E-Mount Lens Recommendations (A6300)

[Infernal Burrito]

A while ago, I was going to buy an NX1 but decided not in the end and waited for the a6300. Now I bought an a6300 (body only) and need to decide which lenses to get to start out with. I am coming from a Nikon D5200 and intend to use the camera for both photo and video. My Nikon lenses are not nice enough to justify spending money on an adapter. I don't really care about autofocus but I do want to have stabilization. I would love to have weather sealing but the only lenses I've found that have it are ludicrously expensive Zeiss lenses which I would have to buy a bunch of cover the focal lengths I need.

 

The lens I want to go for right now to start out with is the 18-105 f/4 g oss from Sony because it has a constant aperture and power zoom which, though not essential to me, seem really nice to have for video.

 

My second choice is the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 which I am looking at despite its lack of stabilization for its fast, constant aperture throughout the zoom range.

 

Are these lenses any good or are there better options within such a price range?

[ALwin]

I don't know how small or the capacity of the A6300's battery is, but one thing you might want to consider with the 18-105 PZ lens is the fact that the power zoom feature may drain the battery faster.

 

I do have that particular lens, it's a pretty decent lens for video.  With non-power zoom lenses, you will have to rely on manual zoom during filming and it can be tricky and might not always be as smooth unless you use a follow focus.  On the other hand, non power zoom lenses are easier to control than power zoom.  With power zoom lenses, because the speed of the change in zoom is controlled electronically it may not perform they way you want while manual zoom lenses rely on your hand's movements.

 

Anyway, aside from my comments about the 18-105, photographers and cinematographers choose the focal length they need to capture the story they want to tell.  Anyone can say you should get XYZ lens, but only you can decide whether this lens is ideal for making your vision reality.

[Infernal Burrito]

1 minute ago, ALwin said:

I don't know how small or the capacity of the A6300's battery is, but one thing you might want to consider with the 18-105 PZ lens is the fact that the power zoom feature may drain the battery faster.

 

But I do have that particular lens, it's a pretty decent lens for video.  With non-power zoom lenses, you will have to rely on manual zoom during filming and it can be tricky and might not always be as smooth unless you use a follow focus.  On the other hand, non power zoom lenses are easier to control than power zoom.  With power zoom lenses, because the speed of the change in zoom is controlled electronically it may not perform they way you want while manual zoom lenses rely on your hand's movements.

I'm used to mechanical zoom, but I don't rely on quick zooms for really anything and I would definitely take more smoothness in video over more speed in photo. The battery life hopefully won't be as much of concern anymore as I carry around a large battery bank at all times and the a6300 supports USB charging. 

 

How's the weather sealing on the lens? It isn't officially weather sealed, but as zoom and focus is all internal, I would imagine that it would hold up against a bit of rain.

 

Do you have any thoughts on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8? It seems pretty compelling with its fast aperture, but its a shame that stabilization is disabled for e-mount.

[ALwin]

Weather sealing, I always take what's written on the specs with a grain of salt and if it's important to me I use a raincover.

[Infernal Burrito]

1 minute ago, ALwin said:

Weather sealing, I always take what's written on the specs with a grain of salt and if it's important to me I use a raincover.

I carry around a few glorified plastic bags for rain protection, but it rains so often here that weather sealing would be a great convenience. As you recommend dedicated rain protection, I take it you've never used the lens out in the rain. I'll definitely have a look at the lens, it seems to be the best option I have within budget. 

[ALwin]

Not this particular lens, I've only owned it for a few weeks, mounted to my video camera.

[xQubeZx]

On 2016-03-25 at 1:15 AM, Infernal Burrito said:

A while ago, I was going to buy an NX1 but decided not in the end and waited for the a6300. Now I bought an a6300 (body only) and need to decide which lenses to get to start out with. I am coming from a Nikon D5200 and intend to use the camera for both photo and video. My Nikon lenses are not nice enough to justify spending money on an adapter. I don't really care about autofocus but I do want to have stabilization. I would love to have weather sealing but the only lenses I've found that have it are ludicrously expensive Zeiss lenses which I would have to buy a bunch of cover the focal lengths I need.

 

The lens I want to go for right now to start out with is the 18-105 f/4 g oss from Sony because it has a constant aperture and power zoom which, though not essential to me, seem really nice to have for video.

 

My second choice is the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 which I am looking at despite its lack of stabilization for its fast, constant aperture throughout the zoom range.

 

Are these lenses any good or are there better options within such a price range?

If any of your lenses is manual you can get very cheap nikon adapters for 10-20 euros. I bought one for 15 euro (on amazon.uk, was some cheap china thingie but its just an extension tube really so its hard to get a "faulty" or bad one I think) that fits my dads old manual nikon lenses very good. If it isnt manual you might have to spend a bit more to get one with a aparture "slider" but really its a cheap way to expand the lenses you can use for very cheap if you already have a few. 

[Infernal Burrito]

9 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

If any of your lenses is manual you can get very cheap nikon adapters for 10-20 euros. I bought one for 15 euro (on amazon.uk, was some cheap china thingie but its just an extension tube really so its hard to get a "faulty" or bad one I think) that fits my dads old manual nikon lenses very good. If it isnt manual you might have to spend a bit more to get one with a aparture "slider" but really its a cheap way to expand the lenses you can use for very cheap if you already have a few. 

I would, but my lenses use electronic aperture. I am already selling the Nikon stuff, and the lenses aren't that nice. 

[ALwin]

18 minutes ago, Infernal Burrito said:

I would, but my lenses use electronic aperture. I am already selling the Nikon stuff, and the lenses aren't that nice. 

I was listening to a Sony webinar today, and one part they covered was lenses and lens adapters.  I think if you're willing to spend the money then the native E-mount lenses or perhaps Canon EF/Sony A-mount with electronic adapters might be better than using dumb lens mount adapters and lenses.

 

While I personally prefer having manual control over a lot of things, such as AF, F-stop/Aperture, exposure, white balance, etc. there will be times when having the camera assist with some automatic functionality will be useful.

 

If and when Sony makes an archive of that webinar available, I'll share it.

[Infernal Burrito]

2 minutes ago, ALwin said:

I was listening to a Sony webinar today, and one part they covered was lenses and lens adapters.  I think if you're willing to spend the money then the native E-mount lenses or perhaps Canon EF/Sony A-mount with electronic adapters might be better than using dumb lens mount adapters and lenses.

 

While I personally prefer having manual control over a lot of things, such as AF, F-stop/Aperture, exposure, white balance, etc. there will be times when having the camera assist with some automatic functionality will be useful.

 

If and when Sony makes an archive of that webinar available, I'll share it.

I don't care much for AF most of the time, but if I am not mistaken, electronically separate lenses retain full manual controls, as they did on my Nikon camera. I never use auto mode or priority modes, mostly because they weren't reliable at all on my Nikon and now I'm used to full manual. I would adapt the lenses just to save money, I don't have the lowest but my lenses are too cheap and worn out to justify spending money on an expensive adapter. A mount has some really nice lenses, but I doubt they'll be worth the price with the added cost of a "smart" adapter. 

[xQubeZx]

12 hours ago, Infernal Burrito said:

I don't care much for AF most of the time, but if I am not mistaken, electronically separate lenses retain full manual controls, as they did on my Nikon camera. I never use auto mode or priority modes, mostly because they weren't reliable at all on my Nikon and now I'm used to full manual. I would adapt the lenses just to save money, I don't have the lowest but my lenses are too cheap and worn out to justify spending money on an expensive adapter. A mount has some really nice lenses, but I doubt they'll be worth the price with the added cost of a "smart" adapter. 

The smart adapters for A-mount can be found quite cheap on the used market. Or well here in Sweden I've seen quite a bit of used ones for very good prices. Scandinavian Photo for example had one (The LAEA3 I think it was) in very good condition a while back for about half the price. But that still might be a bit to expensive to justify it.