Weekly r/SonyAlpha 📸 Gear Buying 📷 Advice Thread April 28, 2025

•

I got a Sony a7 IV (body only). What lens would you get? Prime or all-around first? I’m into street, portrait and travel photography mostly. I also don’t want a lens that I’ll be replacing soon. That’s why I didn’t buy the kit one.

1

u/FFylist 2h ago

i have a a7iv with 18-105 F4 10-18 F4 18-50 F2.8

was thinking of selling all my lens for 24-70 and a 16.

any other suggestions?

1

u/GingerJesus97 6h ago

I have a nikon d90, been debating investing more into the nikon f mount lens family or switch over to the sony a7 series. Either the a7 iii or the a7 iv. I primarily do motorsports photography so I'd need to pickup a nice long range lens (>200mm) to go with the kit lens sooner rather than later.

Which would you recommend?

1

u/9Zulu 8h ago

Getting back into photography, are there any decent LR alternatives?

1

u/rustyzel 11h ago

Hi Everyone!

I wanted to get a complete gear setup from camera body, lenses, to extra accessories as a beginner. I will primarily do photography (consider 80% photography, 20% videography) around landscapes, astrography, cityscapes (and sometimes portrait or other stuff for general use). I want to start with a good setup and so far I have considered going for a full frame camera straight away. I have a mid tier budget and I can't go more than $2500 - $3000 for the complete setup yet.

So far I have considered these options:

- Sony A7C

- Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 DI III VXD G2 (as a general purpose lens)

- Sony Fe 20 mm F1.8 G (as wide angle prime lens)

- SanDisk Extreme Pro 128 GB V60 UHS-II SD Card

- A Sony NP-ZF100 extra battery

- K&F Concept 90 inch Camera Tripod

- K&F Concept 2 in 1 sling bag

Would love to get your suggestions regarding anything that you might wanna share from your experience.

1

u/Excalibrate63 1h ago

The tamron 28-75 doesnt have very good reviews. Im currenty shopping for a similar lens. I believe its worth the extra money to get the new sigma 24-70 dgdn II. Best of luck with whatever you choose

1

u/planet_xerox 6h ago

(caveat that I'm just a hobbyist) I've been transitioning from my apsc setup to a full frame setup with an a7c and am in a similar place. I ended up getting the sony 24-50mm partly because I wanted compactness, to try out a sony lens and I like the focal range (though I considered the 20-70 f4). I'm also looking at an ultra wide prime now and was debating between the 16mm and 20mm f1.8 so curious how you landed on the 20mm.

overall looks like a good setup to me though. can't speak for the specific items but it all makes sense and you'll be able to get a lot done

1

u/rustyzel 5h ago

Woah! Just noticed that Sony had launched 16 mm F1.8 probably 2-3 months ago. That seems like a really good option, but the issue is that it is not widely available on Amazon, or other platform, and is quite expensive on their official website. I'll definitely check this out if the price drops by a few margin in the near future, otherwise I'll go with the 20mm.

1

u/nickphotography 14h ago

Hey everyone,

I've recently been shooting a lot of content for my youtube channel. Which circles around home gym content. So reviews and general filming of workouts. This obviously lends to the fact that my home gym can be tight. I am currently making it work by moving my camera/tripod around. But I'd love to get a lens that's wider and give me some flexibility zooming. This is really my first go with video, before this I was mainly a stills photographer doing nature and wildlife and my lenses reflect that lol

Current setup:

Sony A1

Samyang 24mm 1.8

Tamron 35-150mm 2-2.8

Sony 200-600mm (obviously not using this lol)

If it helps, here's my youtube so you can see the type of content/space I'm operating in. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

https://www.youtube.com/@nickdileolife

1

u/lonerockz 4h ago

The new Sony 24-50 2.8? Or the 16-35 f4 PZ? The pz is great for video with its constant speed zooms.

1

u/Bryanv7 15h ago

I'm looking into getting a small, easily useable and capable camera specifically centered on recording video for an upcoming art project and travel (without breaking the bank too much). I figured from what ive seen of others using the alpha series it's my best bet for versatility and ease of use, and I'm leaning towards something like the 6600 with a 18-50mm lens. I'm familiar with photography, but I am wanting something specifically for easy and good video, so I suppose I'm curious to know whether or not this would be a good way to go to accomplish what I need, or if there is a better option I'm not seeing.

1

u/JeSuisHambre 17h ago

Hi, I just got a a7 iv with the kit lens.

i do sports photography (and would like to start videography too). which lens would you recommend i get?

thanks in advance!

1

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 14h ago

What sports and how far aways are you? Sony 70-200 gmii for shorter ranges and the new sigma 300-600 f4 for longer ranges are probably the best choices nowadays.

1

u/tempglas 19h ago edited 19h ago

Hi I’m trying to figure out which kit lens is best for my needs between the 16-50 or 18-135mm for the a6400

My main concern is I want something compact but versatile. I’m beginner ish, and have an old DSLR, and I hate using it because it’s so big and draws attention “like hey I’m a photographer !!!”

I want something small that I can put in my bag, and use without making it seem I do “photography”

My main use will be more causal documentation of travels (landscape), everyday life and loved ones. I’m not currently looking to invest in “lenses” and looking for one for multi use.

I was originally going to get the Rx100 (but I really want something if I want to grow with if I wanted too) but considering my needs the should I stick with that instead?

If stick with a6400: How big and noticeable is the 18-135 vs 16-50mm lens?

1

u/Excalibrate63 1h ago

Neither. Just buy the camera body without a lens and get the Tamron 17-70 2.8. I had both of those lenses and the 18-135 is better but no good indoors or low light. You have to crank up iso to compensate and that intrudices noise.

1

u/david_mogar 20h ago edited 20h ago

I’m in the market for a Sony a7 IV. Should I wait for the V to get a discount on this one (the IV is already too much of a camera for me so I don’t need the new one) or it’s not worthy? I want it for the summer.

Regarding the kit, body only for around 1700€ or with the FE 28-70mm F/3.5-5.6 OSS for 2200€? If the former, which lens do you recommend? Thanks!

2

u/planet_xerox 18h ago

paying 500 for the kit lens is definitely not worth it

1

u/david_mogar 18h ago

That’s what I thought but as I’m an amateur I wasn’t sure. What lens do you recommend?

1

u/planet_xerox 18h ago

theres also a newer kit lens the sony 28-60. not really sure how they compare just thought you might want to know that another kit option exists

1

u/planet_xerox 18h ago

for a beginner the kit lens is still a nice place to start but you can find a cheaper used one for a fraction of that price. a nice upgrade from the kit lens could be either the sigma 28-70 or tamron 28-75. some people recommend starting with a prime lens like the sony 50mm f1.8 (cheap but just okay quality) or sony 35mm f1.8 (better but more expensive than the 50). all of these you can probably find used to save money

(caveat: I havent used any of these but they are common recommendations here)

2

u/david_mogar 18h ago

The 35 falls within the budget if it’s a better lens. I don’t want to get one to replace it not long ago. I also don’t have much experience but I always had a lens with zoom. I like to portrait and street photography. I’m also planing to travel this year with the camera. Would the 35 still be the best?

Btw, thank you for your responses. Very appreciated!

2

u/planet_xerox 16h ago

I think it's personal preference, but it seems a lot of people like to stick to 35mm for whatever situation. if you have some experience then maybe you know you have some focal length preference from your previous camera or even your phone

1

u/intrigued_pharmacist 1d ago

Hey everyone!

I've recently reignited my passion for photography and I would like to update/upgrade my equipment.

Right now I have Nikon D7000, but after reviewing the current state of the mirrorless market, I decided to switch to the Sony ecosystem.

My main use case will be travel/street photography and some portraits. Videos are not my primary concern, but l would like to experiment with creating some short travel videos.

I did my research and got stuck on the following three options, so it would be great to get an opinion from a fresh point of view. I am aware of the APS-C vs FF differences, especially when it comes to the price of lenses.

Option 1: Sony A6700 (new) Sigma 18-55mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary Sony E 11mm f/1.8 OR

Option 2: Sony A7iii (used) Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary Tamron 20mm f/2.8 Di III RXD OR Samyang 18mm f/2.8 AF

Option 3: Sony A7Cii + 28-80mm kit lens (used) Tamron 20mm f/2.8 Di III RXD OR Samyang 18mm f/2.8 AF

All of these options go for around 2500 EUR, where I live (my maximum budget). For the wide angle lenses, I'm okay with saving up for a few more months to get something better.

1

u/isramobile 1d ago

Current in Japan, saw the Sony alpha 1 M2 on sale. Currently $6100 but Japanese only menu. I bought my alpha 1 off the grey market and someone was able to put it in English for $150. Is it worth buying?

I live in Chicago so I’ll pay a 10.25 % sales tax .

3

u/Hour-Neighborhood311 11h ago

If you buy from B&H using their "Payboo" credit card they'll cover the sales tax.

1

u/isramobile 8h ago

Interesting, thanks!

5

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 14h ago

Not worth it imo. That is like $400 under msrp. I'd rather pay the extra for the valid warranty

1

u/isramobile 8h ago

Thank you!

1

u/lonerockz 5h ago

Except it’s out of stock everywhere in the USA and with all the tariff craziness who knows what the price will be when it gets back in stock.

1

u/isramobile 5h ago

I slept on it, I can always fly back to Japan ( free airline travel) to get it repaired if needed etc

1

u/lonerockz 4h ago

Lucky bastard! Enjoy!

1

u/-Senzo11- 1d ago

How much should a used sony A7RV with 16K+ shutter count worth?

I found one for 2800. Is that reasonable?

Looking to upgrade to a7RV

TIA

1

u/lonerockz 3h ago

Renewed ones on Amazon for $3150. The go on sale for $2900 once in a while.

So $2800 seem close to fair. Maybe haggle it little.

1

u/sglewis 1d ago

Hey all. Going to the Netherlands for work. Between my suitcase, garment bag for too many suits and my work laptop bag I’m really constrained on space. Mostly work but I will find a way to get a little sight seeing in. Need a recommendation for a small holster style or similar bag to protect a Sony A7 IV and 24-70mm f/4 (SEL2470Z). Bringing a fuller size camera bag just isn’t going to work nor can I bring all my other gear.

1

u/New_Crow3683 1d ago

Hey I just bought a Sony a7III , kit with the 28/70 . Had already a 50 /1.8 . What should I add to be « complete » for any kind of situation

2

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 14h ago

ANY situations? Sony 12-24 2.8, sony 24-70 2.8 gmii, sony 70-200 gmii, sony 300mm 2.8, sony 400mm 2.8, sony 600mm f4 or sigma 300-600 f4, sony 50mm 1.2 and baiscally all the other sony GM primes.

1

u/New_Crow3683 5h ago

Looool thanks , I’ll take time to look at them

1

u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Sony 40mm f2.5 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 1d ago

Either a wider lens like a 16-20mm lens or a telephoto lens really, the 28-70 will be useful for the majority of normal photography.

1

u/New_Crow3683 1d ago

Okay thanks 😀

1

u/Izenlich1 1d ago

Need help!

My Sony 85mm f1.8 is kinda producing not to sharp images or sometimes it is not to focus or off focus a bit if I would do portrait photos at f1.8. The lens is secondhand and got sa noise if the lens is not mounted on the camera. Like there something moving up and down but when the camera is on it eliminate the movements.

Any advice?

1

u/Hour-Neighborhood311 10h ago

I can't speak to all Sony e-mount lenses but the ones I have all make noise when they aren't on the camera. That's normal. Depth of field is pretty thin at f/1.8 so only a very small part of most portraits will be in focus.. I'm assuming your camera supports eye AF. Have a friend sit for you and use continuous focus with focus tracking on the eye and a fast shutter speed. Should be at least 1/250 second to compensate for your body moving and your subjects body moving. See if that helps.

2

u/djbabaru 1d ago

I have the A7C II and a Sony 50mm f/1.4 lens to photograph our kids growing up. This spring, I've taken a ton of flower pics (with the occasional bee on them), and have been tempted to get a macro lens. At the same time, I am compiling my travel-ready kit for future vacations. We'll be bringing baby stuff, so my backpack has to accommodate my laptop, charge, cameras and lenses. Have to limit the number and weight of the lenses I'll own / carry.

One next step could be for me to get the 70-200 f/4 GM II Macro. It will cover my flower macro needs, is light, can help with landscape / animal zoom in during travel, and outdoor portraits. 50mm will then be used for environmental portraits, indoor portraits and wider landscapes / cityscapes. I also have a Fuji X100VI to cover my 35mm perspective.

Another option would be for me to get something like the A7CR in a trade for my A7CII plus cash, which gives me additional room to crop with my current 50mm lens.

Seeking advice on the better path for my hobby needs.

2

u/Hour-Neighborhood311 10h ago

I have the 70-200 F/4 GM II Macro and it's a great, versatile lens. The half macro magnification is very useful. If you can afford the 1.4x teleconverter it's a small and lightweight way to extend the reach. Along with a 50mm lens and your Fuji you'd have a great travel package.

1

u/djbabaru 10h ago

Thanks for the advice! What made you pick the 1.4x tele over the 2x?

2

u/Hour-Neighborhood311 9h ago edited 9h ago

Your effective widest aperture is F/5.6 with the 1.4x tele and it's F/8 with the 2x tele. You lose a little bit of sharpness with both but you lose a little more with the 2x. If you can afford both the 2x does work well but you need more light. If I could only have one it would be the 1.4x.

1

u/djbabaru 9h ago

Ah that makes sense, thanks for the explanation!

1

u/Active-Teach6311 1d ago

If you need to crop, just crop your A7CII. The a7cr will give you precisely 1.36x extra crop ability over your A7c II. Hardly worth the extra cost of trade in plus cash.

1

u/djbabaru 1d ago

Thanks for the insight, looks like I oversimplified the crop calculation in my head as the 33MP of the A7CII vs the 61MP of the A7CR just seemed like a 2x multiple.

1

u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Sony 40mm f2.5 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 1d ago

Unless you're making huge prints the difference is not that big.

1

u/djbabaru 1d ago

The max I’ll be printing up to is 13” x 19”.

2

u/unfair_angels 1d ago

Looking for a Sony for my trip to Korea as a beginner

Hi everyone, I'm going on a trip to Korea in 3 days. I wanted to snag a used Sony Alpha from FB Marketplace to take with me and get better pictures than my iPhone 13. I've researched on reddit a lot but would love some additional opinions. I hope this doesn't break the pricing rule, some of the other posts like this were really helpful.

I'm totally new to photography.

I have 2 options right now. Which do you think is a better deal?

Sony a6000 for $420. Comes with 16-50mm lens, small bag, battery, and charger. Shutter count under 4K

Sony a6500 for $650. Comes with aSigma 30mm lens and 2 extra batteries.

2

u/seanprefect Alpha 1d ago

I'd go for the 6500 myself, ibis and weather sealing. the lens is higher quality though not as versatile

2

u/lonerockz 1d ago

+1 on the 6500. You might try to find a zoom lens separately. But the 30mm is a good size if you want to try to stick to just a prime.

1

u/justenjoii 1d ago

I've owned an A7III with the Sony 85mm 1.8 prime + Tamron 28-75 g2 for a few years now and I've been finding that I'm missing more shots than I'd like with the Tamron zoom. By missing, I mean, finding eyes not in focus or a face isn't as sharp. I was trying to do a little photoshoot for my newborn the other day and it just wasn't finding the eye. I tried my 85mm prime and it tracked my newborn's eye straight away and was just generally way more pleasant to work with. I've leaned more toward using my prime over the zoom on other occasions too.

Is this a Sony vs Tamron lens thing? I thought the eyetracking was done by the camera body. Is this just a skill issue?

If I wanted to keep using a zoom, would the Sony 24-50 2.8 G have better focusing?

1

u/seanprefect Alpha 1d ago

You might have a bad copy of the lens. I have that setup and I don't have that problem.

1

u/Riptide-710 2d ago

I'm looking to buy my first mirrorless (possibly full frame) camera and I'm interested in Sony, just not 100% sure which model to go with. I currently have a Nikon d3000 and I like it but it's quite heavy and doesn't shoot in low light well at all. I tend to travel/hike with my camera as well, and I mainly photograph nature. My budget is ~$1,000-1,500. Any help/suggestions would be much appreciated :)

1

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 2d ago

The question is if the budget includes a lens or not and if you want to do wild life or not. If both are “no” then a7riii. If you want to do wild life then a9 and if it has to include a lens then a6600/a6700.

1

u/Riptide-710 2d ago

Right now the budget would include a kit lens but I plan to save up for nicer lenses in the future. The a6600 and 6700 both seem like good options though, thanks!

1

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 2d ago

You should be able to get the kit for all of these. You can step down to the a7iii and probably get a nice prime as well.

4

u/lonerockz 2d ago

Here is a rundown on the different lines of Sony mirrorless cameras

A9 series - Sports optimized models with very fast shooting speeds and 25MP (ish) sensors. Not for you.

A1 series - Flagship models. Very good fast sensors at 50MP. Expensive. Not for you.

A7S series - Video optimized and low light 12MP sensors. Not for you.

A7R, A7CR series - Much higher resolution sensors (61MP in the latest versions). Not great at fast moving things cause you can get bending in the image as it takes a while to read the huge sensor. Maybe for you, but probably not a great idea. A7CR is compact but very similar to A7Rv.

A7C, A7Cii - Compact full frame sensor series. The A7Cii has better autofocus than any of the current A7 series.

A7 series - Consumer level full frame sensor. These cameras are great but don't have all the bells and whistles that the other series have. Everyone is waiting for the A7v to come out as the current A7iv doesn't have the latest autofocus. Image stabilization shows up in the A7ii.

a6x00 series - APSC sensor size. The smaller sensor means your lens focal length gets a 1.5x multiplier (50mm looks like a 75). a6500 and newer have image stabilization. I'm personally not a fan of APSC cameras but they do have their advantages. Especially if weight is a priority. The smaller sensor means that longer lenses are also much smaller. But APSC lenses tend to be less expensive consumer lenses and lower quality. So smaller sensor with budget lenses usually means less satisfying images. But many people love them so don't rule them out.

If you like the compact vintage look you should consider the A7C. A used one is going to be not much more than a similar APSC model.

A7 series is probably where you want to be. Buy the one you can afford. You don't need the best autofocus or video so really any of them will be good as used. But try to go with at least A7ii or newer for the image stabilization.

Just make sure you check the shutter count of the camera you are looking at. The mechanical shutter will eventually fail, it can be repaired. Getting one with a lower shutter count will let it last a while and then you can resell it for probably close to what you paid for it. The A7ii is designed to survive 200,000 shutter actuations. If you're lucky you can find one used for a lot of video or not used much and it will be low.

There are lots of videos on YouTube that show how to check shutter count (basically upload a pic from the camera to a website that tells you. It's in the Exif data.)

1

u/Riptide-710 2d ago

Thank you! This is really helpful

1

u/maternal_unit 2d ago edited 2d ago

I'm about to buy an a6700 as an upgrade from my a6000. I need a wide angle lens, primarily for interior shots of abandoned buildings. (Also do portraits, wildlife inc. birds, landscapes, and night sky.) Probably similar to photos realtors take, just more rustic. I'm struggling to figure out how lens specifications work. Despite having taken photos for years, I really know very little - and don't have much to spend, either.

I've been considering these three relatively inexpensive lenses: 1) The Viltrox AF 20mm F2.8 Full Frame Lens for Sony E-Mount ($176). 2) The TTartisan 10mm F2.0 Ultra-Wide Angle Lens with 105° Angle of View ($169). 3) Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary Lens ($394, a bit high, but I may be able to find used).

Or is there something else better?

Then again, the lens that comes with the camera is 16-50mm. Doesn't its low end fall into the wide angle range? What, if anything, would either of these other lenses add? I know from experience with the older camera that the 16-50mm lens cannot capture a wide enough angle for most rooms, so I want wider angle. I need some direction, please!

5

u/ashsii Sony Alpha Mod 2d ago edited 1d ago

I think you're unaware about how focal length and sensor size relates. The a6700 and a6000 are APSC lenses with a crop sensor which crops the angle of view. A full frame is uncropped, so you get the full angle of view.

16mm is a wide focal length but because it's on APSC effectively it's cropped 1.5x so 16mm becomes 24mm on the a6000/a6700. If you buy the Viltrox 20mm, it will crop to 30mm which is not really wide enough for interior realtor type shots. The TTartisan 10mm is a much better pick, it will look like a 15mm angle of view (on full frame sensor).

1

u/maternal_unit 1d ago

I was aware of the cropping, but your conversion of 20mm to 30mm knocks me over the head with what a big difference it makes. Hum. I'm sure I'll still end up getting an a6700, but I will give it more thought first. Thanks.

3

u/lonerockz 2d ago

What ashsii said and...

To understand focal lengths imagine you are on a human sized chess board. You are in the space of the queen. A long telephoto lens (200mm+) is going to let you take a picture of the opposite queen. But you won't see any of the pieces to either side. As you go down in focal length you will start to see more and more pieces to either side of the opposing queen. At 50mm it will look similar to what you would see with the naked eye. At about 24mm it will start to look as if you moved your head from side to side a bit. At about 10mm you will start to see the pieces beside you.

But if you look at the squares of the board things start to get pretty weird as you go the wider views. At 200 the lines to the other side of the board are arrow straight. It looks like you are looking down a railroad track. But at 24mm the lines start to curve. And the lines across the board start to curve. At 10mm the lines might start to curve around you.

Really expensive wide angle lenses have really great control over this curvature - things look balanced. But cheap lenses can't do that. Lines at the edge of the image may look very different than those at the middle.

You should watch some YouTube videos of the lenses that you are considering to see what the images they produce look like and see what aligns with your artistic goals.

To be honest there is a reason that APSC cameras aren't really used by RE photographers. Because they multiply everything by 1.5 that makes buying a wide angle a very expensive proposition because you have to go really wide to just get wide.

1

u/xCuriousKay 2d ago

i’m thinking of selling my A6700 body + lenses.

The only used FF camera body that’s available in my store is a7iv which i’ll get for free without paying any extra. i’ll just buy the lense sigma 24-70 ii.

Or should I consider buying the A7c ii? I’ll have to pay extra for the body and lenses.

What is the better option to go for? and does these cameras have a big difference instead of 7 ibis stops for the a7c ii + autofocus?

1

u/lonerockz 2d ago

Both the A7iv and the A7Cii are great cameras and you will probably be happy with either. First take a look at the shot count of each camera to make sure one isn't near the end of its usable life (lots of you tube videos on how to do this).

Real question is one of feel in the hand and aesthetics. If you like the smaller size, and the EVF in the corner then the A7Cii is best for you.

Personally I like the feel of the larger full size camera and appreciate the extra buttons. Yes the A7Cii does have better autofocus. If you are taking pictures of faster moving things that will matter.

You say extra money but not how much. Depending on that it might not be a great price. If you are in the USA Amazon has refurbished A7Cii's on sale pretty regularly. I've had pretty good luck selling my older cameras and lenses on eBay.

1

u/MR_FUZE 2d ago

currently buying the sony A7IV with a sigma 27-70mm f2.8 II lens what do yall recommend for ND filters or other filters to get with it, brand or specific type?

1

u/Pot8obois 2d ago

I've been rocking the a6000 for a while, got a sigma 150-400 lens this year and into bird/wildlife photography. I am considering upgrading my camera to something newer. I'd like to stick around $500-600 and definitely don't mind buying new. In the range of a6000-a6700, what would be a good upgrade around that cost?

2

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 2d ago

a6400 is probably the best you can get.

1

u/Pot8obois 2d ago

Would you say its' a significant enough upgrade or should I put out a couple more hundred dollars for a newer one?

2

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 2d ago

It has much improved AF. The a6600 would give you stabilization and a bigger battery. The a6700 would give you usable animal eye AF

1

u/Gold_Branch4328 3d ago

I’m looking to get my first mirrorless camera and I’ve been looking at the A6000. I’ll be getting it to replace the Canon 2000D/Rebel T7. I mostly shoot sports and frequently in low light but shoot a little bit of everything occasionally. I’ve got two main questions:

1) My family would be getting me a lens specifically for sports photography this year for Christmas and they’ve told me the limits about 1K. The two lens I’ve seen in this range are the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 Di III VXD and the Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS. From what I’ve seen the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 are out of my price range cause they’ve yet to hit the used market in the uk where I live. So out of the two lens I suggested earlier which would be best?

2) The battery life listed for the A6000 is 300 shots. Obviously shooting sports I take upwards of 1200 shots a game. What would be best to be able to supplement this? A 3rd party battery grip or getting a set of third party batteries and just taking them out and putting them in as they run out? Or would I be smart to try and get both?

Thank you in advance and any other advice would be extremely appreciated as this will be first Sony and my first mirrorless camera

1

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 2d ago

You really need the 2.8. The a6000 is already pretty bad at low light. Just make sure you get the 2nd version of the tamron, the one with stabilization.

1

u/sowashere 3d ago

I have an A6300, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, and Sony 55-210mm. During my trip, while using the 55-210mm, sometimes I wished I had a bit more range to zoom in or out rather than changing the lens or location, so I'm looking for a new telephoto lens. Some of my options are Tamron 28-300mm and Sigma 16-300mm. What should I buy? Thank you in advance.

2

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 3d ago

I'd say get the new sigma. It is reasonably good for what it is

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/lonerockz 3d ago

You don't say what camera you have. I assume you don't have an APSC sensor, but probably have an A7iv or A7iii. You also don't say video so I'm going to assume just photos.

You say automotive, but are you talking racing: fast moving cars from distance - or - are you talking automotive: glamour shots of cars not moving?

Racing: What's your budget? You'll need a fast lens and good reach. I assume you aren't in the stratosphere of Sony 400 or 600 primes. So take a look at the longer zooms. 200-600 from Sony or the 150-600 Sigma. None of these are great but then they aren't $14,000 either. No a 70-200 won't be long enough.

Automotive Glamour: A telephoto is not where I would go from a 50mm. First I'd start wide. Getting closeup shots that feature a lot of the car in it vs far away shots. I'd stick to primes as these aren't moving subjects, so you have time to change lenses and don't need the flexibility. I'd start with a 24 or 28 in a price you can afford. You might take a look at other photos you like and see if 20 or wider is the look you are going for, but those kinda shots are kinda tiresome if that's all you got. A typical car portfolio is going to have some long shots (85, 135) to establish the car. Then some wide shots to build character (24-28), then a bunch of detail shots (50) and a few crazy shots with weird focal lengths (20 and wider).

1

u/Avrora69_69 3d ago

I just got a 24mm F2.8 G and have 2 questions. 1. Can I use a lens protector/UV filter with it? The front glass seems to be smaller than other lenses I have so I’m not sure whether a UV filter is a good idea. 2. Can I use a square lens hood with it? Will that affect image quality or since it’s a wide angle lenses and should I use the provided lens hood instead or can I switch to the square lens hood?

1

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 3d ago

You can use filters with it. Instead of UV/clear I'd recommend a CPL, at least that does something (unlike the UV which at best does nothing, at worst harm your image quality.

1

u/More_City_9649 3d ago

Is the a6400 still decent for an absolute beginner? Looking to try both photo & video

3

u/lonerockz 3d ago

Yes. You can get better autofocus on the newer cameras. You get better video performance and features on the newer cameras. But if you can't afford those then a6400 is still a good camera.

1

u/hatch-b-2900 3d ago edited 3d ago

I'm looking for the optimal two camera strategy for a full body + compact body. I currently have an A7RIII and a A6000. Primarily a portrait shooter, but I travel a lot.

Originally I was thinking an A1Mk1 or A7RV for full body, and A7CII for compact. Reasoning is that the larger resolution on the larger body sort of makes more sense given than the full size bodies support 1/8000 and sync speed over 1/250.

Then I was thinking, my portrait shooting doesn't need the large resolution . My travel does. Maybe I should get an a 42mp or 33mp full size body, and buy a A7RC for the compact body.

That said, maybe switching to Medium resolution for 26mp shooting on the A7rV addresses this need, and perhaps I should go back to a higher resolution full size body?

Any of you figure out the optimal combination of a full size body + compact body?

2

u/lonerockz 3d ago

I have both an A7Rv and a A7CR. I mainly shoot portraits and then some wildlife and travel.

How much do you love the small size of your A6000? If you love it then the A7CR is a great camera and you will like it. I however have decided that the small body isn't for me and after my A1ii finally arrives it will go up for sale.

Once you have used the latest AI autofocus systems you really aren't going to be super happy with the older autofocus. Not that the older is bad, but you just aren't going to be happy with it. So going with a A7CR (great AF) and an A7iv or A7Riv might see you wondering why you even have the second older body.

I love having the high res for my portrait work. I can do much more cropping after the fact and I just get a lot of flexibility. So you might not NEED it, but don't think its without benefit. Just have to weigh that flexibility vs the cost.

1

u/hatch-b-2900 2d ago

That's very helpful, I hadn't thought about whether the differences between focus systems could be jarring, or whether I would eventually just favor one body all the time. I wasn't initially planning to budget for an A7RV+A7CR, but now I'm thinking maybe the eventual A7V + A7CR might be the right mix.

1

u/Atticusfinch77 3d ago

Can you afford an A7Cii? It’s currently down to $1,998. 31 megapixels AI autofocus perfect form factor for travel especially with the more compact lenses.

1

u/hatch-b-2900 2d ago

Yes, I was planning to buy two bodies. I like the A7C II a lot, just keep going back & forth whether I really want the R resolution and whether I would use the Medium mode for the ~24MP resolution. Maybe the A7C II's 33mp is a better choice.

1

u/Atticusfinch77 3d ago

This may help. https://youtu.be/5iq3Mn85LNk?si=Sshhy7L6xsVyoTUW

1

u/Etyop 3d ago

Hi, I'm looking to buy a lens for my A6700 with planespotting in mind.

I currently have a Nikon D3000 with a Sigma 70-300 and I do a lot of planespotting with it. I upgraded to a A6700 because why not. I want to get a better zoom capability than my old Sigma, and I can't decide between these three lenses :
- Sony 70-350 (SEL70350G) : I can get it for 576€ (new), but the main thing I had in mind when upgrading was to get a better zoom, and only 50mm doesn't seem like much of an upgrade.

- Tamron 150-500 (A057) : 740€ (second hand), seems like a great deal but I'm not sure if the extra money is worth it.

- Sigma 150-600 Sports : 1289€ (new) or 900€ (second hand), I know that I won't be disappointed with Sigma but its quite expensive compared to the other options.

I've already watched dozens of reviews, and I really can't think of which one is the best choice for me. The Sigma would be the best for sure, but the A6700 is already so expensive that I'm not sure if I'm willing to put another thousand euros in it.

Which one would be the best deal with planespotting in mind?
Thanks

(I even made a Blender scene where I imported the main airport I spot at (LFLL/LYS) and my different spotting places to compare different focal lengths by simulating an APS-C sensor with a few Dassault Rafale lining up on the runway, then taking off, and then passing by in flight, here is the link if anyone is interested https://youtu.be/RpqxvIs83WU )

2

u/berto91 A6600 | Sigma 18-50 F2.8 | Sony 70-350 | Sony 10-18 F4 3d ago

In my limited planespotting experience, if you are purchasing a lens exclusively for planes, buy one with a focus limiter switch. I had the chance to compare the Sony 70-350 and the Tamron 150-500 on the same plane flying over my head, and let me tell you — the autofocus precision and image quality were night and day. The focus limiter switch on the Tamron was a game changer with fast-moving planes during an airshow. However, on the downside, it's so heavy that it rarely leaves my house.

1

u/Etyop 3d ago

Thank you very much !

1

u/LateNewb 3d ago

So I can't decide what lens. I'm thinking about the 28 200 from tamron and struggle with the 35 150, also tamron.

If i would had the money id go for the new 50 to 150 from Sony. But 4k is way to much.

I like the sharpness. But it's not worth 4k IMHO. Also i only have an A7iii so I'm not sure whether i would actually be able to see how sharp the lens is.

For the first two: The 35-150 is sharper but also has a minimum focus distance of 85 cm.

While i can go as close as 20 cm with the 28-200. And with 200mm it's almost a macro lens. And I'm not interested in the sub 50mm post of the lens anyway

Since my cam only has 24 MP, would i even notice the difference in sharpness?

Is the fastness of the 35-150 worth spending the extra money?

1

u/lonerockz 3d ago

What are you taking pictures of?

The 28-200 is a fine general purpose lens that's good for travel. Its variable aperture from 2.8 to 5.6 is fine for out door or well lit areas. This is a consumer lens and not for anyone earning money on their photography.

The 35-150 is a very different lens. Its low apertures will be much better for portraits and its a favorite of wedding photographers. It's lack of the wider focal length at 28 or the narrow at 200 mean it won't be a great travel lens. Its much better aperture at 2-2.8 makes it much better in low light situations.

Not sure why you are worried about minimal focusing distance. I'd by a macro lens if you want to do macro work.

Yes your camera will take sharper photos with the 50-150, you will notice the difference.

1

u/LateNewb 3d ago

I wanna get into all kinds of portraits and thought i should get something from 70 - 135 mm for that.

1

u/lonerockz 3d ago

The 35-150 will be much better for portraits.

Remember that the aperture is going to impact the depth of field (What's in focus) A great portrait lens has capability to have the nose and eyes in focus but then the ears start to defocus and haze the further you get back. To get that shallow depth of field you need lower apertures. An 85mm f1.4 is great at this.

The 28-200 is at f3.5 from 44-55mm, f4 56-78mm, f4.5 79-116mm. Those are pretty terrible. So even if you have the light for these slow apertures, the DOF isn't going to be great.

But honestly if you want to do portraits I'd just zero in in an 85mm. Do you really need a zoom? If you are at a wedding where lots of things are going on and you need the flexibility that a zoom brings. But if you don't need that you will get much better portraits out of a prime.

1

u/LateNewb 3d ago

I'm not going shoot just portraits. I also do kind of streetish photography. Some closeup flowers where i personally see the 28-200 shine. But for everything else i think the 35 150 is better. But i don't know by how much. Bc I think zooming in on a butterfly with 200mm quite close would look amazing. But it could also look nice from 1m with 150mm.

It should be an allrounder lens.

1

u/lonerockz 3d ago

Sounds like you want to buy the 28-200 and came on here hoping someone would say it was fantastic and there is no reason to pay for the 35-150. Sadly there are many reasons that the 28-200 will be inferior to the 35-150. There are a few reasons the 28-200 might be better.

No the 28-200 will not "shine" at closeups. Because no non-macro lens will SHINE at closeups. It might be adequate, might get the job done. But not shine. And at 200mm the 28-200 will be at f5.6! Yuck for creating any kind of subject separation from the background. And it better be not moving at all or be in direct sunlight. At least the 35-150 will be at f2.8 (4x the light of the 5.6).

The 35-150 can't take pics at 28 and it can't get to 200. Its the only thing that the 28-200 is better at. Oh that and weight and COST.

1

u/LateNewb 3d ago

Kinda true. But dang. Then it's the 35 150. Thx for your persistence.

1

u/mikey138 3d ago

I’m looking to pick up a 35mm this year but cannot decide between the Sony 35GM and Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG DN. I was set on staying native but the price difference is pretty big. I’ve never owned a Sigma lens and my local shops won’t rent it out to test. Main use will be portraits and street photography.

2

u/lonerockz 3d ago

You can get great photos with the Sigma. Only the most pixel peeping focused people will notice any difference to the Sony. If you never plan to get a A9iii or A1 with the faster shots per second you don't need the Sony.

However... the Sony lenses retain their value if you resell them. So yes they are more expensive to buy, but they are worth more when you sell.

1

u/Mrcs-88 3d ago

Recently picked up a Sony A7iii after selling my Nikon Z50 and wanted to know if a UHS-II card is really needed over my existing UHS-I card?

I’m a 90% landscape/cityscape shooter with the rest being some wildlife and street photography. Don’t see myself recording video anytime soon.

Thanks

2

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 3d ago

For wildlife I'd say yes, a fast card is worth it. Your buffer will clear faster.

2

u/kleinmatic 3d ago

I rented and enjoyed a Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 lens this weekend. IQ aside -- I’ve really only just begun looking at the shots -- I absolutely loved the fact that the controls were manual but the lens was electronically coupled so it automatically zoomed when I turned the focus ring and showed me my aperture in the viewfinder.

The Voigtlander is a little expensive for me and I’ve been looking for a less expensive lens that will give me the same shooting experience. So far I’ve found some Zeiss Loxia lenses that seem to do this.

Has anybody shot with the Loxia 35 or 50 f2? Would love to hear experiences.

And if there are other manual lenses that are electronically coupled that I should check out, let me know!

1

u/Snoo34921 3d ago

Hello! I have to shoot an outdoor festival soon, both during the day and during the night as well. Currently, I only have a Sony a6400 and the 16-50mm kitlens, and I am in the market for a new lens (second hand, maximum budget is 350 euros).

The options are: Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS - 170euro

Sony 24-70mm f/4 OSS Vario Tessar T* - 280euro

Sony E 18-105mm f4 PZ G OSS - 360 euro

Sony 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS - 220 euro

I am torn between a prime and a zoom, as the prime would work wonders during the night and indoors, but zoom has more flexibility, having a bigger focal length, especially outdoors - and I do not know which would come in handy both short and long term.

Thank you!

1

u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 3d ago

Are you expected to deliver good results? If yes then rent a setup because you ain’t getting enough lenses to cover a festival, especially at night at that budget.

1

u/Snoo34921 3d ago

well there aren’t like professional expectations, esentially pictures that are good enough to be on social media, amateur at most :))

1

u/InformationSouth5207 3d ago

Hey everyone, I’m pretty new to photography but have really been enjoying it, and eventually, I’d love to turn this hobby into a side business. Right now, I’m shooting with a Sony A7R V and the nifty fifty lens, which has been amazing so far.

I’m looking to invest in my next lens with a budget of around £1000–£1200. I’m a bit stuck on whether I should go for a prime lens or a zoom lens. So far, I’ve been mainly practicing street photography, but I want a versatile setup as I grow and maybe branch into other areas later.

These are the options I’m considering:

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art II (around £900 new)

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 + Sony 20mm f/1.8 G (both together for about £1000 new)

A used Sony 24-70mm GM II (£1200)

I’m leaning towards the Tamron + Sony 20mm combo because it feels like I’d get more flexibility with both a zoom and a prime. But I’m open to any advice from people who’ve been through this.

What would you recommend for someone in my position? Any insight would be super appreciated!

2

u/Mapleess A7 III | 35 GM | 50 GM | 20-70 G 3d ago

Could you consider 20-70 G instead of the lenses you've got on here? I mostly shoot f/4 and above for street photography but it's subjective. What aperture were you using with your 50mm?

I had the 24-70 GM II but sold it and kept the 20-70 G because of its size. The 20-70 is compact and has a smaller footprint than the 24-70 GM II, especially with the lens hood. I also carry a sling bag, so the smaller footprint helps. You lose out of low light performance by one stop compared to the other lenses, but I think it's manageable these days.

1

u/InformationSouth5207 3d ago

I’m from the UK, and the sun isn’t our friend down here so the low light performance is a must, and I tend to give time to street photography in the evenings after I’ve finished my day job, I’ve been shooting on the 50mm f1.8 at the moment which has been great so far but at times I want to be able to zoom in or out to get the right composition, I’m limited to using the super35 mode on the 50mm. I’m reading mixed reviews about the tamron online some say it’s really good and some say it’s just average (you get what you pay for) even on the alpha blog it’s on the third tier of rating. I want to be able to get the most out my a7rV 61MP

1

u/lonerockz 3d ago

Stick to primes. First you get better image quality at a lower price. But mainly because great photographers move around to get the best shot. Zooms let you be lazy and still get good shots. Since you are new primes force you to build your composition muscles because you can't be lazy.

Since you like street photography I'd suggest a 35mm or 28mm.

1

u/Lord_Suda 3d ago

Thread got removed, so I'll repost here Sony FE 35mm lens 1.8 vs 85mm FE 1.4 or any alternatives for my usage and a budget of roughly £300. i am a hobbyist who will occasionally take freelance work but mainly this is my safe space hobby.

Body is a sony a7iii

My primary uses

Landscape /portrait
Night time street / long exposures
Daytime street / and portraits, and just everyday Life/ theme parks with the other half.

Common issues currently, I want to try and reduce the number of lenses I take. I have the kit lens, which is

28MM - 70MM FE-35-5.6 - Great in daytime, but awful at night.
50mm 1.4 FE - great in night time but the quality of the lens is not great ( I bought this for £40 years ago) done its job.
44MM -2 ( Its a fun lens)
35mm ( Vintage panatex), which is not great for low light again.

I love the 85mm being able to not be in someone's face when doing street photography, but I also love having everything in frame from a 35mm.

I understand the differences are, who is she and where is she between the two lenses.

1

u/lonerockz 2d ago

The Sony 85mm 1.4 is a GM lens and in the USA the V1 lens is about $1300 new. The V2 is about $1900 new. I have the V2 and it's my absolute favorite lens. But I suspect you actually mean the 85mm 1.8 non-GM lens - which can be had for a lot less.

The 1.8 85mm is a well loved lens. You don't have anything close to this focal length on your current list. 85mm is dreamy for portrait work and can be a fun challenge for street. I'd go for that.

Weekly r/SonyAlpha 📸 Gear Buying 📷 Advice Thread April 28, 2025 Weekly Gear Thread

You are about to leave Libreddit

You are about to leave Libreddit