Sony A6500 lens suggestions

[puckhead193]

As the title states I'm leaning towards purchasing a Sony A6500 for the summer. I think it meets most of my needs. I want a small light camera that I can take pictures AND video. I'm currently using a Nikon 7100 and for my photo needs its great. However it falls short in the video department and the fact that it weighs a ton and traveling all day it becomes a bother.
I'm working at a travel camp and because of my background in video I'm assigned the video/photo duties (so much for my summer free from Final Cut, yay!)
So I'm looking into a lens. I could just go the easy route and get the kit lens as it nice and light but I think I want something better. I'm hoping that Sony will in the fall announce an updated version of the FS5. So I'm thinking that I could use this lens on that camera. Sony has offers a kit for the FS5, 18-105 F4. It's a mechanical zoom which I need for sports but its quite large and will take a way from small compact goal. I was looking into the Zeiss 16-70 F4. Besides the zoom range and the mechanical zoom, how are these lenses different optically? I've heard that when filming with the 18-105 you can't use the mechanical zoom, is this true?
Anyone own these lenses? How is handling/traveling with them?

Edit - as a future purchase I'm liking the leaks of the new Sony A7S III that's been tickling my spidey senses. I REALLY like the A7SII but cost and the low MP for still has me worried and its been out for a while and I'm hoping for an update.

 

[Moi Ici]

Yes, you can use the 18-105 for video, it's excellent as it's an internal zoom, no telescoping, very smooth. I'm doing all fe lenses for my a6500. I will upgrade (but keep) a6500 when the a7iii comes out, the a7rii doesn't appeal. I do have some e lenses, but now more interested in ff.

 

[Stefan johansson]

The resolution in the A7 is enough for most needs. If you're not going to create very large prints,from A2 and up,the A7 is enough. When it comes to lenses,you will find that you need more than one. For my needs,I use a 18-210 sigma zoom for sports and action (the long zoom range is because I'm doing some motor racing and aerobatics photo and video) for portraits,I use Sony 18-55 zoom,for street and sport photo I use a Sony 16 MM,and when I want special effects I use either a samyang 8 MM fisheye or a so called lensbaby.
Another thing you might need,especially for video,is a skylight filter attached to your lens.

 

[Moi Ici]

The resolution in the A7 is enough for most needs. If you're not going to create very large prints,from A2 and up,the A7 is enough. When it comes to lenses,you will find that you need more than one. For my needs,I use a 18-210 sigma zoom for sports and action (the long zoom range is because I'm doing some motor racing and aerobatics photo and video) for portraits,I use Sony 18-55 zoom,for street and sport photo I use a Sony 16 MM,and when I want special effects I use either a samyang 8 MM fisheye or a so called lensbaby.
Another thing you might need,especially for video,is a skylight filter attached to your lens.

a7 wouldn't be as good for video. The a6500 is superior in most scenarios except maybe some dof with macro and even then....not to be argumentative, but most everything in the a6500, even though it's crop, is updated and far more advanced. The a7 would be good for landscape photography on a tripod.

 

[Stefan johansson]

a7 wouldn't be as good for video. The a6500 is superior in most scenarios except maybe some dof with macro and even then....not to be argumentative, but most everything in the a6500, even though it's crop, is updated and far more advanced. The a7 would be good for landscape photography on a tripod.

Ok,maybe you got a point,but with my 40 years of camera experience,I know that specs is not everyting. If it was so,why do my 6MP Konica Minolta D7 take far better photos than my 12 MP iphone? Obviously it's not all about sensor pixels. And for landscape photos with tripods,the hasselblad H3 that I use is far superior to any other dslr.

 

[Moi Ici]

Ok,maybe you got a point,but with my 40 years of camera experience,I know that specs is not everyting. If it was so,why do my 6MP Konica Minolta D7 take far better photos than my 12 MP iphone? Obviously it's not all about sensor pixels. And for landscape photos with tripods,the hasselblad H3 that I use is far superior to any other dslr.

I know that specs is not everyting. Ifit was so,why do my 6MP Konica Minolta D7 take far better photos than my 12 MP iPhone


It's the "size" of the pixels as well though isn't it .

 

[Stefan johansson]

I know that specs is not everyting. Ifit was so,why do my 6MP Konica Minolta D7 take far better photos than my 12 MP iPhone


It's the "size" of the pixels as well though isn't it .

Size of pixels,sensor quality,file compression ,photo/video processing in camera,quality of optics.
So,just the fact that a camera is "old" does not mean it's bad. Sometimes,the old,well tried technology is far better than the old. Besides,the a6500 is a good consumer camera,the a7 is basically made for proffessionals and semi proffessionals,so,as I said,even older models can sometimes be better.

 

[Moi Ici]

Size of pixels,sensor quality,file compression ,photo/video processing in camera,quality of optics.
So,just the fact that a camera is "old" does not mean it's bad. Sometimes,the old,well tried technology is far better than the old. Besides,the a6500 is a good consumer camera,the a7 is basically made for proffessionals and semi proffessionals,so,as I said,even older models can sometimes be better.

You'll find a lot of professionals using the a6500 as a backup/second camera. I do agree with a lot of what you say, but the new sensors and chips have blurred the lines between pro and consumer cameras, unless you're talking medium format etc
[doublepost=1497625499][/doublepost]anyway, I'd say the original poster should get the 18-105 and then wait until the ff a7siii comes out as they will need to buy new lenses for that camera.

 

[kenoh]

You'll find a lot of professionals using the a6500 as a backup/second camera. I do agree with a lot of what you say, but the new sensors and chips have blurred the lines between pro and consumer cameras, unless you're talking medium format etc
[doublepost=1497625499][/doublepost]anyway, I'd say the original poster should get the 18-105 and then wait until the ff a7siii comes out as they will need to buy new lenses for that camera.

If the OP has an A7Siii or any other A7/A9 model in theoir future then buy FE lenses now then you are not having to rebuy everything again later.

I would not recommend you buy the 24-70 f4 though as it is not a good lens for the money.

 

[mcdspncr]

Personally I really like the Sony 35mm 1.8 - Very sharp for the price and the AF and OSS are excellent. It's a nice focal length on a crop sensor and produces cinematic video. Also it's just small enough to balance on the smaller Zhiyun Crane M. I also have the 16-70 ziess for travel and everyday stuff. Personally I prefer primes for video though. The 55mm f1.8 zeiss for portraits is fantastic, and if you upgrade to a full frame in the future it will be a useful lens on that body as well. The 20mm f2.8 pancake is pretty sharp for the size and price and I find I get a lot of use with it as I can basically pocket the camera it's so small.

 

[jypfoto]

The 18-105 is a great lens to start. Has internal zoom, zoom rocker on the side for smooth zooming, and it's not too heavy. It looks bigger than it is.

 

[Stefan johansson]

You'll find a lot of professionals using the a6500 as a backup/second camera. I do agree with a lot of what you say, but the new sensors and chips have blurred the lines between pro and consumer cameras, unless you're talking medium format etc
[doublepost=1497625499][/doublepost]anyway, I'd say the original poster should get the 18-105 and then wait until the ff a7siii comes out as they will need to buy new lenses for that camera.

I know how both the 6500 and the a7 performs,and I tried both. The sensors are similar in both cameras,but I would prefer the a7,as I want the normal settings like aperture,shutter speed,white balance and such to be set withouth using the menu on screen. As I have very little use for automatic settings when doing serious photography,I'm not very impressed with a camera where you need a screen menu to do basic settings.

 

[Moi Ici]

I know how both the 6500 and the a7 performs,and I tried both. The sensors are similar in both cameras,but I would prefer the a7,as I want the normal settings like aperture,shutter speed,white balance and such to be set withouth using the menu on screen. As I have very little use for automatic settings when doing serious photography,I'm not very impressed with a camera where you need a screen menu to do basic settings.

I use M only with it, don't understand your point

 

[DaveN]

I suggest you pick some lenses from this message thread and other places and then rent some of your picks from a lens rental company. Renting lenses is relatively cheap and you get hands on trials.

 

[Stefan johansson]

I suggest you pick some lenses from this message thread and other places and then rent some of your picks from a lens rental company. Renting lenses is relatively cheap and you get hands on trials.

Verk good advice,then you can Try different combos to figure out what you really need.

 

[puckhead193]

would the Sony 24-70 F4 be a viable option if I decide to go FF later on? do you think it won't be wide enough on the smaller sensor of the 6500?

 

[Moi Ici]

would the Sony 24-70 F4 be a viable option if I decide to go FF later on? do you think it won't be wide enough on the smaller sensor of the 6500?

It's not a great lens. Quality is so so for a zeiss. I've had two and returned two.

 

[Stefan johansson]

would the Sony 24-70 F4 be a viable option if I decide to go FF later on? do you think it won't be wide enough on the smaller sensor of the 6500?

I would go for a wider one,and maybe a fixed 50mm as extra lens.

 

[mcdspncr]

would the Sony 24-70 F4 be a viable option if I decide to go FF later on? do you think it won't be wide enough on the smaller sensor of the 6500?

I actually did just that, hoping to future-proof myself for a future FF (A7Riii I dont recommend it though. The 24mm on a crop sensor was just too limiting for me, it defeated the purpose of having a versatile carry around lens. I ended up just getting the 16-70 which I like much more. The not only is the focal length much more useful but the size/weight are so much better. Why lug around a more expensive lens that is more limited in it's usefulness? There will be better mid priced 24-70 options when you upgrade to FF (hopefully)!

 

[puckhead193]

I actually did just that, hoping to future-proof myself for a future FF (A7Riii I dont recommend it though. The 24mm on a crop sensor was just too limiting for me, it defeated the purpose of having a versatile carry around lens. I ended up just getting the 16-70 which I like much more. The not only is the focal length much more useful but the size/weight are so much better. Why lug around a more expensive lens that is more limited in it's usefulness? There will be better mid priced 24-70 options when you upgrade to FF (hopefully)!

I went to the camera store an the guy reluctantly opened the boxes to both lenses 16-70 and 18-105. The 16-70 is much lighter and compact but i looked through photos and and from my kit on my nikon DSLR set up i used the 18-105 more so i'm leaning towards that lens now.

 

[jaduff46]

Sony 18-105 F4 is a really nice lens IMO. Posted flowers yesterday shot with it.