Bryan

New Lens for Sony a6500

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Bryan said:

 

I use a 12 mm Rokinon and a Sigma 19mm Edo, so the 28-70 would be appropriate. It also fits with the 75-150 f4 that I carry. It would mean I could dispense with a 28, 35 and 50, so, if it is as good as I hope it might be, it would save lens changes and portage. The 16-70 would have been even better, but, sadly, not to be.

 

I guess that weight is something else to consider. The 28-70 is probably considerably heavier than the 16-70, so you might be back to where you started, especially since you would need to carry another lens to complement the 28-70.  (although the 19mm is light).

 

Just sayin'...

 

P.S. Just noticed that Wim says the 28-70 is big but lightweight, so maybe not an issue. Good luck with your quest.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bryan said:

 

 

I would ideally like to road test a 28-70 before committing, it gets lukewarm reviews in some quarters, although most seem to feel that it punches above its price tag level. This makes interesting reading.

 

 

 

Interesting to see that DxO isn't too harsh on the 16-50:

 

``One of the best all-round performers is the collapsible E-mount 16-50mm f3.5-5.6, which is often bundled as a kit lens.``

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Interesting to see that DxO isn't too harsh on the 16-50:

 

``One of the best all-round performers is the collapsible E-mount 16-50mm f3.5-5.6, which is often bundled as a kit lens.``

 

Yes John, having used the 16-50 I was expecting a lot better of the Zeiss!  The Zeiss is a curate's egg of a lens, the in focus central  section is fabulous, lovely colours and razor sharp, far superior to the 16-50, but the edges let it down so badly.

 

In order to provide myself with a further justification for the return of the Zeiss I've added another example to the blog, it was this shot that really persuaded me that all was not well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 28-70 feels just right, not heavy, not bulky, yet solid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Bryan said:

 

Yes John, having used the 16-50 I was expecting a lot better of the Zeiss!  The Zeiss is a curate's egg of a lens, the in focus central  section is fabulous, lovely colours and razor sharp, far superior to the 16-50, but the edges let it down so badly.

 

In order to provide myself with a further justification for the return of the Zeiss I've added another example to the blog, it was this shot that really persuaded me that all was not well.

 

Not to belabour this, but you might just have a bad copy. Apparently, it's a very common problem with the 16-70. The 16-50 that came with my a6000 was terrible, totally blurry on one side of the frame at infinity focus. I took it back, and the replacement is fine.

 

No expert, but looking at the new images on your blog, your copy might be decentred -- looks fuzzier to me on left side. No?

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dxo review puts the 3 lenses side by side.

I've just put my 28-70 on the scale and without covers it's exactly 290g.

Remember it's a budget option with a very good bang for the buck. But there is better quality out there. Certainly in full frame.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Not to belabour this, but you might just have a bad copy. Apparently, it's a very common problem with the 16-70. The 16-50 that came with my a6000 was terrible, totally blurry on one side of the frame at infinity focus. I took it back, and the replacement is fine.

 

No expert, but looking at the new images on your blog, your copy might be decentred -- looks fuzzier to me on left side. No?

 

If you look at the right side in detail - I've not included this on the blog - you can see that it's also poor, so I don't think that it is a decentering issue. My Sony 55-210 was seriously decentered when I bought it, but that was fixed under warranty. This is not peculiar to cheap Sony glass, I once used a Canon L f2.8 lens at work that cost around £1000 many moons ago, and that had to be sent back, more than once! It was never really sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bryan said:

 

If you look at the right side in detail - I've not included this on the blog - you can see that it's also poor, so I don't think that it is a decentering issue. My Sony 55-210 was seriously decentered when I bought it, but that was fixed under warranty. This is not peculiar to cheap Sony glass, I once used a Canon L f2.8 lens at work that cost around £1000 many moons ago, and that had to be sent back, more than once! It was never really sorted.

 

I see. Just thought I'd mention this. Sounds as if you're about to save yourself some cash. B)

 

P.S. No doubt Sony doesn't have a monopoly on QC problems, especially these days when lenses are turned out like hot-cross buns.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Rooney said:

The 28-70 feels just right, not heavy, not bulky, yet solid. 

 

Sounds  good. I'll have a peek at this lens.

 

Like you, I'm heavily into light these days. The tiny-ish 16-50 has its shortcomings, but I've managed to make pretty good friends with it in spite of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also have the 10-18 and like it a lot.

 

Allan

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My absolutely favorite lens on my a6000 is a Sony/Zeiss 24mm (36mm equivalent full frame), not in the least bit cheap anywhere, especially not new in Nicaragua with customs and 16% sales tax.  Took three trips of Managua looking at it to decide to get it, but It shoots near macro to street scapes.  LR says I've shot about as many frames with it as all my other APSC lenses combined.  My other lenses for the a6000 are the 55-210 zoom (oddly enough sharpest at closest distances at 210mm), a 35mm Sony lens with OSS, and a 30mm Sony Macro.  I sometimes miss my former 18-55mm lens that came and went with an a3000 Sony,  and I had a 16mm f/2.8 for a while, but now use a Batis 18mm on full frame cameras when I want ultra wide.

 

I think the 24mm Sony/Zeiss can be had used for around $700 to $800.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the 18-105 f4 a few months ago, it performs well with little distortion on the wide end. Having the constant f4 aperture appealed to me.  The annoying part about the lens is it always returns to the 18mm focal length when the camera shuts down and there is no focal length markings on the lens barrel to preset focal length.  I am wondering if the 18-135 would have been a better choice.  I just discovered that the Sigma 17-50 is available for Sony mounts now.  I had it for several years now and still use it regularly.  It does have some chromatic aberration issues, but Lightroom handles it easily.  Here is a link.  Stores here are selling it for $315.  https://www.sigmaphoto.com/17-50mm-f28-ex-dc-os-hsm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now