Sony A6300 50mm-ish lens for video - 50/1.8 OSS or FE 50/1.8 or FE 55/1.8 or Sigma 60 art?

OSS is a great asset for video. If you plan on a lot of video you will want it.

My 50mm has given me lovely images. The 60mm Sigma supposedly has a slight optical edge on the 50mm, but no OSS. The 55mm is also nice, but quite a bit more $$$.

Btw I am a Canon user and have the Canon 35/2 IS. I haven't bought the metabones or MC-11 yet but wonder if any of the two with the 35/2 IS will be a good combo for video?

That would mean I don't have to spend money on the SEL 35/1.8 OSS which is plenty good enough for video and quick handheld video footage.

I have the Zeiss 55, which is said to be almost on par with the Sigma in sharpness, and the SEL50f1.8 on my A6000.

My opinion is that if you don't plan to go FF, don't buy the Zeiss. Yes, the colours are lovely (though it's a matter of taste), yes, it's a hair sharper, but no, it doesn't take better images than the SEL50f1.8. I prefer the bokeh of the SEL50f1.8, the shorter minimal focus distance (0,39 vs. 0,50, which can make a huge difference), and of course the OSS, which I find critical in most situations (with the Zeiss 55, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/80, while with the SEL50f1.8, I can go as low as 1/20), and will be needed for video.

The SEL50f1.8 really is the best option for APS-C : it's very good, not expensive, and I've not heard of QC problems with it. Now, if you fear you will want the ultimate sharpness, I'd advise you to buy the SEL50f1.8 however, and then, maybe, the Sigma later (though it's 2.8 and no OSS, so consider you'll have near 3 stops advantage with the Sony in moderately low light). Trust me on this : OSS will very often make your images sharper than optics.

You may also consider the SEL35f1.8. Quite good, a bit wider so more usable, though to be honest, I don't think it beats the SEL50 for portraits and semi-macro.

I hope this helps !

Cheers,

--
Pierre P.
Blog: http://lecomptoirdepierre.wordpress.com