/p/ - Photography » Thread #3327161

[55 / 8 / ?]

a6000 16-50mm pz kit lens

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 15:35:13 No.3327161 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3327163 >>3327626 >>3328977 >>3329210 >>3331836 >>3331947 >>3331948

Why is it so trash and what should I replace it with?

I already have:
>35mm f1/.8 prime
>50mm f/1.8 prime
>135mm f/2.8 prime

Are there any good wide-ish (16-21mm) range lenses that just as compact as the kit lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 15:37:30 No.3327163 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327161
Get an EF to E-mount adapter and buy the EF-S 10-18mm lens. It's 1/3 the price of Sony's 10-18mm and just as good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 21:45:07 No.3327309 Report

Quoted By: >>3327312 >>3327314 >>3327319

Whats so bad about it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 21:50:02 No.3327312 Report

Quoted By: >>3327315 >>3327319

>>3327309

Shit QC is the main issue.

A good copy has decent enough center with mediocre to bad corners. Good luck finding one though.

The big plus is it is compact as fuck.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO highres-Sony-E-18-55mm-OSS-Lens- (...).jpg, 1MiB, 1362x1698

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 21:53:11 No.3327314 Report

Quoted By: >>3327319

>>3327309
The older 18-55mm Sony Nex kit lens is much better in just about every way except not being as compact as the newer 16-50mm.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC00046.jpg, 587KiB, 1536x717

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 21:53:30 No.3327315 Report

Quoted By: >>3327356

>>3327312
from a good copy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 22:00:48 No.3327319 Report

Quoted By: >>3327321 >>3327324

>>3327309
>>3327312
>>3327314
Let me rephrase that; what makes other kit lenses better than this one? I own a 16-50 myself but I have only used the canon 18-55 and whatever Nikon stuck on their D3200's that I can compare to, and I'm quite fond of the compact size. Autofocus is super shit though, and I haven't really pixelpeeped it yet as I mostly shoot video. I don't feel like it deserves being called shit considering the price difference between house only and kit was barely 800NOK ($97)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 22:03:14 No.3327321 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327319
Oh and the whole powerzoom electronic thingy makes me want to kill myself and manual focusing is hard as fuck. Find myself unable to adjust focus during a shot so mainly use it for static shots

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 22:07:54 No.3327324 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327319
It isn't worth $97 even on its own. People pay that for the older Sony Nex kit but not the new power zoom one.

It isn't that great because of the aforementioned QC issues so it's tough to find an exceptional copy, it has worse optical quality than the original kit as they wanted to make it compact instead of using quality glass. Build quality is pretty worse too. The older kit with manual zoom is more reliable than the power zoom. Ultimately all kit lenses are kinda shitty on purpose since they want you to upgrade to a good lens down the line so it's like comparing two slightly different shaped shit logs but I was never impressed with the 16-50mm.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC04466-Edit.jpg, 882KiB, 1200x1685

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 23:40:40 No.3327356 Report

Quoted By: >>3327357 >>3327363 >>3328596 >>3329217

>>3327315
how do you get a good copy vs bad copy?
pic related, shot ruined by crap quality

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 23:46:39 No.3327357 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327356
luck.
be willing to buy and return as many as it takes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jul 2018 23:59:57 No.3327363 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327356

Avoid e-bay sellers, almost all are QC rejects.

Direct from Sony or bundled with a body are usually pretty good.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC09198.jpg, 2MiB, 4948x3299

Anonymous Mon 23 Jul 2018 00:09:46 No.3327366 Report

Quoted By:

I had one that came with an a6000 body, and itwas pretty good. It got jammed after 3 years, so I bought a used one from MPB - still pretty good quality for the price. Attaching full sized snapshot for pixel peeping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Jul 2018 16:03:29 No.3327626 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327161
I've never had a problem with that lens. All three of these videos were shot with the kit lens. It's seriously fantastic for video, the AF works great for use on gimbals too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXfSA1WU-s4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjYIoq8T5M8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwrmFGMi9c

I bought mine used from somebody on craigslist for like $50

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Jul 2018 18:56:49 No.3327720 Report

Quoted By: >>3328586

Start with the Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN and treat it like a slightly wide nifty fifty. The Sigma19mm is nice, but I never found it to be wide enough for what I shoot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Jul 2018 00:38:41 No.3328586 Report

Quoted By: >>3328818 >>3328926

>>3327720
>sigma 30mm F2.8 DN
I got a neewer 35/1.7 which I love. Shoot landscapes so no need for autofocus

>Sigma 19mm
I tried this out and found the sharpness was only marginally better than the kit lens, while losing an extra 3mm of wideness. Also, I hated the focus-by-wire. Really wanted to love this lens but ended up returning it. I also heard the sony 20mm/2.8 prime is not much better either

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Jul 2018 00:53:15 No.3328596 Report

Quoted By: >>3328950

>>3327356
That shot was ruined by the camera due it moire problems with the snow. This happens with that sensor and others which is why they started adding automatic AA filters to the newer cameras, which ruins photos even further. lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Jul 2018 11:07:24 No.3328818 Report

Quoted By:

>>3328586

The 20mm prime is decent enough, but it is a cheap prime. Similar to 24mm Canon, not an L lens.

The 16mm prime is soft as hell though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Jul 2018 16:00:14 No.3328926 Report

Quoted By:

>>3328586
not that compact but get the sigma 16mm 1.4.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO man-who-thought-hed-lost-all-hope.png, 191KiB, 500x647

Anonymous Wed 25 Jul 2018 16:29:20 No.3328950 Report

Quoted By: >>3329142

>>3328596
>shot ruined by camera
fuck is there any way to fix in the raw?
Or did I get memed on into getting a sony mirrorless

>tfw got a mirrorless only because it was more compact and easier to bring than my old canon
>tfw the best camera is the one you have with you
>until it's shit with shit lenses
>tfw all the lenses that aren't shit are bulky and huge, defeating the purpose of lightweight mirrorless in the first place

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Jul 2018 17:35:22 No.3328977 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327161
Sigma 17-50/2.8

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jul 2018 00:05:11 No.3329142 Report

Quoted By: >>3329154

>>3328950
he's trolling you.
snow doesn't make moire patterns.
and if the AA filter was a problem nobody would be able to get good shots from a a6k.

It's just your lens.
Try turning off your OSS, it might have got fucked by someone dropping it. This happens and people dump them on CL and ebay.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC04389.jpg, 822KiB, 1683x900

Anonymous Thu 26 Jul 2018 00:54:33 No.3329154 Report

Quoted By:

>>3329142
>Try turning off your OSS, it might have got fucked by someone dropping it.
just checked the OSS, it looks like OSS is working (it does improve camera shake going past 1/50s)

>and if the AA filter was a problem nobody would be able to get good shots from a a6k.
this is true, I get perfectly fine shots with my prime lenses

I think the 16-50 is just trash at the telephoto end, there's almost no point for me to use it at 35-50mm since I can just pull out my 35mm prime and crop in and get a better image.

While still poor, it is definitely a lot sharper at wider focal lengths, pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jul 2018 04:48:03 No.3329210 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327161
replace it with talent desu

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jul 2018 05:38:22 No.3329217 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327356
Try f8 rather than shooting wide open, might sharpen up a bit / give you more of whatever it is you think you’re missing. Contrast?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 13401049_10208564570687152_10972 (...).jpg, 31KiB, 382x417

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 05:44:05 No.3331673 Report

Quoted By: >>3331690 >>3331768 >>3331789

Is the a6000 a good camera to buy in the current year? I'm thinking about waiting for an a6500 successor that could do HDR video, but the 6000 and 6300 are pretty fucking cheap right now.

I guess I figure I don't know if either the 63 or 65 are worth the premium over the 60 or if all of them aren't worth getting if what i want is right around the corner

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:02:56 No.3331690 Report

Quoted By:

>>3331673

a6500 is a damn nice camera, but for that price you might as well start looking at a7ii or a7iii.

I think a6000 is worth a but if you can find it w/ kit for around $500. Wouldn't spend much more than that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 10:36:49 No.3331768 Report

Quoted By: >>3331773

>>3331673
>wants a camera
>that can do HDR video
Kill yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 10:41:33 No.3331773 Report

Quoted By: >>3331796

>>3331768
How the fuck else are you supposed to record HDR video if not with a camera??

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 11:48:15 No.3331789 Report

Quoted By: >>3331790

>>3331673
Wait for Photokina in September if you can, Sony are going to announce the A6700 and the other models will drop in price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 11:50:36 No.3331790 Report

Quoted By: >>3331791

>>3331789
I'm in no rush. Probably going to be on a Christmas wish list

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 11:53:29 No.3331791 Report

Quoted By: >>3331796

>>3331790
If you're primarily focused on video, go for Panasonic over Sony. Panasonic are the only ones offering 4k at a reasonable price and with useful codecs like F-Log. The A6000 tops out at 1080p 60fps but the video quality doesn't match what Panasonic can offer at the same price.

https://youtu.be/jfIIoZu5HrU

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 12:01:30 No.3331796 Report

Quoted By: >>3331798 >>3331862

>>3331773
It's the "HDR" that is killing me, on top of wanting to use a photo camera for recording. If you want to shoot Full-HD, the EOS-M50 is quite good. Otherwise for meme-4K -> >>3331791
Can you show me with what or how you do "video HDR"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 12:04:45 No.3331798 Report

Quoted By: >>3331824 >>3331864

>>3331796
I don't bother with video HDR, it's a meme that people are into because phone cameras rely so much on HDR due to their tiny sensors. On proper cameras like the Panasonic G7 all you have to do is colour grade the footage as it is, no HDR necessary. You drop it into DaVinci Resolve or Adobe Lremiere and move colour sliders until the footage looks good. It's similar to post processing photography but with video.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 13:17:52 No.3331824 Report

Quoted By: >>3331837

>>3331798
You're literally retarded if you think HDR video is just a grade. You have to set up the entire sequence with a special color mode first, like rec 2020 so it will be legit HDR video. Then you can grade it from there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 13:48:58 No.3331836 Report

Quoted By: >>3331948

>>3327161
Canon EOS M doesn't have this problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 13:50:55 No.3331837 Report

Quoted By: >>3331864 >>3331941 >>3332068

>>3331824
I'm not saying HDR is a grade, I'm saying you shouldn't need or want HDR video with a proper camera. If anything you should shoot as flat as possible to give you maximum latitude for grading which can give you better results than HDR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 14:24:12 No.3331861 Report

Quoted By: >>3331869

Total beginner here
Should I just buy the body and get a better lens right away, or should I get the kit lens and see what I like?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 14:24:38 No.3331862 Report

Quoted By:

>>3331796
Do you know anything about HDR10, HLG, etc? I just want what the Panasonic GH5 can do in a smaller package. I don't think that's too much to ask for in the year of our Lord 2011+7

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 14:25:23 No.3331864 Report

Quoted By: >>3331870

>>3331837
>>3331798
t. Never watched a 4k Blu Ray on a good television

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 14:32:43 No.3331869 Report

Quoted By:

>>3331861

Get the kit lens. It is more than good enough for facebook or instagram or what ever.

Plus you can use it to figure out what your favorite focal length is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 14:34:41 No.3331870 Report

Quoted By: >>3331876 >>3331901

>>3331864
Turning on HDR video won't give you Blu-ray movie quality you dope. Movies have a ton of colour grading and digital work done, if you've ever watched a behind the scenes of editing modern motion pictures they have thousands of layers and adjustments. It isn't "turn on HDR and forget it". Nothing is that easy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 14:38:22 No.3331876 Report

Quoted By: >>3331901

>>3331870
Video to show what I mean, this guy edited Apocalypse Now. Look at the massive amount of layers he works with. This is professional video quality you see on a blu-ray, it takes years of experience to get this good at working with video.

https://youtu.be/zprzAROe9i4

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 15:50:06 No.3331901 Report

Quoted By:

>>3331870
>>3331876
I know what you're talking about. However, I've seen non-graded HLG footage from the GH5 on my HDR TV and it looks fucking fantastic

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 18:08:52 No.3331941 Report

Quoted By:

>>3331837
>better results than HDR
oh look, it's retarded

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 18:21:32 No.3331947 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327161
a fuji xt20 + 18-55 2.8-4

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 18:22:35 No.3331948 Report

Quoted By:

>>3327161
20 2.8
>>3331836
22 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 01:03:15 No.3332068 Report

Quoted By: >>3332865

>>3331837
You realize you can actually grade real HDR footage from flat footage, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 01:54:46 No.3332092 Report

Quoted By: >>3332105

>Sony a6000 body only - $350
>Sigma 16mm f/1.4 - $375
>Sony 35mm f/2.8 - $450
All used. How's that for a starter setup?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 02:27:51 No.3332105 Report

Quoted By: >>3332140

>>3332092
get sigma 30mm f/1.4 instead

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 04:01:45 No.3332140 Report

Quoted By: >>3332148 >>3332285

>>3332105
Over the sony 35? How much better is it? I'd be using it almost soley handheld. That's why i wanted the OSS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 04:35:40 No.3332148 Report

Quoted By:

>>3332140
not him tho I use the sigma 30 1.4 mainly for stills, no need for oss since I have steadyhands™

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 12:34:21 No.3332285 Report

Quoted By:

>>3332140
The 35mm f1.8 OSS is great for video work and if you value the lens being compact, if you're only shooting stills and need maximum image quality then just work with a faster shutter speed on the 30mm f1.4, since it is the sharper lens. It's a huge lens in comparison to the 35mm though. They both have pluses and minuses, no clear winner IMO.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 14:47:08 No.3332865 Report

Quoted By: >>3332872

>>3332068
Not if your footage is 8bit

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 14:57:28 No.3332872 Report

Quoted By:

>>3332865
Oh yeah, forgot about that. Ooops

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

a6000 16-50mm pz kit lens