Is the A6000 worth picking up and E-mount still viable?

Disdain · Jul 19, 2022

I've had lots of various micro four thirds cameras and lenses these last few years. I sold them all to swap back to a bridge camera. However I do miss the fun of having different lenses and having a camera that I can make as versatile as I'd like. I quite fancy trying an APS-C sized sensor and would hope it will be an upgrade on previous cameras. I do value having a light package which is why I had m43.

So my question is, is the A6000 worth it for the price? Or is it worth getting something cheaper / more expensive. Are there any good used older models worth a look? Viewfinder isn't massively important to me, but I did like a tilt screen over a flip screen, but not essential. Is the Sony E mount still going strong?

apoc · Aug 14, 2022

Joachim Wulfers said:
GaryW said:

apoc said:

Brian Chichester said:

I found that the SEL 16/2.8 lens is not a bad lens at all particularly when used with the UWA adapter making it a 12mm WA lens. I believe most applications for such a lens are landscape images which are most likely taken stopped down. Therefore corners are no longer "bad". I have used that lens on many trips and my "memory of Laos" album shows the inner view of a pagoda in Vientiane taken with that combo.

I agree - l think the 16mm is actually improved by the wide converter. And in value for money terms, the combo must be one of the best deals out there.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't think it's improved, but it's not degraded by much, and you get a lot of functionality. Back in the day, it was an inexpensive way to get into UWA. There's also a fish-eye adapter, for more inexpensive fun.

Joachim Wulfers said:

When a low end phone gets better sharpness than this lens you can easily consider the lens is bad.

Click to expand...

But a low-end phone doesn't get better sharpness, so there's that.
I know a lot of people hate this lens, but in the center, it's sharper than about anything else I have. It falls down as you get to the edges. It's weak even at f8, but it's still better than the kit lenses. Even better in the center than the 18-105 (at 18mm), but worse on the edges.
A lot of the corner and edge softness may be due to an unusual field curvature.
You do need to stop down this lens for better results (particularly for the corners), and it helps to have lens correction for vignetting and CA, but once you're past all that, it's a fun compact lens. What do you want already? I have too many pics with it that are perfectly fine. What do you have in the corner that's so valuable, anyway? Pavement? Ceiling tiles?

Click to expand...

Talk is cheap . Those who say that a low end cellphone makes better pictures than the 16/2.8 have probably never used it. I have used it extensively and can show some photos taken in Laos, perfectly sharp with good colours and contrast. I like to see a low end cellphone photo.

Joachim Wulfers · Aug 15, 2022

apoc said:
Joachim Wulfers said:

GaryW said:

apoc said:

Brian Chichester said:

I found that the SEL 16/2.8 lens is not a bad lens at all particularly when used with the UWA adapter making it a 12mm WA lens. I believe most applications for such a lens are landscape images which are most likely taken stopped down. Therefore corners are no longer "bad". I have used that lens on many trips and my "memory of Laos" album shows the inner view of a pagoda in Vientiane taken with that combo.

I agree - l think the 16mm is actually improved by the wide converter. And in value for money terms, the combo must be one of the best deals out there.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I don't think it's improved, but it's not degraded by much, and you get a lot of functionality. Back in the day, it was an inexpensive way to get into UWA. There's also a fish-eye adapter, for more inexpensive fun.

apoc said:

When a low end phone gets better sharpness than this lens you can easily consider the lens is bad.

Click to expand...

But a low-end phone doesn't get better sharpness, so there's that.
I know a lot of people hate this lens, but in the center, it's sharper than about anything else I have. It falls down as you get to the edges. It's weak even at f8, but it's still better than the kit lenses. Even better in the center than the 18-105 (at 18mm), but worse on the edges.
A lot of the corner and edge softness may be due to an unusual field curvature.
You do need to stop down this lens for better results (particularly for the corners), and it helps to have lens correction for vignetting and CA, but once you're past all that, it's a fun compact lens. What do you want already? I have too many pics with it that are perfectly fine. What do you have in the corner that's so valuable, anyway? Pavement? Ceiling tiles?

Click to expand...

Talk is cheap . Those who say that a low end cellphone makes better pictures than the 16/2.8 have probably never used it. I have used it extensively and can show some photos taken in Laos, perfectly sharp with good colours and contrast. I like to see a low end cellphone photo.

Click to expand...

Please show. I’m interested in lightweight lenses.

One example, Photo # 2026 in my "Memories of Laos" album on my Flickr site. (see my signature). I used the wide angle adaptor in that shot, making it a 12mm lens.

Another light weight, much maligned lens is the kit lens PZ 16-50. Most photos in my "Circle Tour" album were shot with that lens. But I guess you know that lens.

--
JoWul
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/

GaryW · Aug 15, 2022

apoc said:
Please show. I’m interested in lightweight lenses.

I believe these were taken with the 16mm/f2.8 pancake lens, or with that lens and the UWA (12mm) add-on (probably the bottom two).

As you can see, they're completely ruined by fuzzy corners. ;-)

--
Gary W.

snapa · Aug 15, 2022

GaryW said:
apoc said:

Please show. I’m interested in lightweight lenses.

Click to expand...

I believe these were taken with the 16mm/f2.8 pancake lens, or with that lens and the UWA (12mm) add-on (probably the bottom two).
As you can see, they're completely ruined by fuzzy corners. ;-)

None of those pictures were ruined by fuzzy corners, since the forneres did not matter in them. This picture was ruined by the high ISO on the NEX-6 and a cheap pancake lens. I can't see the fuzzyness in this picture, can you? The soft corners in this picture do not matter, IMO.
But, I will agree with you, the Sony 16mm f2.8 is one of the worst lenses Sony ever made. Although at f5.6-10, it can do 'OK' in bright light, just like the 16-50 kit lens, from what I have seen. I took a lot of very nice pictures (IMO) at f5.6-10 with my 16-50 kit lens in good light. I guess it depends on what you want to call and OK, or satisfactory picture.

--
Life is short, so make the best of it while you still can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/
https://grob.smugmug.com/Wildlife-Pictures/

Suzatlarge · Aug 15, 2022

GaryW said:
apoc said:

Please show. I’m interested in lightweight lenses.

Click to expand...

I believe these were taken with the 16mm/f2.8 pancake lens, or with that lens and the UWA (12mm) add-on (probably the bottom two).
As you can see, they're completely ruined by fuzzy corners. ;-)

Yeah, tragic about those corners.

Not!! Nice shots.

I confess that after reading this discussion, I recently picked up an inexpensive used copy of the 16mm pancake, which I'm trying out.

GaryW · Aug 15, 2022

snapa said:
GaryW said:

apoc said:

Please show. I’m interested in lightweight lenses.

Click to expand...

I believe these were taken with the 16mm/f2.8 pancake lens, or with that lens and the UWA (12mm) add-on (probably the bottom two).
As you can see, they're completely ruined by fuzzy corners. ;-)

Click to expand...

None of those pictures were ruined by fuzzy corners, (it was something else,

Yes, the photographer is probably much more of a limiting factor than the cheap lens.

Seriously, though -- the flaws of the lens are there, but aren't going to be obvious in every photo.

snapa said:
especially this one. I just can't see the fuzzyness in this picture, can you?

I know the limitations of the lens, and I was surprised that the corners look as good as they do, here. The flags are clearly near the corner, but are only slightly soft. Similarly, the lower-right corner looks OK -- any blurriness is basically just going to look like the out of focus area. I did process with DxO which will adapt its sharpening to compensate for lens sharpness (sharpening the corners more than the center). It may be one factor that makes the lens more usable to me.

snapa said:
But, I will agree with you though, the Sony 16mm f2.8 is one of the worst lenses Sony ever made.

That's a bit of a harsh way to put it. Not every lens is a G lens, tho. :-D

snapa said:
Although at f5.6-10, it can do OK in bright light, just like the 16-50 kit lens, from what I have seen.

This pic was f4 in a dark museum. I had to brighten it up (raised the EV in post). The ceiling was surely much darker in person. It was not ideal conditions.

Once my copy gets to f7.1, the severe corner sharpness is gone, and outdoors in good light, results are good - a pretty sharp center and merely mediocre corners.

--
Gary W.

GaryW · Aug 15, 2022

Suzatlarge said:
GaryW said:

apoc said:

Please show. I’m interested in lightweight lenses.

Click to expand...

I believe these were taken with the 16mm/f2.8 pancake lens, or with that lens and the UWA (12mm) add-on (probably the bottom two).
As you can see, they're completely ruined by fuzzy corners. ;-)

Click to expand...

Yeah, tragic about those corners. Not!! Nice shots.

Thanks!

Suzatlarge said:
I confess that after reading this discussion, I recently picked up an inexpensive used copy of the 16mm pancake, which I'm trying out.

OK, but don't say I didn't warn you about the severe corner sharpness! Think of it as a fun, casual lens, don't use it at f2.8, and with expectations managed, it's much better. ;-)

For better quality, and even more compactness, consider the 20mm/2.8. I prefer that one in general, sometimes using it as a walkaround lens when I don't want to bother with much else, but ultra wide angles can be more fun sometimes. These days, I tend to use the 16mm more with the UWA adapter, as I have more options, now. The 16mm made more sense in the early days of Nex, when there just weren't that many lenses to choose from. Although, maybe it still makes sense today for those on a tight budget, particularly when buying used.

Suzatlarge · Aug 15, 2022

GaryW said:
GaryW said:

I confess that after reading this discussion, I recently picked up an inexpensive used copy of the 16mm pancake, which I'm trying out.

Click to expand...

OK, but don't say I didn't warn you about the severe corner sharpness! Think of it as a fun, casual lens, don't use it at f2.8, and with expectations managed, it's much better. ;-)
For better quality, and even more compactness, consider the 20mm/2.8. I prefer that one in general, sometimes using it as a walkaround lens when I don't want to bother with much else, but ultra wide angles can be more fun sometimes. These days, I tend to use the 16mm more with the UWA adapter, as I have more options, now. The 16mm made more sense in the early days of Nex, when there just weren't that many lenses to choose from. Although, maybe it still makes sense today for those on a tight budget, particularly when buying used.

Thanks. I do have that 20mm pancake and agree that it's a good walkaround lens. I probably acquired it not long after I bought the a6000, which was early 2014. It's survived lots of lens-culling. It's spent a lot of time recently on the a6000 which has been converted to infrared.

I'm on a "lighten the load" kick lately, as I'm well into my alleged "golden years," finding it easier to lose conditioning and harder to regain/keep it. I just can't lug a lot of weight around in a shoulder bag or my hands for hours like I could in the past, without paying for it in aches. I'll blame that for my getting the little 16mm, which was def an impulse buy. At least it was an inexpensive impulse.

Maybe it's like the tiny house thing, only for camera gear.

In another forum here I've disclosed that I'm considering whether to eventually upgrade from the RX100iii to the RX100vii. I've also posted about recently getting a cheap clean barely used NEX-5R. which is a fun small walkaround camera with some good results so far. Yep, tiny cameras!!

GaryW · Aug 15, 2022

Suzatlarge said:
Thanks. I do have that 20mm pancake and agree that it's a good walkaround lens. I probably acquired it not long after I bought the a6000, which was early 2014. It's survived lots of lens-culling. It's spent a lot of time recently on the a6000 which has been converted to infrared.

I'm on a "lighten the load" kick lately, as I'm well into my alleged "golden years," finding it easier to lose conditioning and harder to regain/keep it. I just can't lug a lot of weight around in a shoulder bag or my hands for hours like I could in the past, without paying for it in aches. I'll blame that for my getting the little 16mm, which was def an impulse buy. At least it was an inexpensive impulse.

Maybe it's like the tiny house thing, only for camera gear. In another forum here I've disclosed that I'm considering whether to eventually upgrade from the RX100iii to the RX100vii. I've also posted about recently getting a cheap clean barely used NEX-5R. which is a fun small walkaround camera with some good results so far. Yep, tiny cameras!!

I started with the Nex-5. The Nex-5 with the 16mm lens was a compact combo -- the 20mm is nearly perfect on that camera for general use! Fun travel camera. I like the idea of getting one of the newer 5-series versions. Still more $$ than I want to pay right now, but tempting.

I try to figure out where I'm going, and my tolerance for weight/size based upon that. If travelling, I'll lean towards the small size. However, I've taken the 18-105 on hikes, so I'm not beyond taking a larger lens. But in general, I favor the smaller lenses. It's why I already have both pancake lenses.

If money were no object, I'd have one of the RX cameras too! It's a bit more than the 16mm/2.8, which I agree, is cheap enough to be an impulse buy for fun.

GaryW · Aug 16, 2022

https://www.opticallimits.com/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/728-sony16f28nex7?start=1

Here, you can see some measurements that are similar to what I found. The author gives the lens 1 star on quality, but from f5.6 to f8, I don't see much difference in resolution between this and, say, the 30mm macro lens. Obviously, this lens is trouble with wider apertures, so avoid that if reasonable. He also tested the UWA adapter, and gives a lot of info other than the 1 star review.

Interestingly, they also tested on an older camera, where it doesn't look quite as bad. Clearly, the center sharpness far exceeds the old 14 and 16mp cameras, but corners and edges are still poor.

Loading…

www.opticallimits.com

Brian Chichester · Aug 17, 2022

I'm surprised at the amount of controversy (and abuse) that the mention of the humble 16mm pancake has stirred up. I've had the lens, and used it, for some years, and bearing in mind its low price, and small size, I can't see what's not to like.

Autumn scene

Abandoned book

Old schoolyard

I'm not touting these as remarkable photos, I just don't think the (alleged) shortcomings of the lens affects them in any way.

apoc · Aug 17, 2022

The problem is that you need to use it at f5.6 or f8 to be somewhat acceptable if I buy a 2.8 is to be able use it at 2.8 if I want and get a decent quality.

Joachim Wulfers · Aug 17, 2022

apoc said:
The problem is that you need to use it at f5.6 or f8 to be somewhat acceptable if I buy a 2.8 is to be able use it at 2.8 if I want and get a decent quality.

I am always stopping down when using a WA lens. And if you shoot at 2.8 with the 16/2.8, why do you care about corner sharpness?

apoc · Aug 17, 2022

Because maybe I need light because it’s dark?

I get better performance with the uwa of my phone.

PhotoFactor · Aug 17, 2022

Joachim Wulfers said:
apoc said:

The problem is that you need to use it at f5.6 or f8 to be somewhat acceptable if I buy a 2.8 is to be able use it at 2.8 if I want and get a decent quality.

Click to expand...

I am always stopping down when using a WA lens. And if you shoot at 2.8 with the 16/2.8, why do you care about corner sharpness?

My feeling is that you are paying a lot for an interchangeable lens system and you should expect a certain level of quality from the *manufacturer's* brand-name lenses. And for Sony, the PZ16-50 and the 16mm are pretty shabby.

Brian Chichester · Aug 18, 2022

PhotoFactor said:
My feeling is that you are paying a lot for an interchangeable lens system and you should expect a certain level of quality ...

I know you can't really go wrong rubbishing a lens (particularly a cheap one) on a gear forum like this. The reasoning, stated or implied, is that "I have higher standards" or " I can afford better" or both.

The camera I used in my recent image posts, a NEX-5N, cost about £80 and the pancake lens was about the same. I'm not trying to make a virtue out of photography on the cheap, but I consider the quality: price balance is about right here. I could afford better, but I think the equipment is "good enough". If I was doing giant prints I might need more MP and better resolution, but I wasn't.

You probably know that as you go up the price scale you get into diminishing returns, and I think I know enough to stop before I get there.

Joachim Wulfers · Aug 18, 2022

apoc said:
Because maybe I need light because it’s dark?

I get better performance with the uwa of my phone.

Well, then maybe enjoy your phone ;-)

UniveralExports · Mar 1, 2025

I have recently repurchased an a6000 after selling one years ago.

I bought mine when it was first released after upgrading from the NEX6, but sold it as I was disappointed by the lack of a spirit level in the viewfinder. Doesn't seem such a bid deal now as there are grid line options.

Since then the a6400 with 18/135 has been my default choice: despite trying the a6600 and a6700, I could not see any useful difference with stills, and both are significantly heavier than the a6400.

I also had an NEX3n with PZ1650 (i) which was my pocketable camera: I updated that to an a5100 for the higher res sensor, but still missed the combination of lower weight and a viewfinder.

So, I repurchased an NEX6, but found the interface too different from the later a series bodies like my a5100 and a6400, so have once again bought an a6000, this time I have it paired with the new PZ16502.

It's a revelation especially with the new lens which I find significantly better than the older version despite no published optical differences: the combo is lighter than the a6400 body alone, as it uses a composite material for the body (c 350g only) which no other a6XXXX replicated. I can't see any material difference with the a6400 with stills.

I thoroughly recommend this camera even in 2025.

Joachim Wulfers · Mar 1, 2025

I still have my 6000 since I purchased it new. Never had any issues but eventually the A6600 replaced it for daily use. On MC trips it finds its place in the tank bag and has come with me on many long touring trips and travels around the world.

--
JoWul

Joachim Wulfers

Explore Joachim Wulfers’s 2,024 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Olympuse1 · Mar 26, 2025

Joachim Wulfers said:
I still have my 6000 since I purchased it new. Never had any issues but eventually the A6600 replaced it for daily use. On MC trips it finds its place in the tank bag and has come with me on many long touring trips and travels around the world.

--
JoWul
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/

When is the a6800 coming out?

Is the A6000 worth picking up and E-mount still viable?

Active member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

New member

Veteran Member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts