A6600 w/16-55 2.8 or A7 III w/24-70 f/4

I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.

Alex Ethridge said:

I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.

Click to expand...

They look outstanding choices to me. I think an F/4 standard zoom lens on a full frame camera has the right balance of light gathering and manageable weight for travel and everyday use.

In my case however, I find that 70mm on a full frame is not long enough for a standard zoom lens. If I were to spend close to US $ 2900 my choice would have been either a Canon EOS R and the RF 24-105/4 for US $ 2699 or even the RP at US $ 1900 with the same RF kit. Granted this is such an easy call for me given I have a good selection of EF lenses.

Good luck in whatever decision you make.

José

f/4.2 on FF is equivalent to f/2.8 on APS-C. So with the f/4 you win slightly with regards to noise.

But the 24-70/4 is not a highly regarded lens (but it have be had for cheap, used).

José B said:

They look outstanding choices to me. I think an F/4 standard zoom lens on a full frame camera has the right balance of light gathering and manageable weight for travel and everyday use.

In my case however, I find that 70mm on a full frame is not long enough for a standard zoom lens. If I were to spend close to US $ 2900 my choice would have been either a Canon EOS R and the RF 24-105/4 for US $ 2699 or even the RP at US $ 1900 with the same RF kit. Granted this is such an easy call for me given I have a good selection of EF lenses.

Good luck in whatever decision you make.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your comment.

My reason for going with one of these two cameras is for their real-time tracking, especially eye tracking. I think it will increase my keeper rate. I've watch a lot of reviews of Sony's tracking against other mirrorless brands and Sony wins consistently without any room for doubt.

However, if I were vested in lenses as you, it would be a harder choice.

Again, thanks.

Sympa said:

f/4.2 on FF is equivalent to f/2.8 on APS-C. So with the f/4 you win slightly with regards to noise.

But the 24-70/4 is not a highly regarded lens (but it have be had for cheap, used).

Click to expand...

I have read that before about the f/4. What is it about that lens that people don't think it measures up well?

José B said:

Alex Ethridge said:

I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.

Click to expand...

They look outstanding choices to me. I think an F/4 standard zoom lens on a full frame camera has the right balance of light gathering and manageable weight for travel and everyday use.

In my case however, I find that 70mm on a full frame is not long enough for a standard zoom lens. If I were to spend close to US $ 2900 my choice would have been either a Canon EOS R and the RF 24-105/4 for US $ 2699 or even the RP at US $ 1900 with the same RF kit. Granted this is such an easy call for me given I have a good selection of EF lenses.

Good luck in whatever decision you make.

José

Click to expand...

Jose, please do not recommend the the eos rp, unless you own it and can demonstrate something that's not apparent? The image quality from that sensor and its specification, 4fps c-af I think, is not very good in any area, by all means the r has some merit but the rp, please!

The difference between an eos r and an a6x in dr is zero, from raw the larger sensor might provide you with some benefit above iso3200 but generally speaking Canon is not that great, everyone knows this, these cameras also have diabolical c-af systems for a 2019 camera.

Advent1sam said:

José B said:

Alex Ethridge said:

I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.

Click to expand...

They look outstanding choices to me. I think an F/4 standard zoom lens on a full frame camera has the right balance of light gathering and manageable weight for travel and everyday use.

In my case however, I find that 70mm on a full frame is not long enough for a standard zoom lens. If I were to spend close to US $ 2900 my choice would have been either a Canon EOS R and the RF 24-105/4 for US $ 2699 or even the RP at US $ 1900 with the same RF kit. Granted this is such an easy call for me given I have a good selection of EF lenses.

Good luck in whatever decision you make.

José

Click to expand...

Jose, please do not recommend the the eos rp, unless you own it and can demonstrate something that's not apparent? The image quality from that sensor and its specification, 4fps c-af I think, is not very good in any area, by all means the r has some merit but the rp, please!

The difference between an eos r and an a6x in dr is zero, from raw the larger sensor might provide you with some benefit above iso3200 but generally speaking Canon is not that great, everyone knows this, these cameras also have diabolical c-af systems for a 2019 camera.

Click to expand...

Sam, thanks but I couldn't care less about charts. I've got an awesome great extremely happy experience with Canon since 2004 so I'm very much committed to the system. It's just a matter of me either picking up the R now or wait for the IBIS version.

Alex Ethridge said:

I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.

Click to expand...

Alex, the Sony 24-70 f4 is pretty rubbish, image resource exposes this quite well


Unless you are going a7r4/24-70 2.8 its unreasonable to expect the a7iii with a 24-105 to offer you much extra except weight and an extra dial over the 6600/16-55 2.8. Sure the a7iii with 24-70 2.8 will be a bit better in dof, if the weight/cost is ok it seems a great combination, but f4's on FF, you are not gaining much imo at all.

There's a new Sigma 24-70/2.8 FE for $1100. I guess that would be your choice.

SpacemanUA said:

There's a new Sigma 24-70/2.8 FE for $1100. I guess that would be your choice.

Click to expand...

I saw a direct comparison between the Sony and Sigma with both cameras mounted together on a rigid frame. The Sigma was noticeably slower at focus tracking, slower to lock onto the eye and locked onto the eye only at closer distances.

My reason for going to Sony is for its hands-down, winning real-time tracking and the Sigma seems to negate that somewhat.

I may have to "bite the bullet" and go for the Sony 24-70 2.8 in the end but that also introduces the extra weight and bulk into the equation, which that difference is significant.

Then there's the Sony 24-105 f/4; I like the extra reach. I'm researching it now.

Alex Ethridge said:

I saw a direct comparison between the Sony and Sigma with both cameras mounted together on a rigid frame. The Sigma was noticeably slower at focus tracking, slower to lock onto the eye and locked onto the eye only at closer distances.

My reason for going to Sony is for its hands-down, winning real-time tracking and the Sigma seems to negate that somewhat.

I may have to "bite the bullet" and go for the Sony 24-70 2.8 in the end but that also introduces the extra weight and bulk into the equation, which that difference is significant.

Then there's the Sony 24-105 f/4; I like the extra reach. I'm researching it now.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about a new one. It was just announced:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/13601...dg-dn-lens-will-ship-early-december-for-1-099

And there are no reviews on that yet except a short hands-on from Digital Goja. And it seems it's fast and snappy.

SpacemanUA said:

Alex Ethridge said:

I saw a direct comparison between the Sony and Sigma with both cameras mounted together on a rigid frame. The Sigma was noticeably slower at focus tracking, slower to lock onto the eye and locked onto the eye only at closer distances.

My reason for going to Sony is for its hands-down, winning real-time tracking and the Sigma seems to negate that somewhat.

I may have to "bite the bullet" and go for the Sony 24-70 2.8 in the end but that also introduces the extra weight and bulk into the equation, which that difference is significant.

Then there's the Sony 24-105 f/4; I like the extra reach. I'm researching it now.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about a new one. It was just announced:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/13601...dg-dn-lens-will-ship-early-december-for-1-099

And there are no reviews on that yet except a short hands-on from Digital Goja. And it seems it's fast and snappy.

Click to expand...

Thanks, didn't know there was a new one coming.

I've been reading up and watching reports on the Sony 24-105mm and so far it looks OK.

This is a tough choice but I think the beauty is - what are your goals and do you see them differently long-term than the short-term prospect of buying now?

My experience: I have owned the Sony A6500 (sold it to get the A7III - which I love), and have used an A6400.

Though I will primarily focus on full-frame (which is an important question for you), my lenses follow and work perfectly for what I do: Tamron 17-28 f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, Sony 35mm f1.8 FE, and the Sony 100-400mm GM (w/1.4x TC). Now, I don't do much video (don't have a gimbal etc.), and most of my lenses are NOT OSS (other than the GMaster which is used for wildlife). I am not contemplating adding a second body and am weighing another A7III (briefly looked at a used A7rII and A7riii), or weight another 10 days for the A6600 (which would mean my batteries are the same and I would be good with current lens - could add something like the Sigma 16mm f1.4 or others if I wanted), or wait until 2020 for the upcoming A7IV.

For your decision making, you mentioned you didn't want to spend the money on the Sony 24-70 F2.8, but the Tammy wouldn't work for you since you need the 24mm end. The 24-70 f4 is a good lens, though if you are looking at crop factor and wanted to go APS-C with something like the A6600 you could look at something like the Sigma 16mm f1.4 (outstanding lense) with the Tamron 28-75mm as you would have a 24mm equivalent prime (on APS-C) and a 42-112.5mm equivalent zoom (on APS-C) which would make a nice package. The Tamrons are excellent. I have borrowed my friends Sony A7RIII to shoot with the Tamron and really liked the images for a lot less money than the Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM.

I think the biggest question for you is do you need full-frame or will crop sensor work for what you want to do? What about video, will you do a lot of it, or just sometimes? What kind of budget will you have for lenses - unless you go crop censor those GM lenses will do a number on your bank account!

macbobpayne said:

This is a tough choice but I think the beauty is - what are your goals and do you see them differently long-term than the short-term prospect of buying now?

Click to expand...

My reason for going Sony is for real-time tracking, especially eye tracking. This will make my keeper rate go up.

macbobpayne said:

My experience: I have owned the Sony A6500 (sold it to get the A7III - which I love), and have used an A6400.

Though I will primarily focus on full-frame (which is an important question for you), my lenses follow and work perfectly for what I do: Tamron 17-28 f2.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, Sony 35mm f1.8 FE, and the Sony 100-400mm GM (w/1.4x TC). Now, I don't do much video (don't have a gimbal etc.), and most of my lenses are NOT OSS (other than the GMaster which is used for wildlife). I am not contemplating adding a second body and am weighing another A7III (briefly looked at a used A7rII and A7riii), or weight another 10 days for the A6600 (which would mean my batteries are the same and I would be good with current lens - could add something like the Sigma 16mm f1.4 or others if I wanted), or wait until 2020 for the upcoming A7IV.

For your decision making, you mentioned you didn't want to spend the money on the Sony 24-70 F2.8, but the Tammy wouldn't work for you since you need the 24mm end. The 24-70 f4 is a good lens,

Click to expand...

The reviews I've seen and read say it's not good away from center.

macbobpayne said:

though if you are looking at crop factor and wanted to go APS-C with something like the A6600 you could look at something like the Sigma 16mm f1.4 (outstanding lense) with the Tamron 28-75mm as you would have a 24mm equivalent prime (on APS-C) and a 42-112.5mm equivalent zoom (on APS-C) which would make a nice package. The Tamrons are excellent. I have borrowed my friends Sony A7RIII to shoot with the Tamron and really liked the images for a lot less money than the Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM.

I think the biggest question for you is do you need full-frame or will crop sensor work for what you want to do? What about video, will you do a lot of it, or just sometimes? What kind of budget will you have for lenses - unless you go crop censor those GM lenses will do a number on your bank account!

Click to expand...

No, I do not need full frame, or the extra weight, and for that reason I keep coming back to the A6600 for the lighter weight and the lower-priced optics in the event I decide to expand.

I guess I'll most likely settle on the A6600 when KEH sends me a check.

Forget about 24-70/4 - get 28-75/2.8 instead. I don't see many advantages of A6600/16-55 combo over A7III + Tamron at same price. A bit smaller, a bit wider, a bit sharper, but twice as much noise, worse DR, much worse controls, worse video, much worse lens choice.

voronspb said:

Forget about 24-70/4 - get 28-75/2.8 instead. I don't see many advantages of A6600/16-55 combo over A7III + Tamron at same price. A bit smaller, a bit wider, a bit sharper, but twice as much noise, worse DR, much worse controls, worse video, much worse lens choice.

Click to expand...

Thanks but I think you missed the part in my initial post that says:

"The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL)."

Starting today, I am researching the 24-105mm f/4 for its longer zoom and better IQ.

Alex Ethridge said:

Thanks but I think you missed the part in my initial post that says:

"The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL)."

Starting today, I am researching the 24-105mm f/4 for its longer zoom and better IQ.

Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. In that case the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 may suit your needs. You'll need waiting a bit for reliable reviews though, not just random Youtube guys. It'll be cheaper than 24-105, and more suitable for shooting in low light. To my taste, F4 is too slow on FF, and that's the same that you'll be getting at F2.8 with cropped sensor.

I find the A6xxx series desperately lacking the third dial and AF joystick - to degree, when it really limits the usability.

Alex Ethridge said:

I've sent off a bunch of m43 equipment to KEH and unless I've made some kind of wild errors, it will fund, or significantly fund my transition to Sony. (I'm keeping my GH5 and some lenses for backup.)

I'm in a quandary vacillating between the A6600 w/16-55 2.8 and the A7 III w/24-70 f/4. If I go with the A7 III which is about $$600 more than the A6600, I don't feel I can justify (to myself) the additional expense of the Sony FE 24-70mm 2.8.

So here's my question. How do you think the A7 III w/24-70 f/4 and the A6600 w/16-55mm 2.8 balance noise-wise when the A7 III can't get f/2.8 and I have to bump the ISO up another stop?

I hope that makes sense.

The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL). Also, I have looked at some videos directly comparing the Sigma offering to Sony's in that same zoom range and the Sigma is slower at focusing and doesn't do as good a job at real-time tracking.

Click to expand...

a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking) and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).

a7iii with sigma 24-70mm 2.8 will be cheaper a lot since the sigma is priced at dirt cheap price $1100. But the size will be massive and weight a ton.

bloodlmt said:

a6600 with real-time tracking combined with the 16-55 2.8 is probably faster than a7iii (no realtime tracking) and 24-70 f4 (old lens with ok optics, not great, old focus motors).

a7iii with sigma 24-70mm 2.8 will be cheaper a lot since the sigma is priced at dirt cheap price $1100. But the size will be massive and weight a ton.

Click to expand...

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM Lens:

• Dimensions (ø x L) 3.45 x 5.35" / 87.6 x 136 mm
• Weight 1.95 lb / 886 g

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art:

• Dimensions (ø x L) 3.46 x 4.84" / 87.8 x 122.9 mm
• Weight 1.84 lb / 835 g

It's smaller and lighter than GM.

And haven't a7 III got AF update with some of new firmwares?

voronspb said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Thanks but I think you missed the part in my initial post that says:

"The Tamron 28-75mm is not something I can consider as I need the full width of 24mm (EFL)."

Starting today, I am researching the 24-105mm f/4 for its longer zoom and better IQ.

Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. In that case the new Sigma 24-70/2.8 may suit your needs. You'll need waiting a bit for reliable reviews though, not just random Youtube guys. It'll be cheaper than 24-105, and more suitable for shooting in low light. To my taste, F4 is too slow on FF, and that's the same that you'll be getting at F2.8 with cropped sensor.

I find the A6xxx series desperately lacking the third dial and AF joystick - to degree, when it really limits the usability.

Click to expand...

I own both Sony 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 f4. For my shooting I now find that I use the 24-105 more than the 24-70. In my case it comes down to:

1. Need light?

or

2. Need reach?

For me, the 24-105 is slightly more versatile.