Lens recommendation for mirrorless setup

[Oman]

Compared to Nikon and Canon, the biggest problem with a Sony crop camera is lenses. There aren't that many choices; the choices are relatively expensive; and the brand isn't popular enough yet to support much of a used market on Craigslist. Though the a6000 body is definitely smaller and lighter, the lenses are about the same size as comparable Nikon and Canon models, though not as sturdy.

As seano noted above, the Sony kit zoom lens is notorious for motor problems. Sony's two pancake lenses are small and convenient, but expensive and, according to dxomark, not very sharp. I've had fun with the Rokinon 12mm f2, but that lens is manual focus with quality control problems -- the infinity marking on the lens doesn't match infinity focus in the field (a common problem with this lens model.)

The Sony shoots 11 frames per second and is a blast for sports.

If you want a light camera for hiking, I think better choices are a Sony RX, Canon G, or Lumix without removable lenses -- the a6000 with lens is just not that much smaller or better to warrant an expensive switch from Nikon or Canon.

[KTMSteve]

Hey guys thank you all for the feedback, definitely a lot of food for thought here and some things I had not necessarily thought about. After going back to the camera shop yesterday and holding and looking at all of the models I was really impressed with the Olympus em5 mkii. I really liked its size and it just seemed like a solid camera although more than I had initially wanted to spend. I know it has a smaller image sensor and less megapixels (16 compared to Sony and Fuji's 24) but seems to have good reviews.

Anyone out there have any experience with the Olympus mirrorless stuff and anything to really be concerned about possibly going this route brand wise. It seems like a good mix of lenses between the Olympus and Panasonic lenses and the 12-50 looked pretty sharp for a kit tens.


Thanks again for all of the suggestions.

Steve

[nomad_games]

Compared to Nikon and Canon, the biggest problem with a Sony crop camera is lenses. There aren't that many choices; the choices are relatively expensive; and the brand isn't popular enough yet to support much of a used market on Craigslist. Though the a6000 body is definitely smaller and lighter, the lenses are about the same size as comparable Nikon and Canon models, though not as sturdy.

As seano noted above, the Sony kit zoom lens is notorious for motor problems. Sony's two pancake lenses are small and convenient, but expensive and, according to dxomark, not very sharp. I've had fun with the Rokinon 12mm f2, but that lens is manual focus with quality control problems -- the infinity marking on the lens doesn't match infinity focus in the field (a common problem with this lens model.)

The Sony shoots 11 frames per second and is a blast for sports.

If you want a light camera for hiking, I think better choices are a Sony RX, Canon G, or Lumix without removable lenses -- the a6000 with lens is just not that much smaller or better to warrant an expensive switch from Nikon or Canon.

that's true about the rokinon, but easily fixed. you just mark infinity on the focus ring yourself.

[nomad_games]

Hey guys thank you all for the feedback, definitely a lot of food for thought here and some things I had not necessarily thought about. After going back to the camera shop yesterday and holding and looking at all of the models I was really impressed with the Olympus em5 mkii. I really liked its size and it just seemed like a solid camera although more than I had initially wanted to spend. I know it has a smaller image sensor and less megapixels (16 compared to Sony and Fuji's 24) but seems to have good reviews.

Anyone out there have any experience with the Olympus mirrorless stuff and anything to really be concerned about possibly going this route brand wise. It seems like a good mix of lenses between the Olympus and Panasonic lenses and the 12-50 looked pretty sharp for a kit tens.


Thanks again for all of the suggestions.

Steve

i wanted to like that camera due to the packability but it felt so tiny in my giant hands, i couldnt deal

[Liquid Shadow]

Hey guys thank you all for the feedback, definitely a lot of food for thought here and some things I had not necessarily thought about. After going back to the camera shop yesterday and holding and looking at all of the models I was really impressed with the Olympus em5 mkii. I really liked its size and it just seemed like a solid camera although more than I had initially wanted to spend. I know it has a smaller image sensor and less megapixels (16 compared to Sony and Fuji's 24) but seems to have good reviews.

Anyone out there have any experience with the Olympus mirrorless stuff and anything to really be concerned about possibly going this route brand wise. It seems like a good mix of lenses between the Olympus and Panasonic lenses and the 12-50 looked pretty sharp for a kit tens.


Thanks again for all of the suggestions.

Steve

My go-to setup is the Panasonic GX8 with the Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0. Olympus's offerings are terrific too, I just love Panasonic's UI and the video capabilities.

[719BR]

Someone is getting defensive about Sony .

considering i don't have a single sony lens in my set up, that's a silly accusation. i have one tokina, one sigma, on leica, and the rest (about seven) are nikon. i just think it's silly to tell a guy not to buy the camera he mentions by saying "all their lenses are crap" when that's not really the case. especially when he's already said he is willing to spend the money on a better lens. which is what he should be spending his money on anyway.

[WannaBeDirtbag]

I just got the Olympus em5 mkii this past summer, and paired it with the 12-40mm Olympus Pro lens. It's my first 'real' camera, so I don't have much to compare it to, but I really like it. The big selling points for me is the micro 4/3 has many lens options which are high-quality, relatively affordable, and easy to find good deals used. The lenses are also significantly smaller and lighter than the APS camera lenses. I went with the 12-40mm (24-80mm equivalent) because it is very sharp with little distortion at all focal lengths. I find that the focal range covers nearly everything I shoot, so on most trips I don't bother taking other lenses.

Both the camera body and the lens are also "weather-proof." I put that to the test this past weekend at the Quandry Winter Welcomer - I keep the camera on a clip on my shoulder strap to make it easy and get a lot of shots. There was a lot of blowing snow, so after being out for 8 hours, the whole side of the camera was caked in ice. I didn't have any problems at all, and just kept using it normally.

[Nodelic]

Someone is getting defensive about Sony .

considering i don't have a single sony lens in my set up, that's a silly accusation. i have one tokina, one sigma, on leica, and the rest (about seven) are nikon. i just think it's silly to tell a guy not to buy the camera he mentions by saying "all their lenses are crap" when that's not really the case. especially when he's already said he is willing to spend the money on a better lens. which is what he should be spending his money on anyway.

No but you did seem to previously indicate that you have a Sony camera. Look, I mentioned Sony doesn't have a fantastic reputation for their lenses. I did not say "all their lenses are crap". However judging by multiple other posts about Sony lenses in this thread alone, I don't think that's an unreasonable statement. Not sure why you're targeting me specifically, but multiple other posters have made posts with similar sentiments. Sony may have better lenses in higher price brackets, and Steve is looking to possibly upgrade his lens, but if he's already worried that an Olympus OM-D E-M5 mkii is expensive, do you think he is looking at those higher bracket lenses? If you want to argue cameras we can, but as I've mentioned before, my opinion (opinion, I don't know why you're so mad about my opinion if you're "not" being defensive .) is that I personally wouldn't use a Sony. I'm pretty sure Steve is perfectly capable of distinguishing my opinion from a universal fact without posts arguing about semantics that are not relevant to his original question.


@Steve, I'm sorry that we're trashing your thread with irrelevant arguments over Sony. I know you have concerns about the kit lens images, but in practice most people won't notice differences in image quality between kit lenses as much as they notice build quality and the ability of the lens to continue functioning under adverse conditions. The kit you're looking at has both a weather-sealed body AND weather-sealed lens (Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk II and 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 kit), which may be less important to some, but sounds like something that you have concerns about. A lot of other weather-sealed cameras do NOT come with weather-sealed lenses and you have to drop extra money to buy one. The micro 4/3 system also has a very extensive selection of lenses if you're interested in upgrading in the future.

[719BR]

No but you did seem to previously indicate that you have a Sony camera. Look, I mentioned Sony doesn't have a fantastic reputation for their lenses. I did not say "all their lenses are crap". However judging by multiple other posts about Sony lenses in this thread alone, I don't think that's an unreasonable statement. Not sure why you're targeting me specifically

truly sorry if you feel/felt that way. i only commented because you gave advice that was not really in line with the op's original question. i do have a sony body (one of my four bodies), but currently no sony lenses (i use an adapter for my nikon lenses).

to steve, your original question was:

"Primarily looking for something for landscape shots in the mountains. I've got a decent 70X300 for my dslr so I'm not as concerned with having the telephoto aspect at the moment as more of just a good lens for mountain shots. What are you guys using for a one lens setup to head up to the hills with focal length wise?

Looking at going with a Sony A6000 or 6300 and wondering if anyone had experience with the kit lens or if I would be better doing just body and spending the money on an upgraded lens more specific to my wants."

yes, the sony is an excellent mirrorless camera option. sony was literally revolutionary in the mirrorless field, so the brand in general is a good choice. if you get it, however, get the body only and spend the money on a good lens. my favourite lens is a tokina 12-24, it's literally the only lens i carry into the mountains. it has solid performance and offers tremendous value for its price.

[nomad_games]

I just got the Olympus em5 mkii this past summer, and paired it with the 12-40mm Olympus Pro lens. It's my first 'real' camera, so I don't have much to compare it to, but I really like it. The big selling points for me is the micro 4/3 has many lens options which are high-quality, relatively affordable, and easy to find good deals used. The lenses are also significantly smaller and lighter than the APS camera lenses. I went with the 12-40mm (24-80mm equivalent) because it is very sharp with little distortion at all focal lengths. I find that the focal range covers nearly everything I shoot, so on most trips I don't bother taking other lenses.

Both the camera body and the lens are also "weather-proof." I put that to the test this past weekend at the Quandry Winter Welcomer - I keep the camera on a clip on my shoulder strap to make it easy and get a lot of shots. There was a lot of blowing snow, so after being out for 8 hours, the whole side of the camera was caked in ice. I didn't have any problems at all, and just kept using it normally.

weatherproof wide angles are hard to come by and very, very expensive, though.

[Nodelic]

No but you did seem to previously indicate that you have a Sony camera. Look, I mentioned Sony doesn't have a fantastic reputation for their lenses. I did not say "all their lenses are crap". However judging by multiple other posts about Sony lenses in this thread alone, I don't think that's an unreasonable statement. Not sure why you're targeting me specifically

truly sorry if you feel/felt that way. i only commented because you gave advice that was not really in line with the op's original question. i do have a sony body (one of my four bodies), but currently no sony lenses (i use an adapter for my nikon lenses).

Do elaborate how an opinion on Sony Cameras in response to a question about Sony cameras is not in line .


Canon has the 17-40 mm f4 for under $1000. That’s a relatively (everything is relative) affordable, weather-sealed ultra-wide, although you need to invest in a full frame Canon DSLR camera to achieve the ultra-wide aspect. Manufacturer-refurbished lenses aren’t a bad way to go either.

[719BR]

Do elaborate how an opinion on Sony Cameras in response to a question about Sony cameras is not in line .

because his question was should he keep the kit lens or get just the body and spend the money on a better lens. making a generic statement about sony lenses isn't really in line with his question mostly because it isn't true, unless you define the higher end sony lenses as not being sony lenses, because "not too expensive" was not a requirement in his post. i've spent a helluva lot more on glass than i have on bodies, and i assume most semi-serious photographers have as well.