April 10, 2017

Lenses for the Sony A6000

The Sony Lens system is by far their weak point. I asked a friend why he added a Nikon DSLR to his Sony A6000 instead of one of the full frame Sony cameras and his answer was simple and unsurprising. Because of the Nikon lenses (the same could be said for Canon). The Sony Lens offering is mediocre at best.

The A6000 is often sold with a terrible 16-50 kit lens. The 18-55 lens is much better, both optically and mechanically. The camera weights about 12 ounces and the 18-55 lens is about 7 ounces, so the combination weighs 19 ounces -- just over a pound. This makes it popular as a backpacking camera for people who are weight concious (as any intelligent backpacker should be). (You can save 3 ounces by going with the 16-50 lens). This is also the main reason I am interested in this camera.

The 18-55 has a field of view equivalent to lenses with a focal length of 27-82.5mm, which is a fair match to the 24-70 lens I enjoy on my full frame camera. The 18-55 is a design that changes f/ number from 3.5 to 5.6 as many less expensive zoom lenses do.

E series Lenses

The lack of first class lenses is the truly sad thing about the Sony E mount mirrorless cameras. And don't be fooled by the Zeiss name on some of the lenses, they are still Sony lenses, albeit with some contribution (maybe even beyond permission to use the Zeiss name) from Zeiss.

I have to say right up front that buying this as a lightweight backpacking camera and then loading up with a bunch of lenses to carry along with it entirely defeats my original purpose. And I already have a DSLR with a compliment of lenses, but this is still an interesting topic.

Although I am listing the interesting E-mount lenses that do autofocus, you should be aware that using old manual focus lenses on this camera is a joy -- a much more rewarding experience than trying to use them on a DSLR.

Both of the Sigma 30mm lenses are well regarded and some say they are the sharpest E mount lenses available. And the price is right! The Sigma 30 is particularly well regarded. Note that they do not offer image stabilization, you have to buy the sony 35mm if you want that. The Sony lingo for image stabilization is "OSS" for "Optical Steady Shoot". Notice also that the Sony 35mm is lighter. Whether to view this as a plus or an indicator of less sturdy construction is unknown.

I have read some fine things about the Sony 24mm f/1.8 but it sure is pricey. If you want a 36mm equivalent lens with OSS and have more money than you know what to do with, this might be your lens.

The Sony E 16-70 f/4

The 16-70 should be a superb lens with Zeiss coatings, but the problem is that it isn't. It is terribly overpriced, and we are talking about a plastic lens with a focus by wire focus ring. Some people call this the most controversial lens on the internet. It is a compromise, giving up optical performance to make it small and light. This might be acceptable if the build quality was good and the price was not so extreme, but at $1000 all this is terribly hard to swallow.

I just threw up my hands after looking hard at this lens and decided to make do with my 18-55 lens. If the 16-70 was superb, maybe you could talk yourself into spending the money, but not for a mediocre lens.

The 18-105 is heavier, gives me a long end I don't really want, but it is $400 less.

Sony offers an 18-200 zoom (for $850). I am skeptical of so much zoom range. Something must be sacrificed, and for the money I would go with the 16-70 instead, but with all the reservations enumerated above.

Sony offers a 55-210 zoom (for $350) that just doesn't have enough wide end to be a general purpose lens, so it is a non-starter for me. A friend has it and rarely uses it.

Legacy (manual focus) Lenses

For one reason or other, I have a vast array of Canon lenses to consider using with it, as well as other manual focus lenses (in M42 mounts).

Note that the above weights do not include the weight of the E-mount adapter. This is significant - the adapter adds 3.2 ounces. I include two Sony E lenses for convenient weight comparison.

Adapters

Being mirrorless, it is easy to adapt virtually any kind of lens to the a6000. It has a Sony "E" mount. If you want to use an automatic Canon EF lens, the fancy way to do it is to buy the Metabones converter for $400 -- but I find that awfully steep. But see below for information about the FOTGA adapter for $33 that seems to work just fine. Maybe I should buy two?

I have less expensive FOTGA adapters for Canon FD lenses as well as Nikkor F-mount and they seem just fine.

Simple converters for manual lenses like the Canon FD mount or M42 screw mount can be purchased on Ebay for under $20. Some sellers ship from the USA in a few days, or you can save some money and order from a seller in China and wait for 2-3 weeks. These things are all made in China and generally seem fine, but watch for sloppy fit where thing mate together.

The Canon 10-22 EF lens

I have one of these, and no longer have a Canon camera that accepts S series lenses, so it would be quite nice if I could use this lens on the A6000. And I can! You can pay big money and get the Metabones adapter, or do like I did and buy a FOTGA direct from China for about $33 (1/10 the cost!). The FOTGA seems to work great. I would be happy with just aperture control, but it does OK with autofocus too, though it can be a bit slow.

The reports say that there is almost indetectible vignetting at 10mm (that vanishes at longer focal lengths). I cannot say that I have noticed it, and it would be easy to tweak in lightroom. Note that if you don't already have a Canon 10-22, you would be well advised these days to purchase the Canon 10-18 with image stabilization for about half the price.

Wide angles (like 24mm and the like)

The Zuiko 24mm is said to be a very good 24mm manual lens. Also the Zuiko 100mm f/2.8 and 21mm f/3.5. The letter in front of Zuiko stands for the number of elements (E=5, F=6, G=7). [Note: The letter/element designation on Zuiko lenses was dropped sometime in the late 70's, so not all Zuiko lenses have it]

The Canon 24/1.4 won the race overall, but the Olympus 24/2.8 did best in its class and remarkably overall. From the conclusion:

The Olympus is astoundingly good at f5.6-8 at distance, and produced the highest resolution captures of anything shot thus far at 24mm. We should also mention that the stellar little Olympus 24mm thrashed every other lens it encountered in the group stages of the 24mm World Cup, can be bought used for less than a decent filter for the 24L, and fits in the palm of your hand with room to spare. It's a gem.

Feedback? Questions? Drop me a line!

Tom's Digital Photography Info / tom@mmto.org