Posted August 21st, 2017, 01:36 PM
Thanks. I'll check out the 50/1.8. I'm kind of mentally stuck in Canon mode where the "nifty fifty" was an OK, but not great, inexpensive lens (and 50mm not really being a "normal" length lens on a crop). I've really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm. And there doesn't seem to be an equivalent (yet) to the Sigma 15-50 f/2.8 (or Canon 15-55 f/2.8) in native Sony E mount. The 16-70 is obviously significantly slower, but probably fine in most environments where you're not shooting wide open anyway.
The adapter idea is intriguing. The Sigma adapter should work with my Sigma lenses, but is apparently hit and miss with Canon lenses. Several of the less expensive adapters don't get high marks, and lack camera controlled functions. The Metabones seems to be what everyone likes, but it's almost as expensive as most of my EF-S lenses...
Is there a Sony photography forum? For Canon, I did a lot of my research on Photography on the Net, which has opened up to other-than-Canon but is still much more heavily Canon focused.
You will find the Sony aps-c 50/1.8 similar in quality to the Canon. Excellent value, very good lens. But it isn't going to be breaking any IQ records. Far better than any zoom.
Sony's best lenses are full frame -- They have a spectacular 55/1.8. Their full frame 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are very good as well.
The FE macro lenses are really spectacular from what I've seen, if you want true macro.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the A6500 where it is priced -- Just not enough of a step up over the A6300 for the price difference. If your lenses are already stabilized, you won't get much benefit there. The touch screen is wonky according to every review I've seen. You get a much better buffer.. so if you're shooting sports, that could be a benefit.
My thoughts on the hierarchy:
- If you need the utmost in performance and budget isn't a big concern, then the A9. And I mean pro-sports performance, extremely demanding wedding photographers, etc.
- The A7rii still has the best image quality, highest resolution. And with all due respect to the A7sii, it has the best low light capability. You can now pick it up new for under $2500. Among the full frame cameras, it has the second best AF system, second only to the A9. That said, performance can be wonky at times. Image review, etc, can be slow. Still, in terms of image quality, you won't do better than the A7rii, and the af system is good, with some advantages over traditional dSLR.
-The A7sii, I'd ignore if you mostly do still photography. It is a video workhorse.
-The A7ii.... shouldn't be ignored. 24mp resolution has always been plenty for me. I actually don't want more resolution, because I get no real benefit from the bigger file sizes. Because the files are smaller, the camera can actually be a little speedier than the A7rii. In terms of IQ, it's not the best full frame camera around, but it's still very very good. Still better IQ and low light capability than you'd get out of any aps-c camera. The AF system is passable. And for under around $1500.... might be the best full frame camera you can get at that price.
The A7 and A7r.... I'd ignore. These were first generation experiments. Unless you really want a bargain full frame camera.... nah.
Going down to aps-c..
The A6500 is $1400, body only. It's the same price as the A7ii. So full frame IQ, or a real speedy aps-c. Personally, for this price, I'd take the A7ii. But if you crave speed, performance and autofocus, then the A6500.
The A6500 is a little smaller, but there isn't a huge difference. Of course, *if* you stick to aps-c lenses on the A65000, the camera+lens combo on the A6500 can be a good bit smaller than the A7ii.
The A6300 for $900-$1000. It's the same camera as the A6500. Just as fast really, but the buffer is bigger and clears faster on the A6500. No touch screen, and no IBIS. But most Sony lenses are stabilized. I've been shooting with the A6300 since it was released... for me, it's a very nice back up and travel camera. I tend to pair it mostly with small aps-c lenses, except for occassionally using the 70-200/4.
The Sony e-mount aps-c lenses are all underperformers. The 16-50 is great for being compact, but the IQ is horrible compared to just about any other lens out there. The Zeiss 16-70 is passable... but for $1000, one would wish it was more than passable. The only aps-c zoom which shines, is the 10-18. There are some good primes, including the Zeiss 24/1.8 and the SEL 50/1.8.
Unfortunately, Sony hasn't released a new aps-c lens in a few years. Back then, the e-mount was really designed for entry level type consumers, so they weren't focusing on top quality glass. Today, they are focusing on top quality glass -- but they are putting all that engineering towards the full frame lenses.
Finally, I might have patience and wait for the A7iii. The A7iii might have many of the great features of the A9, at a reachable price.