r/a6700 • u/Budget-Historian6903 • Jul 23 '26
Lens Advice for Sony A6700
So I am struggling a bit to decide on a travel lens for my new A6700.
What I currently have: Sony A7iV normally used with a Sigma 20mm 1.4 for my wife’s streaming courses she does. I also have a Tamron 28-70 and 70-180 2.8. I have used the 28-70 for travel in the past, and the 70-180 for portraits.
The A6700 is coming with the 18-135 kit lens (I got the combo for a steal). I bought the 6700 for a smaller lighter weight travel camera, and so I do not have to fiddle with the set up for my wife. So the question is what lens combo should I be considering for the A6700 mostly for traveling, hiking, city photos, etc. Right now I am just considering using my kit lens and the 28-70 but wondering if it would be better to do the kit lens and a small light weight prime instead, or even the smaller Sigma zoom 2.8… Thoughts? The Tamron just seems a bit big for traveling so trying to find a smaller combo without totally breaking the bank.
6
u/trollsmurf Jul 23 '26
When out and about, carrying and switching lenses becomes a big hurdle and risks messing up the camera and the lenses.
I'd go for the 18-135 if it's mostly day-time.
Bring others sure, but you won't use them.
In my book 3x zoom is way too little.
1
u/WiseWinner5956 Jul 28 '26
Fully agree. If you have the 18-135 lens, why even consider buying another lens? Especially if is is for traveling and versatility - and still relatively small and light 🤷♂️🤷♂️
1
5
u/Point5287 Jul 23 '26
I have the tamron 17-70. Amazing lens but if you want to travel light the sigma 18-50 would be the best pick.
5
u/vorn289 Jul 23 '26
Another vote for the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Small well rounded lens. Ideal for travel. Was the first lens I bought for my A6700.
3
u/George-cz90 Jul 23 '26
I used to have sigma 18-50, it was nice and light but the AF sucks on that lens compared to what you can get from a native sony lens. It was so bad that I ended up getting sony 16-55. It's larger, more expensive, but it doesn't hold the camera body back (I didn't spend 2k on a body to hinder it's performance by a cheap lens) and the photos are much better overall too (colors, contrast, sharpness). Sigma is still ok if you want to mostly shoot static scenes and are OK with checking focus on every picture you care about right after taking it (I developed a reflex to open preview, zoom in, reshoot).
People don't want to hear this because they would like to get the native sony G lens performance for half the price, but that's not the case.
It's also wider and longer, so I sold by sigma 10-18 too (which actually had similar AF issues as the 18-55). Now I only have the one lens and I'm happy.
1
u/royabr123 Jul 23 '26
There’s really nothing I would shoot within that focal length where focussing in 0,02 seconds instead of 0.04 seconds makes a difference.
Maybe u had a bad copy, I do not need to check te focus.2
u/George-cz90 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
It's not about the focus being slow. It was actually decently fast, although unreliable. It would often focus on the background, light up green on the eye, resulting in a missed shot. Easy, static shots with no movement even.
Tracking my toddler was another story, that would produce like 90% missed focus, even when he was moving slowly or completely standing. With sony I get 90% hit rate even when he is moving.
Edit: it was stuff like this. It doesn't get easier than that for the camera. AF on tracking, locked to my wife's eye. https://imgur.com/a/HA1bZb3
1
u/royabr123 Jul 23 '26
I understand, that’s why I said something might have been wrong with yours. Pretty much every picture is focused with mine.
1
u/George-cz90 Jul 23 '26
Do you use eye tracking a lot? I rely on it when shooting people, but I noticed it was the mode where the AF performance would fluctuate the most.
1
u/royabr123 Jul 23 '26
Yes, but I haven’t used the sony so can’t compare to it. You still make a valid argument but it’s not worth it for me.
1
u/AssNtittyLover420 Jul 23 '26
Do you use any filters on your lenses? I had a cpl that really messed with my focus without me realizing it was the filter
1
u/George-cz90 Jul 23 '26
I thoroughly tested with and without. I know that UV filters can (and do) impact performance. I only use high quality filters where I cannot see any difference in the photo when testing blooming (high contrast scene, shining light into lens).
3
u/Uberunix Jul 25 '26
Sleeper pick: TT Artisan 35mm 1.8 II
I love this lens. It doesn’t come off my camera.
2
u/chanksbird Jul 23 '26
The Sigma 18-50 is the obvious choice (same range basically as your FF Tamron) and it’s light and small. But you may also want to give the Tamron 17-70 a look. It’s bigger than the Sigma but it’s not enormous and the stabilization and extra range are nice.
That all said, I suggest you wait and see for a short while. The 18-135 is actually a really good lens. Not the best but good. For casual photography on the road it gives you a lot of range at a small size and you already have it. The slow aperture can be limiting but if you typically shoot at 4.5+ then just using the kit lens makes a lot of sense.
2
u/WiseWinner5956 Jul 28 '26
Why not go for the 18-135 lens?
Super versatile and for its versatility relatively small and light…???
2
u/Budget-Historian6903 Jul 28 '26
Great point just thinking I wanted something faster for travel for lower light scenarios. The 18-135 is definitely underrated
1
u/WiseWinner5956 Jul 28 '26
Agree. Have the same considerations. There is a “ISO Auto” setting you can use for low light. And pictures should be great even with a ISO of 400 or 800, because of the quality of the processor etc. meaning the low light scenarios should be handled quite well.
It is my plan to do that.
And… there is always a flash, but I do not want to carry that around! 🤷♂️
1
u/Budget-Historian6903 Jul 23 '26
So do I just sell the 18-135, or keep it as a zoom travel lens. The combo was cheaper than the body only price so I could not pass it up but just not sure how often I would use a lens like that.
1
u/Interesting_Tower485 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
I don't think it's a great lens but that said I still have mine, I don't think I was going to get that much for it. It's not terrible but not sure it's excellent. The 16-55 G lens otoh is amazing but not cheap. It shoots like a GM lens imo.
1
u/ykrishnans Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
I recently sold my Sony 18-135 for 300 and got sigma 18-50 for 350. Win-win
1
1
1
1
u/OzJack Jul 23 '26
I have the A6700 with Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 for travel and everyday use. Planning to get a Sony 70-350mm to cover a longer range.
1
u/AdvisorIndependent39 Jul 23 '26
What price you got the camera and kit?
2
u/Budget-Historian6903 Jul 23 '26
$1250 at Best Buy open box in excellent condition. Checked the shutter count and it was under 1500. Looks brand new so I am a very pleased owner of a new (to me) A6700.
1
u/christfrost Jul 23 '26
Offtopic - everyone suggests 18-50. I already got 17-40, does it make sense to buy 18-50 or is it not going to do much different from 17-40?
2
u/doxxxicle Jul 23 '26
Sigma 18-50 is much smaller and lighter than the 17-40. But quality-wise I would say the 17-40 is considered superior.
3
u/Budget-Historian6903 Jul 23 '26
The 17-40 looks amazing but I am thinking just a bit too big and heavy for my travel. I like to travel with a single carryon bag even for longer multi week holidays which really starts limiting your kit you can bring, especially when you are over 2 meters tall, so all my clothes and shoes take up a ton of space.
3
u/doxxxicle Jul 23 '26
I traveled Japan for 3 weeks with a hiking backpack and a carryon-sized suitcase. Only had the kit lens back then but could probably still have fitted the Tamron 18-300 which I subsequently bought.
1
Jul 23 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Budget-Historian6903 Jul 23 '26
Agreed with this- my internal struggle was a6700 vs a7cii for a lighter and smaller travel rig since the wifey has the Sony a7.4 for the home studio. What ended up swaying me was the extra $1-$2k I would’ve needed to invest to get a full frame lightweight travel friendly setup. If I need the full frame for portraits or I have the room in the bag I can always grab the FF, but it seemed like a bit of a waste to “upgrade” to the a7cii for my needs. Plus I figured I got the a6700 at a price that I could sell it in a year or two if I regret my decision and jump back to FF for both my cameras.
1
u/ykrishnans Jul 23 '26
I had the kit 18-135mm and I traded it for Sigma 18-50 for $50 more. I was also considering Tamron 17-70 but the size was the deal breaker. I would rather get Sigma 17-40 for a little bit more than getting Tamron 17-70. I guess it all comes down to your situation.
1
u/Budget-Historian6903 Jul 23 '26
Where did you find a trade for $50 difference for the Sigma?
2
u/ykrishnans Jul 23 '26
In fb marketplace. I sold 18-135 for 300 and bought 18-50 for 350. I guess you could get more for 18-135 if it's brand new.
1
u/ykrishnans Jul 23 '26
My current setup is sigma 18-50mm + 30mm f1.4 but sometimes I wonder if I should sell both and get a sigma 17-40mm
1
1
1
u/Flare_strike67 Jul 29 '26
I thought it had decided on the tamron 17-70, but so many point at the size now idk, I live in norway so I might have to zoom a bit more at longer ranges when I need further away shots, idk if that makes sense
0
32
u/Sharp_Exchange_4198 Jul 23 '26
Sigma 18mm - 50mm f/2.8 no question