This sounds promising?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
wb2trf Veteran Member • Posts: 3,220
Re: Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.
1

Euell wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Oh, just stop this kvetch

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

Review sites. Who cares.

Here's my personal line up. This is just mine. There are plenty of other lenses. I shoot landscape and portrait. (For the latter I need AF. For the former, it's optional.) My main lenses: Rok 12 f2, Sig 16 f1.4, Rok 21 f1.4, ZS 24 1.8, Sig 30 1.4 and 2.8, SEL 50 1.8 and FE 85 1.8. These lenses are all excellent. I shoot mostly primes by preference. I also have the 16-50 and the 55-210, which I use occasionally when I don't have room for anything else. The 16-50 is a compact marvel, when one needs compactness. I'm attaching a shot with the 16-50, just for illustration of the terrible things that can happen when that's all I can carry.

I think Sony is doing fine without your lens strategy inputs.

Here's a shot with the 16-50 which I try not to use, but when I need to works ok.

A couple of observations: the photo above is very nice. My screen, however, shows that the level of detail is likely not sufficient for a very large, sharp print. Be that as it may, I like it. The other observation is that none of the lenses you listed have OSS, other than the 16-50 (which made the above) and the 55-210. And, of course, more than half are not from Sony and several are not AF. These may indeed serve your needs quite well, but can Sony do better for its APSC customers? Sure.

Not quite, the SEL 50 has OSS.  If I needed OSS, I'd buy the 6500, and probably would have kept the 35mm SEL instead of the two 30mm Sigmas, but, personally, I have no use for IS in any form.

As for the photo above, it is really here just to illustrate the virtues of the 16-50.  I had no room that day for anything bigger than the A6000 and SEL16-50 in a jacket pocket.  (The old 16mm 2.8 is no better than the 16-50, btw).  So I had it and was happy I did.

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good.  If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate.  That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay.  That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow