Sony A6500 Sony A6500 Lens Advice

[Ian S]

Hi

I have a A6500 camera. I have mainly used it for underwater photography but I'm now looking to use it more. I have the original 50mm lens that came with the camera, a Tamaron 17-70 F/2.8 which I'm using as my main lens and a Sony 70-350 G telephoto. I'm was thinking about getting a dedicated wide angle lens as a next step but was wondering whether their was any advantage to this when the Tamaron lens starts at 17mm which presumably is classed as wide angle anyway. All advice greatly appreciated.

cheers

Ian

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Well 17mm APSC is basically 25mm FF, not super wide at all. You might want to check out the 11-20mm Tamron (16-30 FF) which is the same series as your 17-70mm. I had both of those on my A6400 and thought they were fantastic.

You definitely want a super wide angle lens in my opinion. Many a time in a waterfall where I can't move back any further even wider than my 16mm FF could actually be of value, so if all I had was a 25mm FF focal length I definitely wouldn't be able to get the shot I wanted.

The Sony 10-20mm PZ would obviously be a good option for you too Ian.

 

[Ian S]

Hi thanks for that. I do like the look of the Tamron. It's a little more than I wanted to pay at the moment but I'll keep my eye on the used market. I have also had a look at the Samyang 12mm F2.8. it seems to get good reviews but would mean having a fixed focal length.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I also use the Tamron 17-70 as my primary lens on my a6400.
I own the Sony 10-18, but I bought it for video rather than photography. Not 100% happy with it, I think the new 10-20 pz from Sony is superior, though the aperture is still just a fixed f4.
The Tamron 11-20 f2.8, like the 17-70, is a bit heavy, but worth the heft for its bright aperture. For photography alone, this would be my pick.
I think there is also a Tokina 11-18mm, but I have no idea how it performs.

Then there are primes:
Sony 16mm f2.8 "pancake" lens (skip it, its terrible)
Sigma 16mm f1.4 (wide but not very wide)
Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2.0 (manual version is cheaper, but the AF version does exist)
Sony 11mm f1.8 (newly introduced last year, looks good)
Sony 15mm f1.4 (another newly introduced lens, basically Sony's answer to the Sigma 16mm, a bit expensive)

Then there are the suuuperwides (fisheye lenses). I never looked into those, so I can't think of any other than the Laowa 9mm.

 

[Ian S]

Hi thanks Chris.

I’ve just had a look at the Samyang 12mm f2 and the Sony 11mm primes. The price for the samyang is quite good the Sony 11mm a little more expensive but as you say there is also the Tamron 11-20 to consider. I guess what I need to know, not having used a prime lens before, is are there any real downsides many people seem to own them. My initial thoughts were to use it for landscapes but I‘be been reading up a little and it seems that they are much more versatile than that. do you have an opinion on prime vs zoom.
cheers
Ian

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I started out with mainly zooms, then I went to primes then back to zooms. My macro lens is obviously a prime, and I have an 85mm f1.4 there too, but all my other lenses are zooms now as I think the versatility of a zoom is priceless.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Hi thanks Chris.

I’ve just had a look at the Samyang 12mm f2 and the Sony 11mm primes. The price for the samyang is quite good the Sony 11mm a little more expensive but as you say there is also the Tamron 11-20 to consider. I guess what I need to know, not having used a prime lens before, is are there any real downsides many people seem to own them. My initial thoughts were to use it for landscapes but I‘be been reading up a little and it seems that they are much more versatile than that. do you have an opinion on prime vs zoom.
cheers
Ian

A prime lens is a wonderful thing; usually superior optics, wider aperture, less weight, and less faff when you're operating the camera. The tradeoff is you need to "zoom with your feet" meaning you need to move to the right spot based on your desired framing and the focal length of your prime lens... and as Clint said above, sometimes you're in a tight spot like a waterfall and you don't have the luxury of zooming with your feet lol. Another obvious con is you might end up carrying more primes to cover the same focal range options as having one zoom lens!


To your original question, I would go with the wide zoom. Immediately gives you options to learn how wide you actually want to shoot. Later, if you feel like you gravitate to one particular focal length, buy a prime in that focal length.

• If you're just doing landscape, an f4 zoom like the Sony 10-18 or 10-20 will be fine. You might find the 10-18 preowned for a cheaper price since it has been out for many years.
• If you want to shoot indoors, or low light, you might want the brighter aperture of the Tamron 11-20.
• If you want to shoot really low light, like nightscapes/milkyway, then you need a prime with a wide aperture like the Sigma 16mm or Sony 11mm. If you wanted to try this on a budget, maybe buy the manual version of the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2.0, which is quite inexpensive.

Unsolicited tip: have you tried using your 17-70 to take multiple pictures and stitching together a panorama in photoshop? for stationary vistas this can solve your need for a wide lens without spending more money. Tradeoff is you can't use this where there's a lot of movement in the scene (think waves at the beach or swaying branches in a forest), or night sky photography.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I forgot, probably because it's so little. My second favourite lens is a prime, my little 40mm, it's absolutely magic for general walk around street/travel type stuff. Absolutely awesome but my favourite lens by far is my ultra wide zoom.

I have a thing with my lenses where I see them all as girls apart from that 16-35mm zoom, it is a man. Possibly because it has this 'get out of the way and I will get the job done' vibe. Absolutely countless times I have gone out and said I will specifically not use it, then go on to take 90% of my shots for the day with it. He just bulldozes his way into usage. It's just one of those things where you just simply can't make do without it. Also more times than not I've shot a landscape at 24mm or 28mm depending which lens is on and been very happy only to walk away and think I might as well go back and stick the ultra wide on to see how it looks. You don't need to guess what the outcome was.

At the end of the day, whichever feels better for you, prime or zoom. But you absolutely need a super wide lens 110%...

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

A prime lens is a wonderful thing; usually superior optics, wider aperture, less weight, and less faff when you're operating the camera. The tradeoff is you need to "zoom with your feet" meaning you need to move to the right spot based on your desired framing and the focal length of your prime lens... and as Clint said above, sometimes you're in a tight spot like a waterfall and you don't have the luxury of zooming with your feet lol. Another obvious con is you might end up carrying more primes to cover the same focal range options as having one zoom lens!


To your original question, I would go with the wide zoom. Immediately gives you options to learn how wide you actually want to shoot. Later, if you feel like you gravitate to one particular focal length, buy a prime in that focal length.

• If you're just doing landscape, an f4 zoom like the Sony 10-18 or 10-20 will be fine. You might find the 10-18 preowned for a cheaper price since it has been out for many years.
• If you want to shoot indoors, or low light, you might want the brighter aperture of the Tamron 11-20.
• If you want to shoot really low light, like nightscapes/milkyway, then you need a prime with a wide aperture like the Sigma 16mm or Sony 11mm. If you wanted to try this on a budget, maybe buy the manual version of the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2.0, which is quite inexpensive.

Unsolicited tip: have you tried using your 17-70 to take multiple pictures and stitching together a panorama in photoshop? for stationary vistas this can solve your need for a wide lens without spending more money. Tradeoff is you can't use this where there's a lot of movement in the scene (think waves at the beach or swaying branches in a forest), or night sky photography.

That was a fantastic write up Chris. Great information. ✔

 

[Ian S]

OK gents I've decided to bite the bullet and go for the Tamron 11-20. I like the idea of the flexibility and also the F2 aperture.

Thanks for the discussion. it helped a lot.

Clint, I have not tried stitching images but will have a look at how you do it and give it a go.

Cheers

Ian