-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
SEL20F28 vs SEL35F18
- Thread starter vqa
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony a6300
hungrylau
Senior Member
In my first 4 years with a nikon d3100, I took the majority of my pictures with the kit lens and a 35mm prime. I think that it's a pretty versatile setup because the kit allows you to get the wide and the zoom, and the prime gives you lowlight which is moderately tight. On the a6000, this setup works just as well, although you can also compliment with a samyang 12mm for the ultra wide angle, and also save space and weight compared to a DSLR.
In sony land, the frugal buyer's recommendation is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS, or FE28, and the 1650 kit lens. Having two lenses will basically cover you for the majority of shooting scenarios, because sony apsc lacks a native 1650mm f/2.8 lens.
The other one lens to rule them all options are:
In sony land, the frugal buyer's recommendation is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS, or FE28, and the 1650 kit lens. Having two lenses will basically cover you for the majority of shooting scenarios, because sony apsc lacks a native 1650mm f/2.8 lens.
The other one lens to rule them all options are:
- sony adapter and the amount 1650mm f/2.8
- sigma mc-11 adapter and sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4
istreetshooter
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 280
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 69
I bring the kit lens on family vacations and it gives me the zoom range I need. In an emergency you can use the pop-up flash. I have the 20 f2.8 for street work and as a walk-around lens because it is a pancake lens.
But the kit lens stores compactly (i.e., when off), has a workable f3.5 on the wide end, and has a smooth power zoom.
But the kit lens stores compactly (i.e., when off), has a workable f3.5 on the wide end, and has a smooth power zoom.
Why is it important that you can get closer ? Because the field of view is wider, the end result is that the magnification ratio is a bit higher on the 35. (It's not great on either). In other words, if you were trying to shoot a small object, like a coin, the 20 would let you get a smidgeon closer, but it would still fill more of the frame with the 35.
Primes are great - I have the Sony FE 28/2 as well as Sigma 30/1.4 and 60/2.8 for my A6500. But if I were going to carry one and only one lens and needed it to be small, I'd probably find another solution besides a $1000 body and a single prime. (Actually, I'd probably just stick to my RX100 - or maybe go with one of the newer models to get an EVF).
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
That could be a valid concern - I don't shoot enough video for it to matter, so I can't argue that ponit.
Or multiple primes. Not many people want to live with one and only one focal length for everything.
And the 24/1.8 is better than the 20. How important is "better picture quality" ? What does it buy you ? The 20/2.8 is really only a mediocre lens to start with; probably not that much better than the 16-50. The 35 is going to be sharper, but do you care ? If you're mostly shooting video, you may not see the difference between two lenses. And for your vacation shots, what are you doing with them ? Posting them at 100% for people to pixel peep or printing 30x40" prints ? (And if so, the 20/2.8 probably wouldn't be the best choice).
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
I've read many topics and seen many lens comparisons recently. At first I wanted to purchase 50mm... But everyone says that 35mm is better all around option and after purchasing 35mm nobody uses 50mm. Also I saw topics on same forum where people say that it's better to purchase 20mm instead of 35mm...
I will definitely will buy kit lens now.
Good point. I guess kit lens is only valid option for me.
Too bad I did not purchased it with the body.
Thanks.
Quick points -
1. consider buying a used kit lens ... it's a lens that gets bought by a lot of people who decide they don't need it and therefore, used lenses should be plentiful and inexpensive.
2. Consider a 2-lens kit ... a zoom for coverage plus a prime for speed. Maybe not right away if you're adverse to the idea, but mull it over. It's easier to make a "do it all" lens for a small sensor; larger sensors mean compromises in lenses, so they make interchangeable lens systems to let us pick the right lens for the job.
3. Consider manual focus lenses, particularly if shooting video at a fixed distance (setting the Joby up in front of a stationary subject) ... you can experiment inexpensively.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
I use my 20/2.8 for wide angle closeups. I find it to be very good at that on my A6500.
I may also use a couple of achromatic closeup lenses (49mm and 72mm with step rings) for other lenses for their convenient carry if I don't want to schlep my FE 90/2.8 macro.
That's a sensible answer (I never did much with WA closeups, preferring longer macro lenses). Anyway, I asked because the OP was listing the slightly better mfd of the 20 as a pro over the 35, and I didn't get the impression he/she understands that the shorter mfd doesn't provide greater magnification.
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum