rogatsby

Through my dirty window. Rainy season in Seoul has one benefit — beautiful skies.

A6000, Sony 35.

Awesome lenses, but the Sigma 56 is really good, and the AF makes it a better choice for me.

Yes, that is obvious. The point I was trying to make was that the f2.8 zoom just can’t match or replace the F1.4 or 1.8 primes in low light indoor shots, particularly on APSC bodies. And if you ...

Right, so the topic turned to whether it is worth getting this zoom on a camera without IBIS, and whether it is good enough to replace all the available primes on a body without IBIS.  So a ...

This is about using this zoom without IBIS. And my camera does not have IBIS. Hence the shutter speed. Look at the title. And I have seen that and other videos. I think the Sigmas are sharper. ...

Better than what I could have gotten with the 16-55 without flash, which is the point of this thread. And I could get equal if not better results with the SEL35 or SEL50, which have OSS, since I ...

The Sigma 16 is not really good for portraits, obviously. But it does decently and allows you to use lower isos in low light situations, and the results are good. Here are some, which seem to have ...

What is actually more amazing to me is how sharp and good the Sigma primes are for their prices. Now that is value. And I think we both agree that the 16-55 cannot replace good primes in very low ...

I was never one of those people clamoring for a f2.8 zoom for Sony APSC. I always preferred using primes with my Nex-5N and my A6000. That being said, I was excited to see the release of the ...

Shooting outdoors in bright light, I am sure the 16-55 is good. Even my kit lens is pretty good there. Dimly lit situations indoors? My guess is that you would need to go up to at least ISO 3200. ...

Tiny plants with the A6000 and Sigma 16.

I agree with you. The only problem is, as great as the 16-55 f2.8 is, it has limitations for low light indoor shots. On full frame, f2.8 lenses will be fine. But that is not the case for APSC. So ...

I really want to see some real-life shots, and that is why I am asking. I can afford to buy the 16-55. But I am just wondering whether it can give me both great low light indoor shots as well as ...

Can you show me some of your shots with that amazing 16-55 2.8? I’ve seen reviews. I want to see real user photos that mean something. And that excludes brick walls and totally washed out photos ...

Good choice imo.  The Sony 35 E is great for indoor shots in low light, especially so on the older bodies with no IBIS. I use it almost exclusively for that purpose as seen in my shots above, and ...

Like in the test shots, the FE seems to be only marginally sharper than the SEL35F1.8, and I’m not even sure if I really notice the difference. The APS-C Sony 35 is a fantastic lens taking into ...

Try using the camera in aperture priority mode (A) and set the aperture at f8-10 for a phot like that. I bet you will get much better results.

The problem is your ISO setting. You have it set at the max ISO, which will give you a lot of noise and is totally unnecessary in a photo taken in broad daylight. Try setting the ISO to 100-200.

If you shot this in RAW, what you could do is use Lightroom and mask the birds and the rest of the subject area and selectively reduce the highlights and make other adjustments accordingly. If you ...