A mount on A6000

[Heavens Light]

Hi, looking for some advice. Does anyone use the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 on their A6000 with the LAEA2 adaptor? Do they dwarf the camera or do they balance OK and is the IQ good? I've got the Zeiss 16-70 but I'm not blown away by the IQ and wondering if the above might be decent alternatives

 

[Leaping Carp]

Hi, I have the combo (LAEA2 + Sigma 17-70) but haven't tried it since I got the a6000. On the NEX-5 it was broadly equivalent to the SEL18200 and on the a6000 that's about perfect balance and heft wise. I'll try it when I'm home this week and let you know.

 

[heartdisease]

Hi, looking for some advice. Does anyone use the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 on their A6000 with the LAEA2 adaptor? Do they dwarf the camera or do they balance OK and is the IQ good? I've got the Zeiss 16-70 but I'm not blown away by the IQ and wondering if the above might be decent alternatives

Don't know about those lenses sorry to say. I have heard the Zeis is great what about it disappoints you? Care to sell it?

 

[RonFrank]

Post some images showing your disappointing results with the Sony-Zeiss. You either have a poor lens (doubtful) or you have GAS! Why did you need 3 zoom lenses covering a similar focal length?

I often suggest skipping the Zeiss as I feel it is over priced, but it is a decant lens with a fixed aperture and smaller than the lenses you list (add even more bulk with the adapter). I think the 16-70mm is a good lens, just over priced, and should work better on the A6000 than the Sigma or Tamron even if they are a whopping one stop faster. The adapter does add PDAF built-in but if you are struggling with the A6000 focusing, learning the A6000 focus is the best idea.

If your results are disappointing you are likely not shooting as much as you need to up your skills. I see a lot of people who have the same MO, take a few shots at there normal settings, and post on the forums asking for advice. With today's cameras there is zero excuse for shooting at just one SS, aperture, ISO etc.

If the added f2.8 that the Tamron lens offers really makes a difference then sure get the adapter especially if you have other A mount lenses. I doubt your shooting results will be dramatically different using the f2.8 Tamron vs. the f4 Sony-Zeiss.

 

[Leaping Carp]

Hi, I have the combo (LAEA2 + Sigma 17-70) but haven't tried it since I got the a6000. On the NEX-5 it was broadly equivalent to the SEL18200 and on the a6000 that's about perfect balance and heft wise. I'll try it when I'm home this week and let you know.

Hi again, here's the comparison. Overall slightly heavier but similar in feel. The 17-70mm in the photo is f2.8 at the wide end and has IS (but I don't know if that makes a big weight difference). Picture quality wise, honestly I don't know. I haven't really used it. I thought that I would for the wider aperture and the faster focus than my 35mm f1.8 but in reality that stayed on my camera and I've never had a chance to really learn the lens. The reviews I read before I hunted this one down are very good though, it's meant to be one of Sigma's better lenses.

 

[Leaping Carp]

Hi, I have the combo (LAEA2 + Sigma 17-70) but haven't tried it since I got the a6000. On the NEX-5 it was broadly equivalent to the SEL18200 and on the a6000 that's about perfect balance and heft wise. I'll try it when I'm home this week and let you know.

Hi again, here's the comparison. Overall slightly heavier but similar in feel. The 17-70mm in the photo is f2.8 at the wide end and has IS (but I don't know if that makes a big weight difference). Picture quality wise, honestly I don't know. I haven't really used it. I thought that I would for the wider aperture and the faster focus than my 35mm f1.8 but in reality that stayed on my camera and I've never had a chance to really learn the lens. The reviews I read before I hunted this one down are very good though, it's meant to be one of Sigma's better lenses.

OOPS! Here's the picture that I meant to include:

Lens comparison

 

[EinsteinsGhost]

Hi, looking for some advice. Does anyone use the Sigma 17-70 or Tamron 17-50 on their A6000 with the LAEA2 adaptor? Do they dwarf the camera or do they balance OK and is the IQ good? I've got the Zeiss 16-70 but I'm not blown away by the IQ and wondering if the above might be decent alternatives

I have Sony DT 16-50/2.8 SSM, which is an awesome lens: Quiet, Fast AF and Sharp with very nice blur characteristics, and color rendition. Good close up ability (1:4 magnification). Superbly built too. The lens itself is weather resistant and has no zoom creep (an issue I find with many zooms).

It is great on either camera (a55, where it primarily serves as my kit lens, or NEX-6). Distortion at wider FL is noticeable, but I expect that in 16-20mm range especially from a zoom, and easily corrected with one click in LR. I had paid $600 for it three years ago, but I think its retail price is up around $800.

That being said, it is a relatively heavy lens at about 580g, and is quite thick (72mm filter size). It isn't overly long (IIRC, about 85mm or so at its widest FL). This means, some of that length is absorbed by the SLR mount. When the mount difference is "filled in" with adapter, you're looking at about 106-110mm length.

You can use it just as well on an E-mount body, however, if that is going to be your normal zoom lens, then you might be better off getting an A-mount body. This is why Sony E 16-70/4 OSS ZA is more appealing on E-mount body to me (Sony A-mount has its own version, although a Vario-Sonnar instead of Vario-Tessar: Sony DT 16-80/3.5-4.5 ZA).

With the 16-70/4, you actually get a better range (probably the best range for a normal zoom), cut the weight in about half without compromising build quality, significantly thinner (55mm filter size) and probably cut the effective length by a third.

A lot is made about the 16-70/4 being "only" f/4 and not f/2.8, but I don't see a point to it especially if low light photography is important (I would suggest carrying an f/2 or faster lens to compliment f/2.8 zoom anyway, which I do and so would with f/4). In fact, 70mm f/4 is a better combo for portraiture than 50/2.8, and at 16mm, f/2.8 matters little where one is more likely to use smaller apertures.