Art and Photography

First lens purchase for Sony NEX camera

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 25th, 2014 9:32 pm
Tags:
None
Member
Dec 4, 2007
268 posts
271 upvotes
Toronto, ON

First lens purchase for Sony NEX camera

Hi all,

I picked up a Sony A5000 + 16-50mm kit lens a few months ago. It's my first non-smartphone camera and I really enjoy using it. However, I would like a bit more zoom so I'm looking to get an additional lens(es). I'll be going to Japan in December and noticed their prices for lenses are considerably cheaper than what's offered here. Here are my choices and their prices (in CAD):

Zeiss 16-70mm - $750
SEL18200 - $650, or $600 for LE
SEL55210 ($250) + SEL35f18 ($380)
SEL18105G - $500

Does anyone have any recommendations or other suggestions?

I'm leaning towards the 18-200LE for pure versatility (and it seems to be the best bargain vs Canadian price of $1000), but I hear it is a slow lens with decent, but not spectacular, IQ. Also, it is a large and heavy lens so I don't know if I want it to be my full-time lens, considering portability was a big factor for me choosing a NEX camera. The same problem goes for the 18-105G, which trades range for better IQ, but is still very large and heavy.

The 35mm + 55-210mm combo seems to give me the best range of options for range, portability and IQ, but I'd have to change lenses more often. I don't feel comfortable with changing lenses while I'm out, so I will likely pick one and stick with it for the day. (Most likely it will be the 35mm, unless I'm looking for wild animals or capturing sports)

The Zeiss lens is quite nice and will cover at least 80% of the range I need, but it is far more expensive and still doesn't solve my zoom problem. Right now it seems more like a luxury because I'm happy with the kit-lens (except for some night shots and a lack of zoom, which the Zeiss can't cover either).

Thanks for your input!
13 replies
Deal Addict
Aug 30, 2007
2002 posts
1465 upvotes
I have no experience with Sony lenses (my setup is Canon), but based based purely on focal lengths and f-numbers, I think the 35mm + 55-210mm combo will make the most obvious improvment in you lens lineup - you will have a wide range of FL covered, plus you'll have a fast prime for portraiture. Superzooms like 18-200mm are "jacks of all trades, masters of none" I'm afraid, with their luckluster image quality and slow apertures.

Don't they have longer primes? I'd personally go with something like 85mm f1.8/f1.4, or at elast 50mm f1.4, in place of the 35mm. That would allow you to achieve a much better subject/background separation.
Sr. Member
Mar 25, 2005
651 posts
71 upvotes
Bowmanville
There's a 50 1.8 from Sony which is rated very well and there's a Sigma 60 2.8.

The 35mm is awesome - love this lens. I have this with the 16-50 kit on a a6000.

55-210 is you're better walkaround zoom lens - although realize quality will be similar to the 16-50. 16-70 is overpriced for what it is.
Deal Addict
Oct 8, 2007
1770 posts
673 upvotes
Bedford
This is kind of a timeless question. The idea of an all in one like the 18-200 is attractive, but comes with weight, PQ and size constraints. I just switched over from Nikon to Sony, and the lens constraints are similiar in crop sensors. I found I used my 35mm exclusively as my walkarounder, and by tele ( 70-300 VR in my case ) when the need arose. However, I often lost shots because I didn't bring my tele, due to the weight. That being said, the Sony 55-210 is a lot smaller, and should work out better for most shots.

Take a look at
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/first- ... es-to-buy/

I would suggest picking up a used 55-210, and possibly the Sigma 30, or Sony 35mm.
Member
Dec 4, 2007
268 posts
271 upvotes
Toronto, ON
pulsar123 wrote: I have no experience with Sony lenses (my setup is Canon), but based based purely on focal lengths and f-numbers, I think the 35mm + 55-210mm combo will make the most obvious improvment in you lens lineup - you will have a wide range of FL covered, plus you'll have a fast prime for portraiture. Superzooms like 18-200mm are "jacks of all trades, masters of none" I'm afraid, with their luckluster image quality and slow apertures.

Don't they have longer primes? I'd personally go with something like 85mm f1.8/f1.4, or at elast 50mm f1.4, in place of the 35mm. That would allow you to achieve a much better subject/background separation.
Thanks for your reply. Yes, there is a 50mm f1.8 that goes for $250. I had thought about that one too, but I'm wondering if it is too long for my everyday needs. With the 35mm, it would probably replace my kit lens most of the time, while also providing better IQ all-around, especially in the darker settings that I tend to struggle with sometimes.
Member
Dec 4, 2007
268 posts
271 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Thanks, I agree with your analysis. I'm glad to hear that the 35mm works well as your walkarounder, as that's what I'm planning to do with it as well if I go for the 35mm + 55-210mm combination. The 18-200LE is tempting because of 1) the convenience and 2) the bargain compared to its Canadian retail price (we are on RFD after all).
baillieul wrote: This is kind of a timeless question. The idea of an all in one like the 18-200 is attractive, but comes with weight, PQ and size constraints. I just switched over from Nikon to Sony, and the lens constraints are similiar in crop sensors. I found I used my 35mm exclusively as my walkarounder, and by tele ( 70-300 VR in my case ) when the need arose. However, I often lost shots because I didn't bring my tele, due to the weight. That being said, the Sony 55-210 is a lot smaller, and should work out better for most shots.

Take a look at
http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/first- ... es-to-buy/

I would suggest picking up a used 55-210, and possibly the Sigma 30, or Sony 35mm.
Deal Addict
Aug 30, 2007
2002 posts
1465 upvotes
handsoap wrote: Thanks for your reply. Yes, there is a 50mm f1.8 that goes for $250. I had thought about that one too, but I'm wondering if it is too long for my everyday needs. With the 35mm, it would probably replace my kit lens most of the time, while also providing better IQ all-around, especially in the darker settings that I tend to struggle with sometimes.
Yeah, it depends on the quality of your kit lens. In Canon world, cheap kit lens 18-55mm works surprizingly well. When I had it, I used it for my most snapshot needs, reserving 50mm f1.8 for portraits (which works very well on a crop camera).
Deal Addict
Mar 10, 2006
3873 posts
1142 upvotes
GTA
My setup:
1. mainly SEL35F18
2. SEL1650 for casual activities (that frequently need wider shots)
3. Tamron 18-200 for travelling (paired with 35F18)

If you have a close friend or relative visiting Asia who also knows a bit about photography, you may be able to find a Tamron 18-200 under CDN$450.
I was able to buy one for around $380 in Canadian dollars after doing some homework and constant searching.
It is much, much cheaper in Asia (other lenses are about the same, but this Tamron is way inflated in North America.)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 8, 2004
3228 posts
964 upvotes
Mississauga
I just switched from Nikon FF to Sony A6K Apsc. About 11 Kijiji transactions in all. I traded in D700, Nikon 20-35 F2.8D, Nikon 35-70 F2.8D, SB400.

In return I got an A6K, Zeiss 32mm F1.8, Zeiss 12mm F2.8 and SEL18200. I came out ahead $80.

I find that these 3 pretty much fill 95% of my requirements.

I had a Sony 35 F1.8 on order with Merkle. I wanted to compare this against the Zeiss 32mm. Won't get that chance now that Merkle has gone under.
Deal Addict
Oct 27, 2013
1021 posts
221 upvotes
Niagara/Mississauga/…
Zeiss 32mm is better, and a better value if you get it for <$600. Sharper overall, better colours, and far better in the corners (sharper and way less vignetting).
Tig wrote: I just switched from Nikon FF to Sony A6K Apsc. About 11 Kijiji transactions in all. I traded in D700, Nikon 20-35 F2.8D, Nikon 35-70 F2.8D, SB400.

In return I got an A6K, Zeiss 32mm F1.8, Zeiss 12mm F2.8 and SEL18200. I came out ahead $80.

I find that these 3 pretty much fill 95% of my requirements.

I had a Sony 35 F1.8 on order with Merkle. I wanted to compare this against the Zeiss 32mm. Won't get that chance now that Merkle has gone under.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 14, 2008
41890 posts
1783 upvotes
Canada
handsoap wrote: Hi all,

I picked up a Sony A5000 + 16-50mm kit lens a few months ago. It's my first non-smartphone camera and I really enjoy using it. However, I would like a bit more zoom so I'm looking to get an additional lens(es). I'll be going to Japan in December and noticed their prices for lenses are considerably cheaper than what's offered here. Here are my choices and their prices (in CAD):

Zeiss 16-70mm - $750
SEL18200 - $650, or $600 for LE
SEL55210 ($250) + SEL35f18 ($380)
SEL18105G - $500

Does anyone have any recommendations or other suggestions?
It all depends on what you want to do with your camera, what type of photos you want to shoot. When I bought my first SLR I soon wanted a tele zoom for airshow photos. You also mentioned wanting "more zoom", presumably meaning more telephoto, to bring distant objects closer and larger. For that the SEL55210 is probably your best bet, equivalent to my first tele. If you want more of an all-in-one-lens setup, and are willing to accept less added tele reach, the SEL18105G may well be the better way to go. It should be lighter and "faster" than the SEL18200. The SEL18200 pretty much negates the point of buying a compact mirrorless body in the first place. If you want to carry a superzoom around with you much of the time them a superzoom bridge camera like the Nikon Coolpix P530 might have been a better (and cheaper) choice. In fact you could buy the P530 (or equiv) for less than the SEL18200 lens, using it for its versatility (and extra-huge zoom range) while retaining the Sony A5000 and 16-50mm kit lens for when that's the more appropriate setup. I find that's the combo I usually have in my camera bag when I'm out and about looking for "opportunity" photos. It covers my most likely needs, while weighing considerably less (and offering far more versatility) than my old multi-lens SLR setup did.
Member
Dec 4, 2007
268 posts
271 upvotes
Toronto, ON
That's a great suggestion. I hadn't thought about getting a bridge camera with superzoom instead of trying to add more length but also bulk to my Sony. I will definitely look into that class of cameras, and may end up just getting the 35mm prime for the A5000 for now.
Tornado F2 wrote: It all depends on what you want to do with your camera, what type of photos you want to shoot. When I bought my first SLR I soon wanted a tele zoom for airshow photos. You also mentioned wanting "more zoom", presumably meaning more telephoto, to bring distant objects closer and larger. For that the SEL55210 is probably your best bet, equivalent to my first tele. If you want more of an all-in-one-lens setup, and are willing to accept less added tele reach, the SEL18105G may well be the better way to go. It should be lighter and "faster" than the SEL18200. The SEL18200 pretty much negates the point of buying a compact mirrorless body in the first place. If you want to carry a superzoom around with you much of the time them a superzoom bridge camera like the Nikon Coolpix P530 might have been a better (and cheaper) choice. In fact you could buy the P530 (or equiv) for less than the SEL18200 lens, using it for its versatility (and extra-huge zoom range) while retaining the Sony A5000 and 16-50mm kit lens for when that's the more appropriate setup. I find that's the combo I usually have in my camera bag when I'm out and about looking for "opportunity" photos. It covers my most likely needs, while weighing considerably less (and offering far more versatility) than my old multi-lens SLR setup did.
Member
Dec 4, 2007
268 posts
271 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Just ordered a refurb P530 for $200. Will play with it and see how it suits my occasional zoom needs. If it turns out great I'll have more budget to get more primes for the A5000 :D
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 14, 2008
41890 posts
1783 upvotes
Canada
Funnily enough, having my bridge camera with me paid off already today. I was just driving along before sunset and happened to notice a couple of deer foraging in a field. I pulled over, took out my bridge camera, got out of the car, and quickly discovered that there were about a dozen deer altogether. I've yet to check the photos on a larger screen, but on the camera's LCD they look pretty darn good, esp since I took them hand-held (but braced). A comparable lens on my DSLR would likely have got even sharper images, given the fading light, but it would have been extremely bulky, expensive (think pro photogs at sporting events), and most importantly - it would have been left at home. I'm so glad that I followed my own advice. :D

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)