Best Lense for a6300

[iPC]

Hi, Im thinking of getting the Sony a6300, and was wondering what lense or combination of lenses would be good for both photography and cinematography. I would like to keep it around 500, 600 max. Im fine with buying used, and I would be shooting cityscapes, landscapes, portraits, and a lot of b-roll. Thank you!

[thekillergazebo]

Best lens for that is the Sony 18-105 f4 lens. It’s got a zoom rocker to give you really smooth zooms and it covers a really wide range. It’s f4 so your DOF won’t be the best. I hear a lot of people like the sigma 18-35 with the adapter. It’s super sharp and gets you down to f1.8, but I think it’s about $800 plus $250 got adapter. I’d say those are your best bet with sigma being a better choice for DOF work and the Sony being best for all around lens. 

 

Side de note I have the 18-105 and actually just used it for a photoshoot last night. It’s super sharp at f5.6 to f8. A lot of my model shots are in that range and I have great results. Plus sonys eye autofocus once setup to a button works like a dream. I’ve never had it miss a shot. 

[cc143]

I would go with 2 different lenses, an ultrawide for cityscapes/landscapes etc. and a standard or wider trelephoto fast prime for portraiture. 

 

The optimum focal lengths imo for this would be (35mm equivalent):

 

16-35mm f/4 for Cityscapes/Landscapes/interior shots etc. I believe Sony have an ultrawide lens for crop sensors to cover those focal lengths, the 10-18mm f/4 OSS

 

Also, a 50-85mm prime with a relatively fast aperture. Given the crop factor, a 55mm would get the ~85mm focal length (Optimal for portraiture imo). That means a 50mm 1.8 (or I believe Sony make a 55mm) would get the job done. 

 

These are expensive options ofcourse, so if you cant afford them:

 

Get an 18-105 G or a 16-70mm as suggested above, both quite nice general purpose lenses, but obviously would be a 5-7/10 for each thing you want to cover, not shallow enough DOF for portraiture, not as sharp for landscapes etc.  

 

or Get a good ultrawide on the native Sony e mount and use a cheap adapter to adapt an m42/FD/Nikon/minolta mount manual lens for portraiture with a relatively fast f/1.4-f/2 aperture. 

[iPC]

5 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I would go with 2 different lenses, an ultrawide for cityscapes/landscapes etc. and a standard or wider trelephoto fast prime for portraiture. 

 

The optimum focal lengths imo for this would be (35mm equivalent):

 

16-35mm f/4 for Cityscapes/Landscapes/interior shots etc. I believe Sony have an ultrawide lens for crop sensors to cover those focal lengths, the 10-18mm f/4 OSS

 

Also, a 50-85mm prime with a relatively fast aperture. Given the crop factor, a 55mm would get the ~85mm focal length (Optimal for portraiture imo). That means a 50mm 1.8 (or I believe Sony make a 55mm) would get the job done. 

 

These are expensive options ofcourse, so if you cant afford them:

 

Get an 18-105 G or a 16-70mm as suggested above, both quite nice general purpose lenses, but obviously would be a 5-7/10 for each thing you want to cover, not shallow enough DOF for portraiture, not as sharp for landscapes etc.  

 

or Get a good ultrawide on the native Sony e mount and use a cheap adapter to adapt an m42/FD/Nikon/minolta mount manual lens for portraiture with a relatively fast f/1.4-f/2 aperture. 

Would you, for the first option, recommend adapted lenses or e mounts?

[cc143]

Just now, iPC said:

Would you, for the first option, recommend adapted lenses or e mounts?

I don't think there currently is an option that costs a low enough price for you to consider going for an adapted option. Having the adapter surely allows more flexibility, however a native option will work better overall. 

 

But, there is no ultrawide adapted option I can think of for APS-C. There are things like the Canon 10-22 or 10-18mm, but they are not really worth it. There's tokina's glass, but isn't that cheaper including the adapter. Had you not had city photography in there I'd go Canon 17-40mm maybe or something like that, but 26mm is too tele for cityscapes most of the time. 

 

so I guess the 10-18mm is the best option, unless you are looking at FF in the near future in which case, the 16-35 is a better option, but still, in e mount unless you are not excluding the possibility of moving to or getting a FF Canon system. 

[iPC]

1 minute ago, cc143 said:

I don't think there currently is an option that costs a low enough price for you to consider going for an adapted option. Having the adapter surely allows more flexibility, however a native option will work better overall. 

 

But, there is no ultrawide adapted option I can think of for APS-C. There are things like the Canon 10-22 or 10-18mm, but they are not really worth it. There's tokina's glass, but isn't that cheaper including the adapter. Had you not had city photography in there I'd go Canon 17-40mm maybe or something like that, but 26mm is too tele for cityscapes most of the time. 

 

so I guess the 10-18mm is the best option, unless you are looking at FF in the near future in which case, the 16-35 is a better option, but still, in e mount unless you are not excluding the possibility of moving to or getting a FF Canon system. 

Im only finding fixed primes with apertures faster than 3.5

[cc143]

Just now, iPC said:

Im only finding fixed primes with apertures faster than 3.5

you mean slower? 

 

Look for the pentacon automatic 50mm f/1.8, the Helios M-44 58mm f/2 or any of these primes: 

 

https://www.cameraplex.com/list-every-canon-fd-lens-ever-made/

 

I'll be honest, the 2 I mention above are probably cheaper, but I mostly find f/1.8 to be abit slow, quality of the bokeh is excellent on the pentacon and Helios, but they aren't that sharp and DOF could be shallower, I just don't really care because they are cheap and I have a FF Canon System anyway.  

[iPC]

11 minutes ago, cc143 said:

you mean slower? 

 

Look for the pentacon automatic 50mm f/1.8, the Helios M-44 58mm f/2 or any of these primes: 

 

https://www.cameraplex.com/list-every-canon-fd-lens-ever-made/

 

I'll be honest, the 2 I mention above are probably cheaper, but I mostly find f/1.8 to be abit slow, quality of the bokeh is excellent on the pentacon and Helios, but they aren't that sharp and DOF could be shallower, I just don't really care because they are cheap and I have a FF Canon System anyway.  

Would all of the lenses in that list work for the a6300? Excuse me if I'm asking stupid questions, I'm new to the camera thing.

[cc143]

Just now, iPC said:

Would all of the lenses in that list work for the a6300? Excuse me if I'm asking stupid questions, I'm new to the camera thing.

not by themselves you would need an adapter for emount from the original mount. Then, everything, Focusing, aperture control is manual. The adapter is a metal tube of the correct size to distance the lens from the sensor and 2 different threads on each side. 

[iPC]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

not by themselves you would need an adapter for emount from the original mount. Then, everything, Focusing, aperture control is manual. The adapter is a metal tube of the correct size to distance the lens from the sensor and 2 different threads on each side. 

Any adapter suggestions?

[cc143]

56 minutes ago, iPC said:

Any adapter suggestions?

unless its a smart adapter you are looking for it really doesn't matter what you get, as I said its a metal tube. Go for anything from amazon or ebay for the lens mount you are looking for that is as cheap as possible. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beschoi®-Adapter-Olympus-Mount-Camera/dp/B01LN7WFMO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506616412&sr=8-1&keywords=beschoi I got some of these for my xt-10 and they do the job I guess, they come without lens caps though and if you ever want to put a longer/heavier lens on a tripod they dont come with a thread, but other than that they are fine. 

[historicalpoultry]

Bit late to the party here, but I'd have to agree that if you want a great all around lens, get the 18-105 f4 from Sony. You're saying you're new to cameras, so having a good lens that does a lot is IMO the best option to start out. As for ultra wide, should 18mm (27mm on a6300) not be wide enough, consider the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2 manual lens (18mm on a6300). I have both lenses and they are both great for their respective price. The thing with adapting lenses is that there are always trade-offs. Be it autofocus speeds, manual focus only all the time, etc, which is totally fine if you know what to expect (I use adapters all the time). However, again, if you're starting out, get at least one native autofocus lens (18-105 f4 being the most versatile). Makes learning and gathering experience definitely easier. Later, I see no reason not to invest in some adapters and more lenses, I for example have a couple of old Minolta MD lenses that I adapt to my a6500 and they're a great addition as well as Sony's LA-EA4 a-mount to e-mount adapter so I have access to the Alpha lense range from Sony as well as great older stuff like the Minolta beercan 70-200 f4 and a Sigma 400mm f5.6 as well. That particular adapter gives me fairly fast autofocus and retains plenty of autofocus points to make it very usable.

[iPC]

On 9/28/2017 at 8:15 AM, cc143 said:

I would go with 2 different lenses, an ultrawide for cityscapes/landscapes etc. and a standard or wider trelephoto fast prime for portraiture. 

 

The optimum focal lengths imo for this would be (35mm equivalent):

 

16-35mm f/4 for Cityscapes/Landscapes/interior shots etc. I believe Sony have an ultrawide lens for crop sensors to cover those focal lengths, the 10-18mm f/4 OSS

 

Also, a 50-85mm prime with a relatively fast aperture. Given the crop factor, a 55mm would get the ~85mm focal length (Optimal for portraiture imo). That means a 50mm 1.8 (or I believe Sony make a 55mm) would get the job done. 

 

These are expensive options ofcourse, so if you cant afford them:

 

Get an 18-105 G or a 16-70mm as suggested above, both quite nice general purpose lenses, but obviously would be a 5-7/10 for each thing you want to cover, not shallow enough DOF for portraiture, not as sharp for landscapes etc.  

 

or Get a good ultrawide on the native Sony e mount and use a cheap adapter to adapt an m42/FD/Nikon/minolta mount manual lens for portraiture with a relatively fast f/1.4-f/2 aperture. 

 I know the thread is basically dead, but I have to ask, if I can get one lense for shooting both video and photography, what should it be? I may be able to get another one in the near future (december) but for now, what do you think I should get? I want to do a lot of video, so I need it to have decent quality for video, and I want to do photography, so It has to have good aperture. I'm undecided about zoom vs prime, either would work. I feel like it makes sense to get a good prime now (35 or 50mm) and a zoom later. Let me know your thoughts and opinions!

[cc143]

16 hours ago, iPC said:

 I know the thread is basically dead, but I have to ask, if I can get one lense for shooting both video and photography, what should it be? I may be able to get another one in the near future (december) but for now, what do you think I should get? I want to do a lot of video, so I need it to have decent quality for video, and I want to do photography, so It has to have good aperture. I'm undecided about zoom vs prime, either would work. I feel like it makes sense to get a good prime now (35 or 50mm) and a zoom later. Let me know your thoughts and opinions!

No I would go for a zoom first. Probably the 16-70mm OSS, since it has several qualities that are desireable for video like OSS and a constant aperture. Tbh, I personally like the 16-35mm for this situation still. Its great optically, has OSS and a constant aperture and if you ever want to go Sony FF its compatible unlike the others (only 85% sure on that). The range is a very usable 24-53mm, so you cover most standard focal lengths. Sure something closer to a 24-70 would be ideal, but nothing like that exists really. 

 

Then maybe an 85mm, I know Samyang started making AF glass for Sony, so that may be an option if you were to get an 85mm equivalent or the 50mm 1.8 should be fine as well given the a6300's crop factor. 

 

Failing that, a $10 adapter and a $30 used pentacon 50mm 1.8 or helios m44 58mm f/2 would tie you over for a while for basic portraiture. 

[xQubeZx]

Really in your budget the 18-105G f/4 is the best lens for what you want. Its sharp and got a great zoom range that works well for everything from landscapes to portraits (not super shallow DOF ones but still, you will get great images with it). 

 

Then I’d buy the 35 1.8 prime lens down the road. It got OSS if I’m right, if that doesn’t matter I’d rather look at the Sigma 30 1.4 or Sigma 60 2.8 if you preffer a longer lens. (which is soo cheap and I love it so much. It is an amazing lens. Best buy I have ever done) 

 

If you want to get FF glass you will have to shell out a lot more. But lenses like the FE 50 1.8, 28 f/2 and the Samayang 35 f/2.8 are great options that are decently priced. 

[iPC]

3 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Really in your budget the 18-105G f/4 is the best lens for what you want. Its sharp and got a great zoom range that works well for everything from landscapes to portraits (not super shallow DOF ones but still, you will get great images with it). 

 

Then I’d buy the 35 1.8 prime lens down the road. It got OSS if I’m right, if that doesn’t matter I’d rather look at the Sigma 30 1.4 or Sigma 60 2.8 if you preffer a longer lens. (which is soo cheap and I love it so much. It is an amazing lens. Best buy I have ever done) 

 

If you want to get FF glass you will have to shell out a lot more. But lenses like the FE 50 1.8, 28 f/2 and the Samayang 35 f/2.8 are great options that are decently priced. 

Ok, cool. I also really want to get a gimbal right off the bat, and was wondering if you had any recommendations. Im leaning toward either the zhiyun crane v2 or the beholder ds2, but Im open to anything 600$ or under.