony stuff I haven't parted with the core of my Nikon system yet.

The major advantage of Sony is the smaller form factor of the body and the great video capabilities, which outdo any dSLR from Nikon - IMO.

As you can see, there's lots of advice on this thread already and there will continue to be more opinions. At the end of the day, what matters most is what will work for you. Some thoughts though:

The D300 is getting a little long in the tooth so even an update to the D7200 would likely bring some of the advances you're looking for (and will still AF all your lenses). Ditching the D300 and 17-55 and picking up a D7200 and the new 16-80E might be a worthwhile option to explore.

As others have mentioned, there's great prime lenses for Sony but there's no "great" zooms - Nothing like the options that exist in Nikon. The fastest zoom is F4 (albeit constant) and both of these have their compromises:

The Zeiss 16-70 is well known for excellent center sharpness and contrast, but the edges and corners will always be soft even when stopped down (this lens' tradeoff). However, it is nice and small and pairs well with the a6000.

The 18-105G is also F4 and sharpens up nicely across the frame at F5.6 but it has crazy distortion (as high as 7%) and is zoom-by-wire. The distortion means that the wide end is more like 20mm after correction, not 18. This lens is surprisingly sharp, but loses some of that when you correct for distortion. The best distortion correction is done in post, as the in-camera still has some issues and is not fully corrected. Lr seems to do a much better job. The lens is also quite large at over 4" long and nearly 1lb in weight so it's rather beastly on the a6000 as a carry around lens. It's strong point is that for video it's just excellent with great zoom reach and superb OSS!

The sigmas that have been suggested are decent lenses. The 60 is the best, followed by the 30 then the 19 is the weakest. None of these have OSS and none of them fully support PDAF across the frame (they do in the center spot only, though). So, using these for focus tracking will be difficult. They also don't focus as fast as the Sony lenses but they're not terribly slow either. A good alternative to get into a Sony system for less out of pocket cost.

Sony kit lens is mediocre at best. Everyone says it's fine, but it's nowhere near as sharp as even the cheap Nikkor 18-55VRII and has the most distortion out of any lens I've ever seen (7.5%). It sharpens up when stopped down, but not until F8 which is useless anywhere but in sunlight. Coming from a Nikkor 17-55/2.8 you will not like this lens unless you have very low expectations.

I bought an adapter to adapt some of my Nikkor lenses to the Sony but frankly I can't stand using it. I just don't see the point of ditching the Nikon body just to keep nikon lenses and have to manually focus and manually set their aperture and lose VR. With an adapter the setup isn't much smaller than a dSLR is anyways. So, if you're really in love with some of your Nikon lenses and there's no Sony equivalents then don't kid yourself that you'll be OK with manual focus (unless you already enjoy MF). If you don't like MF now, you won't like it on Sony - not even with peaking. It's just as slow on both systems with or without peaking.

.02 from a Nikon/Sony user.

Switching from Nikon to Sony?

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts