Sony A6000

Vegan.Hiker said:
Hopefully I don't get screwed with a manufacturers defect. Although it did come with a 30 day return policy.
Click to expand...

I'm late to the party, but I don't think you have anything to worry about, Vegan H. That 30 day return policy is the key component. Just use the hell out of that lens for a few weeks and you'll know right away if there's any immediate defects like internal dust or focusing issues, etc. I know warranties provide some comfort, but I don't blame you for wanting to save a few hundred bucks. I'd have done the same. Enjoy :)
 
The 10-18 is a great lens. Sony seems to have some serious problems with quality control, so I would thoroughly test the lens after getting it to make sure you didn't get a lemon.
 
My Sony lenses have all suffered from decentering, which means that one side of the image is blurry when it should be in focus. My 10-18 suffers from it but not as much as the other Sony lenses I bought. I know there are ways to really test it methodically, but for me it was enough to set it up in the backyard on a tripod and take a whole bunch of photos and then examine them at 100% on the computer. That should reveal if you have any major problems.

If you take a photo of some sort of wall, where everything should be pretty much the same distance from the camera, and one side of the frame is significantly more blurry than the other side then you know you have a problem.
 
In another thread @Nick was telling me about perspective correction/keystoning. It's to be expected that it'll be more severe on a wide angle lens correct? It arrived today and I've only had a chance to take some pics indoors but it seems like the angles get distorted more than with the kit lens. Just want to make sure this is normal.
 
Thanks, I thought so but just wanted to make sure. Any point in still carrying the 18-50 kit lens when hiking and shooting only landscapes, or am I good to go with just the wide angle? I kinda wish this thing wasn't so big, it's a bit bulkier than I expected.
 
Maybe not the 18-50. I do like to switch between my 16-35 and 24-105 (full frame). Ultrawide is certainly better in some situations and a mid-range is better in others. Walk with it for a while and you'll know what I mean. With that said, when I hike in canyons I usually only carry the wide angle.
 
Does anyone have the Sony 35mm f1.8 prime lens? My wife and I are volunteers at a dog rescue and I'd like to start taking better pictures of the dogs at our events. I'm thinking the f1.8 aperture would help get rid of the busy background and that 35mm would be a good focal length for this type of situation. In general, I thought this might also be a good replacement for the kit lens as well for when I don't want to use the wide angle lens. I'm not sure if there would be any practical application to lugging this around when hiking though. Any thoughts?
 
Vegan.Hiker said:
Does anyone have the Sony 35mm f1.8 prime lens? My wife and I are volunteers at a dog rescue and I'd like to start taking better pictures of the dogs at our events. I'm thinking the f1.8 aperture would help get rid of the busy background and that 35mm would be a good focal length for this type of situation. In general, I thought this might also be a good replacement for the kit lens as well for when I don't want to use the wide angle lens. I'm not sure if there would be any practical application to lugging this around when hiking though. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't have any of the Sony prime lenses for my NEX6 but I'm reasonably happy with my Sigma 19mm 2.8 and 30mm 2.8 - I'm not happy at all with the Sony 55-210, it just seems soft no matter what I do. The 30mm is a nice focal length and while I sometimes miss the 1.8 aperture of my "Nifty Fifty" I used on my Canon, the 2.8 is usually adequate. I still have the kit lens but man does it vignette really badly at the wider angles.
 
Vegan.Hiker said:
Does anyone have the Sony 35mm f1.8 prime lens? My wife and I are volunteers at a dog rescue and I'd like to start taking better pictures of the dogs at our events. I'm thinking the f1.8 aperture would help get rid of the busy background and that 35mm would be a good focal length for this type of situation. In general, I thought this might also be a good replacement for the kit lens as well for when I don't want to use the wide angle lens. I'm not sure if there would be any practical application to lugging this around when hiking though. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't have a Sony or any Sony lenses, but you don't need f1.8 to do nice portraits with blurred backgrounds. I've done hundreds of them with lights, backdrops and the whole setup and I usually shoot them around f4.5-5.6 to keep enough of the head in focus (for humans). Just so long as you aren't right up against your backdrop, everything behind should blur nicely. With that said, a nice prime lens, or otherwise really high quality lens with good bokeh makes a big difference. I've been using a 50mm f1.4 as my main portrait lens for several years but I just picked up a 70-200 f2.8 that I plan to use from now on. But I'll still shoot around f4-5 or the depth of field just gets too shallow and ears and things get too blurred, especially with dogs and their big shnozzes.

Here's a few pics of my pups from 2013 at varying apertures. DOF really shouldn't be much different from Canon to Sony.

50mm, f2.0 - notice how shallow the DOF is. Her nose and ears are blurred. It gets better as you back out, but 2.0 is generally super shallow.
f2 003.jpg

50mm, f2.2
f2.2 006.jpg

50mm, f2.8
f2.8 004.jpg

50mm, f3.5
f3.5 005.jpg

50mm, f4.5 - Still blurred on the nose and ears while sharp on the eyes.
f4.5 007.jpg
 
Thanks @Nick. It's almost silly how much better your full frame shots are. That post of mine you quoted was from a few months ago and I ended up getting the Sony 50mm f1.8 since then (which is like a 75mm for you right since I have a crop sensor?). I like it a lot. It's noticably sharper than my 10-18 wide angle lens (and the kit lens), but you're right, the dof shooting at 1.8 makes it too hard to get everything on my dogs face in focus sometimes. I really like how sharp it is though so I think I'm going to get the Sony 35mm f1.8 as well (that would be like a 50mm on your camera I think). I've just got to learn to be more careful remembering to turn the camera off when changing lenses though. I've forgotten a few times and I have tons of dust on my sensor now.

These are a few I took with the 50mm f1.8 although I can't remember the exact aperture on all of them.

Pretty sure this one is 1.8 cause if you zoom in a tad you can literally see the DOF looking at the carpet. There's literally a line on the carpet that's in-focus between the ball and Joey with everything else blurred in front of and behind it.
image.jpeg

Taken on the 50mm f18 but don't recall the aperture. Doesn't look like 1.8 though.
image.jpeg

First time taking the 50mm with me hiking. Pretty sure this was at 1.8. Even though the background was still blurring at f4 cause the mountains in the background were so far away.
DSC05293-1.JPG

Not sure I'd bother carrying the 50 hiking again but I'm glad I got it for the dog shots and I think the 35 will be even more a useful when I eventually pick it up.
 
Last edited:
Vegan.Hiker said:
Thanks @Nick. It's almost silly how much better your full frame shots are. That post of mine you quoted was from a few months ago and I ended up getting the Sony 50mm f1.8 since then (which is like a 75mm for you right since I have a crop sensor?). I like it a lot. It's noticably sharper than my 10-18 wide angle lens (and the kit lens), but you're right, the dof shooting at 1.8 makes it too hard to get everything on my dogs face in focus sometimes. I really like how sharp it is though so I think I'm going to get the Sony 35mm f1.8 as well (that would be like a 50mm on your camera I think). I've just got to learn to be more careful remembering to turn the camera off when changing lenses though. I've forgotten a few times and I have tons of dust on my sensor now.

These are a few I took with the 50mm f1.8 although I can't remember the exact aperture on all of them.

Pretty sure this one is 1.8 cause if you zoom in a tad you can literally see the DOF looking at the carpet. There's literally a line on the carpet that's in-focus between the ball and Joey with everything else blurred in front of and behind it.
View attachment 44796

Taken on the 50mm f18 but don't recall the aperture. Doesn't look like 1.8 though.
View attachment 44797

First time taking the 50mm with me hiking. Pretty sure this was at 1.8. Even though the background was still blurring at f4 cause the mountains in the background were so far away.
View attachment 44798

Not sure I'd bother carrying the 50 hiking again but I'm glad I got it for the dog shots and I think the 35 will be even more a useful when I eventually pick it up.
Click to expand...


Does Sony make a prime in the 24mm range? I find that more useful than 35 on a crop sensor. I just picked up the canon pancake 24 for crop and I'm loving it.

Shots are really coming along nicely @Vegan.Hiker!
 
slc_dan said:
Does Sony make a prime in the 24mm range? I find that more useful than 35 on a crop sensor. I just picked up the canon pancake 24 for crop and I'm loving it.

Shots are really coming along nicely @Vegan.Hiker!
Click to expand...

Thanks Dan! Sony makes a 24mm f1.8 prime in E-Mount (Sony mirrorless) but it's like $900 because it's a Carl Zeiss lens. The Sony 50mm f1.8 that I got is only $250 and the Sony 35mm f1.8 is $400. So the 24mm was just too expensive for me. Sigma makes a 19mm and 30mm in f2.8 that are pretty cheap (~ $200) and I've read good reviews on. Part of me was itching to move up to the full frame Sony A7 mirrorless, but my a6000 has already been dropped twice while hiking (cracking the EVF glass), gotten sand in the dials, and the LCD is already scratched to shit. If I had a more expensive camera I'd end up sitting on a log crying every time it got manhandled. I'd still probably cry if I broke my a6000, but it wouldn't hurt nearly as bad if I had to replace the body or a lens.
 
Vegan.Hiker said:
Thanks Dan! Sony makes a 24mm f1.8 prime in E-Mount (Sony mirrorless) but it's like $900 because it's a Carl Zeiss lens. ...........Part of me was itching to move up to the full frame Sony A7 mirrorless, but my a6000 has already been dropped twice while hiking (cracking the EVF glass), gotten sand in the dials, and the LCD is already scratched to shit. If I had a more expensive camera I'd end up sitting on a log crying every time it got manhandled. I'd still probably cry if I broke my a6000, but it wouldn't hurt nearly as bad if I had to replace the body or a lens.
Click to expand...

@Vegan.Hiker I have heard the 24mm is extremely sharp. I own the Zeiss 55mm f1.8. It is pretty sharp, but not as sharp as the 24mm.
I usually keep my lenses for a long time, so I don't mind the cost up front, as the Zeiss lenses are built to last.
I have dropped my A7R a couple of times, as that is something I do unfortunately. Maybe it is a disadvantage to have a camera body that is so small.
Don't be afraid of Ebay IMO. I have purchased lot's of equipment from there, and have always had a good experience.
I have bought all of my camera bodies used from Ebay.
Anyway, the Sony cameras (and lenses) are great, I am a big fan.

Also, you might look into Merchant Marine insurance if you want to protect your equipment. Cheap and handy.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Greg. Maybe I shouldn't dismiss the 24mm then just based on price. I'll keep an eye out for used ones on eBay. To be honest, my biggest hesitation on purchasing better equipment though (besides the fact that I'm cheap), is that I'm definitely held back by skill and experience, not equipment. As bad as I want to upgrade, I know that what I need most to improve is more practice and more experience. There's also a good chance my wife will kill me in my sleep if I drop $2,500 on a body and lens right now.
 
Last edited:
The A6000 is a beautiful camera. I don't think you always have to spend a lot of money to get quality equipment.
In certain ways the A7R is not a very good camera, but it has it's good points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top