New Lens for Sony a6500

[John Mitchell 2,620]

On 2/10/2019 at 01:54, Bryan said:

 

Thanks John. Took some more shots this morning using the tripod and it's not so clear cut! There is a fall of at the edges at the wide end but maybe not as bad as I thought. In a bit of a quandary. This could be a good replacement for the failed 16-50, but maybe not as my principal photo tool 

 

 

 

I'm not sure that there is a replacement for the 16-50 despite it's shortcomings. Its compactness makes it unique. We're actually getting along much better than I thought we would.

 

P.S. I gave up the quest for perfection long ago (couldn't afford it).

Edited February 11 by John Mitchell

[spacecadet 2,161]

3 hours ago, Bryan said:

 

 

 

I have had problems with an adapter where the screws worked loose however, and I now carry a small screwdriver as a precaution!

Threadlock is the thing for this- a tiny bottle will last for ever. If you use the blue type the screw can still be undone if required, but it will never work loose.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR3.TRC2.A0.H0.Xblue+threadlock.TRS0&_nkw=blue+threadlock&_sacat=0

Just apply to the top of the screw and it will wick its way in.

Edited February 11 by spacecadet

[Bryan 10,130]

1 hour ago, spacecadet said:

Threadlock is the thing for this- a tiny bottle will last for ever. If you use the blue type the screw can still be undone if required, but it will never work loose.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR3.TRC2.A0.H0.Xblue+threadlock.TRS0&_nkw=blue+threadlock&_sacat=0

Just apply to the top of the screw and it will wick its way in.

 

Thanks Mark, I should have thought of that.  I was an engineer in a previous existence, although more used to rather larger bolts than these!

[Marianne 307]

Interesting thread.

 

Bryan, it's hard to beat good prime lenses but, to save my back, I keep thinking about a zoom for my Sony A7rii - my favorite lens on it is my Nikon 20mm f/2.8 that I use with a manual adapter - perfect edge to edge - the 35mm Zeiss is lighter but nowhere near as crisp although it is a great carry around everywhere lens as it's reasonably wide (since my camera is FF) and can also get in close. Good to know the 28-70 f/4 is reasonably light - I assumed it would be heavy and I've heard the 28-70 f/2.8 master lens is a beast.

 

Of course, even primes can be beast, like the  90mm Zeiss macro -  I got some shots of my grandson that are truly superb - the folks at B&H suggested it since it doubles as a portrait lens and it is outstanding. But hiking with it and tripod for nature macros means it's the only lens in my backpack. 

 

First time I really travelled extensively on foot for several days in a row (rather than in and out of car) with both the Sony w/ one lens on - 20 or 35mm and Oly w/super lightweight zoom on foot all day was last month in Louisville - we parked the car and took their free public buses or walked - by the third day, my back was shot - so thinking that I should just get a zoom for the Sony and leave the Oly at the hotel/motel as a backup if something goes wrong.

 

Bryan, wondering if a better option for both of us is a high end fixed lens camera for the extra reach of wide to telephoto zoom with a prime on the Sony - but I already find having so many different cameras with different and confusing menus to be tougher - I don't know if I have the patience to learn another system. But it would solve the problem of having to change lens frequently and have the added benefit of being a backup camera. 

Edited February 11 by Marianne

[Bryan 10,130]

12 hours ago, Marianne said:

Bryan, wondering if a better option for both of us is a high end fixed lens camera for the extra reach of wide to telephoto zoom with a prime on the Sony - but I already find having so many different cameras with different and confusing menus to be tougher - I don't know if I have the patience to learn another system. But it would solve the problem of having to change lens frequently and have the added benefit of being a backup camera. 

 

I guess that I suffer from pixel peeping syndrome and I'm not sure that I would ever be happy with a fixed lens zoom camera. Part of the pleasure in photography for me is messing about with the kit, I guess that I am nostalgic for the days of film and chemicals etc.

 

However many of the old film era primes, some of  which can be had for peanuts, will blow away these modern zoom lenses. I have an old Pentax 75-150 f4 zoom that produces wonderfully sharp results, yet it cost around £20. It's a far superior lens than the Sony 55-210 that I also possess so gets used in preference. Like Wim I also own a Canon 70-200 that is decentered.

 

You would have thought that in this day and age, it would be possible to test lenses automatically and then trace back flaws in manufacture to ensure de-centred glass or other faults didn't enter the supply chain.

[Bill Brooks 879]

7 hours ago, Bryan said:

 

Part of the pleasure in photography for me is messing about with the kit,

 

Bryan you may be interested in this blog.

Their lens teardowns and camera reviews, are exceptionally informative and full of practical knowledge.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/

[spacecadet 2,161]

47 minutes ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

Bryan you may be interested in this blog.

Their lens teardowns and camera reviews, are exceptionally informative and full of practical knowledge.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/

Beware of that when you've got proper work to do. Geek heaven.

[John Mitchell 2,620]

I always find with zooms that you have to determine the best apertures at each focal length. The DxO Labs tests can be helpful in this regard, although I don't think that anything beats one's own experience as we all use lenses differently and have varying expectations.

[Bryan 10,130]

3 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 

Bryan you may be interested in this blog.

Their lens teardowns and camera reviews, are exceptionally informative and full of practical knowledge.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/

Interesting Bill, thanks!

[Bryan 10,130]

2 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

I always find with zooms that you have to determine the best apertures at each focal length. The DxO Labs tests can be helpful in this regard, although I don't think that anything beats one's own experience as we all use lenses differently and have varying expectations.

 

I confess that I generally shoot at a default f8, unless there is good reason (Devilish Dark or more depth of field) to do otherwise. I therefore always compare lenses at that aperture. 

[John Mitchell 2,620]

25 minutes ago, Bryan said:

 

I confess that I generally shoot at a default f8, unless there is good reason (Devilish Dark or more depth of field) to do otherwise. I therefore always compare lenses at that aperture. 

 

Not sure that's a good idea with zooms. Different focal lengths tend to have different sweet spots IME.

 

For instance, I've been experimenting with these (published on this website) for the 16-50 and they seem to be fairly accurate:

 

16mm -- f/7.1

21mm -- f/5.6

24mm -- f/5.6

30mm -- f/7.1

37mm -- f/8

50mm --f/10

 

Overall -- f/6.3

 

 

Edited February 12 by John Mitchell

[Allan Bell 1,465]

If this is the 16-50 lens with power zoom that is being discussed I see MPB have a lot in for sale at £69 - £79.

 

Allan

 

 

Edited February 14 by Allan Bell

[Bryan 10,130]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:34, Allan Bell said:

If this is the 16-50 lens with power zoom that is being discussed I see MPB have a lot in for sale at £69 - £79.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Mine wasn't too bad, consistency of edge performance better than either the Zeiss badged 16-70 or the Sony 28-70 that I tried, although resolution across the frame and contrast rather disappointing, certainly not as good as my old lenses. However mine died and couldn't be fixed. A friend had a similar experience - bought one that died but got his money back, while my local friendly camera technician claims to have a box of them in bits. They are not  very durable and are difficult/impossible  to fix. Pity as they are a miracle of miniaturisation and great for carrying around with acceptable quality in that circumstance.

 

Getting back to the Sony 28-70 FF lens. I tried using it with the stabilisation switched off and that did seem to bring about an improvement, but far from perfection, while I wasn't keen on having a camera with IBIS, a feature that  I couldn't use with what would have been my most expensive (Sony fit) lens. Ironical that  IBIS works fine with my old film era glass!  Having lost the lens cap, I had to buy another genuine Sony cap in order to send the lens back. 

 

Again a pity as the lens handles and focuses  well and appears reasonably well constructed, I guess I got a bad copy. 

 

Update, I've posted some results on my blog

Edited Sunday at 11:37 by Bryan

[Marianne 307]

On 2/12/2019 at 04:14, Bryan said:

 

I guess that I suffer from pixel peeping syndrome and I'm not sure that I would ever be happy with a fixed lens zoom camera. Part of the pleasure in photography for me is messing about with the kit, I guess that I am nostalgic for the days of film and chemicals etc.

 

However many of the old film era primes, some of  which can be had for peanuts, will blow away these modern zoom lenses. I have an old Pentax 75-150 f4 zoom that produces wonderfully sharp results, yet it cost around £20. It's a far superior lens than the Sony 55-210 that I also possess so gets used in preference. Like Wim I also own a Canon 70-200 that is decentered.

 

You would have thought that in this day and age, it would be possible to test lenses automatically and then trace back flaws in manufacture to ensure de-centred glass or other faults didn't enter the supply chain.

 

 I know, I'm a real pixel peeper too, but I'd love to have a light backup with acceptable quality that doesn't require carrying two full bodies and assorted lenses - which I guess would be where a good zoom comes in, except that if something goes wrong with a camera then you are in trouble without a backup, although I suppose that if a camera died on a trip away from home, I'd be really bummed if my second camera option was a point and shoot, however good.

 

I agree with your assessment of old primes. My Nikon 50mm f/1.4 that I bought on ebay for $40 back in 2006 when I got my first Nikon digital camera - A D70 which seemed like a big expense at the time, so I turned to ebay to supplement the kit lens (LOL as I type on my new $4,500 laptop) - is my absolute favorite - the bokeh is amazing. My old Olympus Zuiko 50mm prime (from my first and only SLR, the Olympus OM-1) is also a beauty as far a bokeh is concerned.  I have the original leather cases too  for both of them! I should really sell one of them.  I've seen the same Nikon lens go for nearly $450 - which, ironically, is why I didn't want to sell it, because the price only reinforced my love for the thing. I have used it very often on a variety of cameras and even as a lightweight semi-macro with one of those screw-on Nikon diopter lenses, and it never disappoints. 

Edited Monday at 04:06 by Marianne

[Bryan 10,130]

4 hours ago, Marianne said:

 

I agree with your assessment of old primes. My Nikon 50mm f/1.4 that I bought on ebay for $40 back in 2006 when I got my first Nikon digital camera - A D70 which seemed like a big expense at the time, so I turned to ebay to supplement the kit lens (LOL as I type on my new $4,500 laptop) - is my absolute favorite - the bokeh is amazing. My old Olympus Zuiko 50mm prime (from my first and only SLR, the Olympus OM-1) is also a beauty as far a bokeh is concerned.  I have the original leather cases too  for both of them! I should really sell one of them.  I've seen the same Nikon lens go for nearly $450 - which, ironically, is why I didn't want to sell it, because the price only reinforced my love for the thing. I have used it very often on a variety of cameras and even as a lightweight semi-macro with one of those screw-on Nikon diopter lenses, and it never disappoints. 

 

I believe that the OEM companies tried particularly hard to get their standard 50mm lenses right, as that was the feature that the photo comics would concentrate on in their reviews of cameras. In addition it is perhaps a focal length that is relatively easy to succeed with, my tests of much wider old lenses are not always as profitable.

 

I've a collection of old 50s from Pentax, Olympus and Canon all inherited or bought for peanuts and they are all excellent on the crop frame a6500. While I have  the f1.4 and f1.8/f1.7 variants of both the Olympus and Pentax brands, my fitment of choice is the f1.8 Olympus. It's smaller and lighter than the f1.4 and, at f8 where I do most of  my shooting, I can't tell the difference between them.  I love the corner to corner resolution that this lens provides and, at an equivalent 75mm focal length, it provides a slight compression of perspective which I often find useful. The only downside is that the contrast is a little low, the Pentax equivalent gives a more punchy image, but this is nothing that can't be sorted in PS, while it is sometimes a useful attribute!  I tend not to use the Canon FT as it's heavier and the adapter a bit more troublesome.

Edited Monday at 08:20 by Bryan