What lens should I buy -- A guide

[havoc315]

Happy Holidays everyone..

 

I've attempted to put together some guidance for new ILC camera owners attempting to grow their lens collection:

 

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/12/24/what-lens-should-i-buy/

[pierces]

Nicely done!

 

The only addition I would offer is the excellent Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f/2.0 manual focus lens for APS-C. Sharp wide open and the f/2.0 comes in handy when on walkabout with out a flash. The occasional $250 price tag when it's on sale doesn't hurt either.

 

I've had one for a couple of years now and it was almost always on the A6000 when I was out and about on a non-wildlife excursion to compliment the 18-105 on the A6300. It now is on the A6300 to compliment the 24-105 on the A73.  Great little lens.

 

Dave

[kenevenpar]

Nice article!  Thanks.

[havoc315]

On 12/24/2018 at 11:31 AM, pierces said:

Nicely done!

 

The only addition I would offer is the excellent Rokinon/Samyang 12mm f/2.0 manual focus lens for APS-C. Sharp wide open and the f/2.0 comes in handy when on walkabout with out a flash. The occasional $250 price tag when it's on sale doesn't hurt either.

 

I've had one for a couple of years now and it was almost always on the A6000 when I was out and about on a non-wildlife excursion to compliment the 18-105 on the A6300. It now is on the A6300 to compliment the 24-105 on the A73.  Great little lens.

 

Dave

 

You're the second person to mention the 12/2.....  I'm not familiar with the lens personally. And I didn't intend the article to be a complete guide to every lens, just to establish the right framework when thinking about lenses.

That Rokinon 12/2 definitely sounds like a potential winner. I don't love MF lenses, but I'm ok with them for ultrawide angle. 

Truthfully, the Sony 10-18/4 is the ONLY aps-c zoom lens from Sony that I actually like, so I never looked at ultrawide primes. (though it is triple the price of that Rokinon).  I never met any other Sony aps-c zoom that impressed me. Sure, some are very convenient and can produce nice images under the right circumstances. But none of them could ever consistently wow me, especially for the price. (the 16-70/4 is not *bad* if it was a $400 kit lens, but for $900...)

[zackiedawg]

I would definitely say your suggestion that the 18-135mm might be a good option for those wanting a little more reach is spot on.  You mentioned not being impressed with any Sony APS-C zoom, but unless you got a bad copy, I'd be surprised if you didn't find some positive feelings on this lens for the price.  My copy, and virtually all who I've seen post with it have agreed, is a big step up in IQ over the kit lenses, and most seem to agree it's better than the 16-70mm and 18-105mm in IQ...considering the price under $500, and very good stabilization, it has a lot to recommend it.

 

I'd also possibly throw in a mention for the Sigma 16mm F1.4 - it's a rare bird in APS-C land - a wide (24mm equivalent) and fast lens that's sharp from wide open, and a very reasonable price.  Low light APS-C shooters often find out especially for interior shooting that the typical F1.4 lenses available are 30mm to 50mm, which is too long...the Sigma 16mm fills a very nice niche need for wide and fast low light shooting on an APS-C body.  For the purpose of your article, the Sigma lens is made for M4:3 as well, and Fuji also has their own 16mm F1.4...so this focal length and aperture doesn't just apply to Sony shooters.

[havoc315]

24 minutes ago, zackiedawg said:

I would definitely say your suggestion that the 18-135mm might be a good option for those wanting a little more reach is spot on.  You mentioned not being impressed with any Sony APS-C zoom, but unless you got a bad copy, I'd be surprised if you didn't find some positive feelings on this lens for the price.  My copy, and virtually all who I've seen post with it have agreed, is a big step up in IQ over the kit lenses, and most seem to agree it's better than the 16-70mm and 18-105mm in IQ...considering the price under $500, and very good stabilization, it has a lot to recommend it.

 

 

 

I never did try the 18-135. I've heard good things about it. 

 

Especially with the Sony FE system, I find almost every lens meets a certain "good enough" threshold. So it's rare for me to really just hate a lens, in terms of IQ. I suspect the 18-135 would probably meet this threshold. But the Sony 16-50 and 55-210 couldn't hit this threshold for me-- fine for snapshots, but not more than that. The 16-70 was "ok" but not for the price.

 

I won't be trying the 18-135... I got rid of my A6300 and am only using full frame now. When I got my A7riii, I found it was small enough that I was rarely reaching for the A6300. (when I had the D750, I would reach for the A6300 when I wanted to go small).  My A6300 kit *was*: 10-18, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 and FE 70-200/4.