AviPro
Senior Member
Very nice photos, impressive. I am tempted to get the a6* series in favor of my Pentax K-5.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
E-mount lenses, are they THAT terrible?
- Thread starter Hobot
- Start date
The kit lenses aren't nearly as bad as you've been led to believe. At least mine weren't. Those are the only lenses I had when I went to Iceland, Amsterdam and Paris a few years ago. Here's the link to my vacation gallery. Have a look. They're not perfect but for the price and size of those lenses they're really good. Hope you find what you're looking for.
--
No matter where you go, there you are -Buckaroo Banzai
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139525255@N08/
Last edited:
maybe or maybe not depending on your needs and expectations.
Your current camera was average in 2010 at best. So yes the sony with a kit lens will still out perform it.
AviPro
Senior Member
PhotoFactor
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,272
- Reaction score
- 3,842
My own 1650 was the worst lens I have ever had from a major camera manufacturer.
It could produce decent shots at times given certain focal lengths, f-stops, and luck. But very inconsistent and not something I wanted to rely on. So I got rid of it. I did like its range and size, if only it were better optically.
Some users report quite a bit better performance so there may in fact be moderate variation between different copies.
It could produce decent shots at times given certain focal lengths, f-stops, and luck. But very inconsistent and not something I wanted to rely on. So I got rid of it. I did like its range and size, if only it were better optically.
Some users report quite a bit better performance so there may in fact be moderate variation between different copies.
skanter
Forum Pro
So sometimes it would take good shots but other times it would not? Why does this sound like photographer inconsistency? Glass will perform the same way every time everything else being equal.
Can someone post a link to any comments made during the last 18 months from anyone claiming that Sony's E/FE lens line-up is "lacklustre" or similar?
I think that either (a) no such comments exist, or (b) they are from obviously non-credible sources.
I've been reading comments on this very site and others, plus at some reviews .
After returning a checking some of them, most of the comments were from about a year ago .
But some people still claim it.
That the aps -c line has been neglected, that the lenses are pricier and outperformed by the competition .
And that the kit lenses are terrible.
Some people in this very thread had similar claims.
But while I do realise that any of them will outshine my p&s. I got a bit worried and started thinking that perhaps Sony wasn't the way to go.
This thread has been mostly encouraging though, and some great photos taken by the kit lens and other have been tossed around.
So now I find myself quite reassured but the 18-135 at full price is costly . Plus I don't know if I will ever need ibis .
So now its mainly 6300 vs 6500 vs chunking in a larger budget than I initially planned
After returning a checking some of them, most of the comments were from about a year ago .
But some people still claim it.
That the aps -c line has been neglected, that the lenses are pricier and outperformed by the competition .
And that the kit lenses are terrible.
Some people in this very thread had similar claims.
But while I do realise that any of them will outshine my p&s. I got a bit worried and started thinking that perhaps Sony wasn't the way to go.
This thread has been mostly encouraging though, and some great photos taken by the kit lens and other have been tossed around.
So now I find myself quite reassured but the 18-135 at full price is costly . Plus I don't know if I will ever need ibis .
So now its mainly 6300 vs 6500 vs chunking in a larger budget than I initially planned
PhotoFactor
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,272
- Reaction score
- 3,842
skanter
Forum Pro
All lenses are dependent on FL and aperture. “Decent” is purely subjective. And much depends on th skills of the photographer in his ability to use and get the best out of the gear.
Mine rarely misses AF. Again, photographer’s skill and/or copy of lens are both variables. Links to thousands of fine shots with 16-50 have ben posted on this thread (twice!)
--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos
Last edited:
skanter
Forum Pro
A6300 with both kit lenses bundled is a great start and very cost effective. Buy that, shoot 10,000 photos and you’ll have a better idea if you need any more gear. Remember - your lack of skills and experience will be the weakest link - not the gear.
PhotoFactor
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,272
- Reaction score
- 3,842
Your attempt to blame me for that lens doesn't really change the objective facts that in many reviews tested, the lens is much worse optically than most other kit lenses from major manufacturers. My "decent" might be a higher bar than your "decent" and that's ok. Or perhaps you have a better copy, I don't know. It's not like my opinion on this lens is rare or unusual.
It could also be the body, I originally had an NEX-6 which of course has a different AF than the newer cameras. But again you try to make it about me. Yet my other lenses (even my Sigmas), seemed to nail focus more often.Mine rarely misses AF. Again, photographer’s skill and/or copy of lens are both variables. Links to thousands of fine shots with 16-50 have ben posted on this thread (twice!)
I guess I just didn't know how to use the 1650 to get those excellent shots. So it wasn't the lens for me.
skanter
Forum Pro
skanter
Forum Pro
yes - I meant 16-50 and 55-210. A bargain, and may be all you need. Certainly a good way to start - both are small and compact.
--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos
Last edited:
The three I had were not satisfactory. My SEL55210 was also unsatisfactory.
I was also dissatisfied with multiple copies of the SEL1670 and SEL1018.
On the other hand, I'm very satisfied with my SEL18135, SEL20F28, SEL70300G, and SEL90M28G. My SEL50F18 is decent but the IQ of my Sigma 60/2.8 DN A is better.
Last edited:
At my country, the 6300 can be bought as a set with 18-135mm at lower price. I checked BH photo video eshop and they have body for 900$ and set with 18-135 for 1300$. Not so expensive acc my opinion.
I have 18-135 for two weeks and it seems as a good choice for trips etc. I would personally prefer it instead of 16-50 and 55-210. Also because I dont like changing lenses outdoor.
W3PYF
Leading Member
- Messages
- 908
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,078
Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
Attachments
No need for anyone to post images to show the weaknesses of the lenses since the images you posted adequately demonstrates them.Ignore those who condemn Sony kit lenses. They are only as good as the people shooting with them...and if you note, virtually NONE who condemn them show any examples.
Here are a few of mine:
Bottom line: The kit zooms are genuine bargains. Buy them and you will discover, coming from a non-interchangeable lens camera, what focal lengths you are most likely to use.
And again: ignore the bashers.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum