a6000 kit lens upgrade while maintaining small size

HamdiR · Nov 1, 2017

myDingling said:
What kind of photos do you take and what aspects of the Kit Lens in particular do you find insufficient? The kit lens generally gets a bad rap, but it's quite good despite the slander.

I only have the kit and sigma 30/1.4

Using jpeg only compare your smartphone to your kit, a 2017 smartphone would kill it! the sigma on the other hand is just amazing contrast colors and even jpeg processing all improves

i've spent the whole evening yesterday comparing my kit to my u11, not a chance! this lens is lousy enough it doesnt help the JPG engine to extract detail at all

the kit is more like a specialty lens, its a cheap way to have 18mm and 50mm, good for packing and it shines best at F8 24-40mm, RAW only!! hardly what i call "quite" good, but it certainly has it uses

which is a shame considering how the a6300 seems to be designed to talk to this lens, Sony should definitely revise it at least

Pics293 · Nov 1, 2017

Charles Currey said:
I bought my a6000 with the 18-105 zoom. The combination was a little big but very light. Eventually I sold the zoom and got the Sigma 60mm 2.8 and recently the Sony 85mm 1.8. I'm much happier with the sharpness and low light ability of the primes. I tend to have a bias toward longer lenses so you might be happier with a 30mm and either the Sony 50mm 1.8 or the 85mm 1.8.

FunkySpoo · Nov 1, 2017

The kit lens is what it is. Some people think it's just awful and useless. Others think it's quite good. I happen to like it if it's used within it's sweet spot. Then there are those who'll argue about using it in it's sweet spot. But the kit lens, like any lens is just a tool. In other words a jewelers screw driver is great in it's sweet spot, tightening or loosening tiny screws but it kinda sucks at hammering nails or pruning trees.

There's a Flickr 16-50 group where there are lots of pics by lots of people shooting all kinds of different subjects with the kit lens. If they can get beautiful results with the kit I'm sure you can to.

ChapelThrill23 · Nov 1, 2017

I have the Sigma 30 and find that it is on my camera 80% of the time with the kid lens on about 10%.

PhotoFactor · Nov 1, 2017

FunkySpoo said:
The kit lens is what it is. Some people think it's just awful and useless. Others think it's quite good. I happen to like it if it's used within it's sweet spot. Then there are those who'll argue about using it in it's sweet spot. But the kit lens, like any lens is just a tool. In other words a jewelers screw driver is great in it's sweet spot, tightening or loosening tiny screws but it kinda sucks at hammering nails or pruning trees.

There's a Flickr 16-50 group where there are lots of pics by lots of people shooting all kinds of different subjects with the kit lens. If they can get beautiful results with the kit I'm sure you can to.

Three comments here:

1 - Of course the kit can get nice pictures. In many cases a picture isn't super sharp but is still compelling, well composed, and colorful

2 - Smaller representations on screen or printed can look fine as sharpness won't be so important

3 - It's not that the kit can't get sharp pictures, it's that it isn't *reliably* sharp - you have to stay in a much narrower range of settings than it offers. Which means that your "hit rate" on sharp pictures can be fairly low, even though some photos might be quite good.

The reason I rail against it is that in my mind, I can shoot my phone or a P&S all day and get fairly decent photos. When I move up to an ILC from a major brand my expectation is that I'm going to get superior quality. If I wanted mediocrity I'd stick to my phone. And that's why I find Sony's kit lens so hard to take.

granola1 · Nov 4, 2017

PhotoFactor said:
granola1 said:

Thanks guys, it's looking more and more like I may have too go with something else. I don't think the 16-50 is terrible, maybe not the best quality to match the sensor, I don't think I will be happy with it in the long run.

I've looked at the specs of the 18-105 more closely and it's actually bigger than my 18-135 canon lens. I don't know how they compare optically but if that's the only budget option for improving over the 16-50, it's not a very appealing one.

For the price of the 6000 and the 18-105 I could get a smaller Em10mkii and 12-40 or the X-T20 with 18-55 lens, both also offer better evf's, level gauge and silent shutter which I would prefer.

Maybe I'll consider the 35 and/or 50 primes with the 16-50 but I'm really more of a zoom guy.

Click to expand...

This is a common problem/question.

Some will say the kit zoom is fine but I'm one that felt it was just awful. Even though I would occasionally get moderately sharp pictures, what good is a zoom if you have to limit the range of focal lengths and shoot f8?

I then tried the old kit 18-55 and at least for my copy it is a bit better than the 16-50, but still not great.

I agonized over the same decision for the same reasons as you. The bodies are great and the primes (some of them) are great and the mid-zooms are all bad in one way or another (cost, size, or optics).

I ended up with a factory refurbished Olympus OMD-EM10ii, WITH pancake kit lens that is much sharper than Sony offerings, AND kit telephoto zoom with wider range and sharper than Sony's 55-210, for not much more than HALF the price of the Sony/Zeiss 16-70 lens alone! So for now I have two systems. I shoot the zooms on the Olympus and primes on the Sony. And I saved about $400.

I felt the olympus ez14-42 was a little worse. The thing is, the Sony is quite sharp in the center which makes the precipitous drop in sharpness towards the edges so much more noticeable compared to the more evenly spread out softness in the 14-42ez. That's just what I've observed from looking at what I can find online. Like you and the others have said, it's a pain having to think about limiting focal lengths and sticking to sweet spots all the time.

I've finally been able to look at both side by side. The Sony is actually not that much smaller overall but I do still prefer how easy it is to hold. I don't even mind the lack of silent shutter or touch screen but seeing how much more fluid the menu is on the OMD but the lack of affordable alternatives for a mediocre kit lens makes it difficult to choose for someone in my position.

Low Budget Dave · Nov 4, 2017

16-70 F4. A little bigger than the 18-55, but amazingly sharp, incredible color, circular aperture, and so on. It is $900, but it is well worth it.

Loading…

camerasize.com

HamdiR · Nov 4, 2017

No F4 lens is well worth 900$, when the a-mount had an affordable 2.8 zoom, stop humouring Sony's indulgence in smudgy high ISO

PhotoFactor · Nov 4, 2017

HamdiR said:
No F4 lens is well worth 900$, when the a-mount had an affordable 2.8 zoom, stop humouring Sony's indulgence in smudgy high ISO

I think that's the trick from Sony.

Clearly for FF they are great cameras with very high lens prices (with a few exceptions).

For APS-C, they have good to poor lens quality at medium to high lens prices. There are some really good an inexpensive third party lenses but not like there are for Nikon, Canon. So if you want to use Sony APS-C you either aren't picky about sharpness or you are ready to pay a lot of money for similar flexibility that you get on DSLRs at a lower price. The A6000 is a fantastic body still competitive and cheap almost 4 years after being announced. But you are going to spend the $$ to get really good lenses and that is where Sony is getting the money back.

Low Budget Dave · Nov 4, 2017

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like a Sony fanboy. I agree that the lenses are overpriced, but for me, F4 is a good compromise. It allows them to make a fairly sharp lens in a size that I can carry without injuring my back. If Tamron made their 17-50 2.8 in Sony E-mount, that would be the go-to lens. It is small, light, fast, and affordable. The only way to use it, though, is to buy, Canon, nikon, or Sony A-mount.

skanter · Nov 4, 2017

granola1 said:
I'm on a budget, hoping to get an a6000 for it's compact size with the kit lens but the more I read about it, I'm not so sure about the quality especially on the wide end. footprint not much smaller than a dslr.

I read the same thing about the kit lens, bought it anyway with a6000 ($100 more) and have been using it with fine results for two years, now with a6300. It's a great combination for street photography and travel - small, light and unobtrusive. You can see results in my gallery (majority with 16-50).

Ignore what you read, go with your own experience. There is nothing like it as far as size and weight. I have some other lenses as well, but still shoot often with kit lens. That said, I always shoot RAW and PP every photo.

The gear is nowhere as important as your creative eye, skill and experience with light and composition. This is a gear forum full of people obsessed with gear. Ignore! Get the kit lens and a6000 and start making photos. Enjoy!

--
Sam K., NYC
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Native
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography

Search

a6000 kit lens upgrade while maintaining small size

HamdiR

Well-known member

Pics293

Forum Enthusiast

FunkySpoo

Senior Member

ChapelThrill23

Senior Member

PhotoFactor

Senior Member

granola1

Member

Low Budget Dave

Well-known member

Loading…

HamdiR

Well-known member

PhotoFactor

Senior Member

Low Budget Dave

Well-known member

skanter

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts