A6000 + 50mm 1.8, what next?

I've been researching the A6000 for a while and today at my local Best Buy, saw an open box A6000 body only for $330 and an open box 50mm 1.8 for $175. Jumped on this deal and if all goes well and the A6000 is what I believe it is, I will sell all of my Canon gear.

My three current Canon lenses include

18-135mm STM - My Canon kit lens which I use maybe 90% of the time and love.

85 mm 1.8 - My portrait lens which will likely be replaced by the Sony 50mm 1.8.

40mm 2.8 - I used this mostly for landscapes, but I did use the 18-135mm just as much for landscapes.

So I have my portrait lens taken care of. I am now looking for a general all around lens which will be used mostly during vacations etc. I am looking at two options, but am looking for more options.

1. Sigma 19mm and Sony 55-210mm, Sigma goes for $200 new, $150 used. Sony goes for $150-200 used easily around here.

2. Sony 18-200mm, $750 new, $500-550 used. Would effectively take the place of both the Sigma and Kit zoom. Is the IQ better? Is convenience of the 18mm worth the $150-200 price difference? For landscapes I don't mind switching lenses, but I do like the idea of just keeping the 18-200 on and spending a day with it.

Are there any other options I should be looking into? For my Canon setup, I rarely used my 40mm. Is there a Sony equivalent to the 24-70mm 2.8?

Are EF-E mount convertors perfect with fast AF and Aperture settings? Can I just keep my 18-135mm?

The 24mm is the best lens for the system yeah I said it. The 50mm is fantastic and I've never had the 55-210mm but it seems like a great choice. I'd be content with those 3 lenses and probably a Raynox or tubes for macro.

I'd be looking at the Sony 18-105mm.

It's the closest lens to your Canon 18-135mm [which I have used quite a bit]

By all accounts the 18-105mm is an excellent, sharp lens and has a very useful walk-around focal length

viperkeeper said:

The 24mm is the best lens for the system yeah I said it. The 50mm is fantastic and I've never had the 55-210mm but it seems like a great choice. I'd be content with those 3 lenses and probably a Raynox or tubes for macro.

Click to expand...

+1 on the Zeiss 24mm, especially for landscapes. This has been my go-to lens after getting it. I hardly use the kit zoom after getting this lens. You can check my photos on 500px in my signature (most of them will be from the Zeiss 24mm) to get an idea of what this lens is capable of .

I have the 55-210 and I like it for the affordable long reach. It loses sharpness a lot after 150mm, but should still do really well in broad daylight.

Many seem to prefer the 70-200 for its better sharpness, fastness and even low light performance. I don't have it, so can't say more about it.

Tuxdude said:

viperkeeper said:

The 24mm is the best lens for the system yeah I said it. The 50mm is fantastic and I've never had the 55-210mm but it seems like a great choice. I'd be content with those 3 lenses and probably a Raynox or tubes for macro.

Click to expand...

+1 on the Zeiss 24mm, especially for landscapes. This has been my go-to lens after getting it. I hardly use the kit zoom after getting this lens. You can check my photos on 500px in my signature (most of them will be from the Zeiss 24mm) to get an idea of what this lens is capable of .

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Zeiss 24mm is way over priced, the Sigma 30 is sharper and costs only $150-200. If you want the 24mm for $900 for 5 times the price, that is your choice.

Tuxdude said:

I have the 55-210 and I like it for the affordable long reach. It loses sharpness a lot after 150mm, but should still do really well in broad daylight.

Click to expand...

You are wrong again, the 55-210 can be used at 210 mm as seen from this shot.


You can read that small sign at 210 mm and see the detail in the bricks, what else do you expect from a $2-250 used lens. You are correct, it does need to be used in good light.

Tuxdude said:

Many seem to prefer the 70-200 for its better sharpness, fastness and even low light performance. I don't have it, so can't say more about it.

Click to expand...

Only if you can deal with paying 5 times the price and dealing with twice the size and weight, that is your choice. It all comes down to your budget and what you are willing to carry. If you are a PRO and making money taking pictures, than you may want to need to get the best lenses.

I'm just trying to put some perspective on the comments you made.

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

snapa said:

Sorry, but the Zeiss 24mm is way over priced, the Sigma 30 is sharper and costs only $150-200. If you want the 24mm for $900 for 5 times the price, that is your choice.

Click to expand...

Is it? Really? Also you kinda sound like you're bitter that you can't afford nice lenses.

snapa said:

Only if you can deal with paying 5 times the price and dealing with twice the size and weight, that is your choice. It all comes down to your budget and what you are willing to carry. If you are a PRO and making money taking pictures, than you may want to need to get the best lenses.

Click to expand...

Again, the bitterness!

First of all.... dam.... that's a great deal on both those.

I bought the a6000 kit, plus 55-210 combo. 55-210 is a decent lens. It's definitely a lens that will see very little use but I'm glad that I have it in those few times I need it. I've only used it once for a friend's college soccer game and I know I'll use it more as my kids get a little bit older. I sold the kit lens. I had the 16mm 2.8 for a little bit and sold it. I'm probably going the Sigma 19mm next as a general use and indoor lens. I got the 50 1.8 on eBay and that is the lens that is probably on my camera 75% of the time.

Keep us updated.

Walie said:

snapa said:

Sorry, but the Zeiss 24mm is way over priced, the Sigma 30 is sharper and costs only $150-200. If you want the 24mm for $900 for 5 times the price, that is your choice.

Click to expand...

Is it? Really? Also you kinda sound like you're bitter that you can't afford nice lenses.

Walie said:

Only if you can deal with paying 5 times the price and dealing with twice the size and weight, that is your choice. It all comes down to your budget and what you are willing to carry. If you are a PRO and making money taking pictures, than you may want to need to get the best lenses.

Click to expand...

Again, the bitterness!

Click to expand...

I don't see from your gear list that you own either of these lenses either, hmmm, maybe you can't afford them either. I'm just telling it the way it is, if you can't handle the truth, what can I say. If you think they are so great and worth it, why don't you own both of them :-|

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

Walie said:

snapa said:

Sorry, but the Zeiss 24mm is way over priced, the Sigma 30 is sharper and costs only $150-200. If you want the 24mm for $900 for 5 times the price, that is your choice.

Click to expand...

Is it? Really? Also you kinda sound like you're bitter that you can't afford nice lenses.

Walie said:

Only if you can deal with paying 5 times the price and dealing with twice the size and weight, that is your choice. It all comes down to your budget and what you are willing to carry. If you are a PRO and making money taking pictures, than you may want to need to get the best lenses.

Click to expand...

Again, the bitterness!

Click to expand...

doesn't seem like bitterness and its not an indication on the pathetic 'oooh you cant afford it' line

seems like common sense to me

op bought 2 low price open box products and is asking about 2 sub $500 options to basically 'complete' their lens collection

do you think they want to spend double that on a single lens and still leave themselves with nothing over 50mm?

for some its not about the absolute best but for whats good enough and bang for buck

For me, the 24mm zeiss just isn't worth it.

For myself, I prefer the Sony lenses to the Sigmas because I want to take advantage of the A6000 as it was intended by Sony rather than having the AF limitations of the Sigmas.

I have the SEL50F18 and I find it too tight for most situations. I am looking for something wider now like the SEL35F18 but I am thinking about getting the SEL28F20 to go even wider. However, I'd be giving up the OSS in the 28mm. Decisions decisions...

After I get the 28 or the 35.. I'd consider the 10-18 or 18-105 next.

You should take a moment and read Snapa's post history. There's a trend.

What's a gear list.

snapa said:

Tuxdude said:

viperkeeper said:

The 24mm is the best lens for the system yeah I said it. The 50mm is fantastic and I've never had the 55-210mm but it seems like a great choice. I'd be content with those 3 lenses and probably a Raynox or tubes for macro.

Click to expand...

+1 on the Zeiss 24mm, especially for landscapes. This has been my go-to lens after getting it. I hardly use the kit zoom after getting this lens. You can check my photos on 500px in my signature (most of them will be from the Zeiss 24mm) to get an idea of what this lens is capable of .

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Zeiss 24mm is way over priced, the Sigma 30 is sharper and costs only $150-200. If you want the 24mm for $900 for 5 times the price, that is your choice.

Click to expand...

You're wrong about the price here unfortunately. I was able to secure an International version of my Zeiss 24mm for $700 (I had 30-day return option in Amazon Prime that I could easily return if I found any issues). If you search the Used market, you might be able to get hold of a Z24 for around $500 easily.

I had my friend's Sigma 30mm for a while before I got my Zeiss 24mm, and have never regretted getting the Z24. For instance, you can look at the sharpness, detail and the colors in this photo from a Z24. I doubt the Sigma 30 would have come close to it both in color rendering as well as sharpness in low light, which were 2 things I really wanted in a fast prime.

I'm not trying to push things, I'm just giving my perspective and experience with Z24. The OP can decide if this meets his/her budget and priorities.

snapa said:

snapa said:

I have the 55-210 and I like it for the affordable long reach. It loses sharpness a lot after 150mm, but should still do really well in broad daylight.

Click to expand...

You are wrong again, the 55-210 can be used at 210 mm as seen from this shot.


You can read that small sign at 210 mm and see the detail in the bricks, what else do you expect from a $2-250 used lens. You are correct, it does need to be used in good light.

snapa said:

Many seem to prefer the 70-200 for its better sharpness, fastness and even low light performance. I don't have it, so can't say more about it.

Click to expand...

Only if you can deal with paying 5 times the price and dealing with twice the size and weight, that is your choice. It all comes down to your budget and what you are willing to carry. If you are a PRO and making money taking pictures, than you may want to need to get the best lenses.

I'm just trying to put some perspective on the comments you made.

Click to expand...

Yes 55-210 is an excellent lens for the price it comes at, I haven't denied this part. I've taken a few excellent pics using it (you can browse through my Flickr photos ), but only if the light is correct and if I'm not zooming all the way. Upto 150mm (and sometimes even 160mm), I've had good results. Being a 4X zoom, I would expect this performance for sure.

The 70-200 is a 3X zoom with better optics and is also G rated, from a spec point. I do not own the 70-200 so I can only attest to the photos I've come across from others, so I'm stopping my comparison with that.

Your photo is a bad example, as reading that sign requires quite a bit of work and is not that sharp unfortunately and that happens to be the exact point I was making. If you could capture the same sign (with the trees) at 150mm and post a comparison, that would be something worth looking at.

--
My Photos - https://500px.com/tuxdude

asr10user said:

I've been researching the A6000 for a while and today at my local Best Buy, saw an open box A6000 body only for $330 and an open box 50mm 1.8 for $175. Jumped on this deal and if all goes well and the A6000 is what I believe it is, I will sell all of my Canon gear.

My three current Canon lenses include

18-135mm STM - My Canon kit lens which I use maybe 90% of the time and love.

85 mm 1.8 - My portrait lens which will likely be replaced by the Sony 50mm 1.8.

40mm 2.8 - I used this mostly for landscapes, but I did use the 18-135mm just as much for landscapes.

So I have my portrait lens taken care of. I am now looking for a general all around lens which will be used mostly during vacations etc. I am looking at two options, but am looking for more options.

1. Sigma 19mm and Sony 55-210mm, Sigma goes for $200 new, $150 used. Sony goes for $150-200 used easily around here.

2. Sony 18-200mm, $750 new, $500-550 used. Would effectively take the place of both the Sigma and Kit zoom. Is the IQ better? Is convenience of the 18mm worth the $150-200 price difference? For landscapes I don't mind switching lenses, but I do like the idea of just keeping the 18-200 on and spending a day with it.

Are there any other options I should be looking into? For my Canon setup, I rarely used my 40mm. Is there a Sony equivalent to the 24-70mm 2.8?

Are EF-E mount convertors perfect with fast AF and Aperture settings? Can I just keep my 18-135mm?

Click to expand...

I bought my camera with the 1650 kit lens and realized it didn't have enough reach. So I upgraded to the 18-200, yes bigger and heavier - but all the reach I needed. In my opinion neither of these do the sensor justice. I have since purchased the 10-18, 35/1.8 50/1.8 and finally the 70-200G, and I am seriously shopping for the 1670z. The 18-200 is a very versatile lens, it has been my "vacation" lens, always gets the shot, but the image quality does not match the sensor's capability.

I love the 35/1.8 - it always seems to be the right focal length while to 50/1.8 is often too tight. The 70-200G significantly outshines the 18-200, but at some weight and cost (though I got mine open box for $850), but I'm not so sure I will be dragging it on vacation.

Take a look at the 35/1.8 as well. Perhaps rent the lens' you are considering?

Keith Meinhold said:

asr10user said:

I've been researching the A6000 for a while and today at my local Best Buy, saw an open box A6000 body only for $330 and an open box 50mm 1.8 for $175. Jumped on this deal and if all goes well and the A6000 is what I believe it is, I will sell all of my Canon gear.

My three current Canon lenses include

18-135mm STM - My Canon kit lens which I use maybe 90% of the time and love.

85 mm 1.8 - My portrait lens which will likely be replaced by the Sony 50mm 1.8.

40mm 2.8 - I used this mostly for landscapes, but I did use the 18-135mm just as much for landscapes.

So I have my portrait lens taken care of. I am now looking for a general all around lens which will be used mostly during vacations etc. I am looking at two options, but am looking for more options.

1. Sigma 19mm and Sony 55-210mm, Sigma goes for $200 new, $150 used. Sony goes for $150-200 used easily around here.

2. Sony 18-200mm, $750 new, $500-550 used. Would effectively take the place of both the Sigma and Kit zoom. Is the IQ better? Is convenience of the 18mm worth the $150-200 price difference? For landscapes I don't mind switching lenses, but I do like the idea of just keeping the 18-200 on and spending a day with it.

Are there any other options I should be looking into? For my Canon setup, I rarely used my 40mm. Is there a Sony equivalent to the 24-70mm 2.8?

Are EF-E mount convertors perfect with fast AF and Aperture settings? Can I just keep my 18-135mm?

Click to expand...

I bought my camera with the 1650 kit lens and realized it didn't have enough reach. So I upgraded to the 18-200, yes bigger and heavier - but all the reach I needed. In my opinion neither of these do the sensor justice. I have since purchased the 10-18, 35/1.8 50/1.8 and finally the 70-200G, and I am seriously shopping for the 1670z. The 18-200 is a very versatile lens, it has been my "vacation" lens, always gets the shot, but the image quality does not match the sensor's capability.

I love the 35/1.8 - it always seems to be the right focal length while to 50/1.8 is often too tight. The 70-200G significantly outshines the 18-200, but at some weight and cost (though I got mine open box for $850), but I'm not so sure I will be dragging it on vacation.
Take a look at the 35/1.8 as well. Perhaps rent the lens' you are considering?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. Inhave actually just ordered the original sel18200 as a deal for $350 popped up and i had to jump on it.

i was debating getting the 35mm instead of the 50mm. But wanted to replace my two previous lenses, one prime strictly for lenses and one general walk around vacation lens.

At the moment the 50mm is way too tight to use indoors. But i do have an RX100 which i will be using for general family stuff.

Very excited for the switch. So far the a6000 is a joy.

Hopefully i am done lens shopping. But the 10-18 or sigma 19mm are on my radar.

asr10user said:

Thanks for the response. Inhave actually just ordered the original sel18200 as a deal for $350 popped up and i had to jump on it.

Click to expand...

Where did you find that deal?

dohdoh said:

dohdoh said:

Thanks for the response. Inhave actually just ordered the original sel18200 as a deal for $350 popped up and i had to jump on it.

Click to expand...

Where did you find that deal?

Click to expand...

eBay.