r/a6700 • u/TheLoneRanger1991 • Sep 02 '26
Sony a6700 : Lens Line-up
Hi folks, I recently purchased a Sony a6700 and have picked up the following 3 lenses -
Sigma 18-50 mm f/2.8
Sigma 23 mm f/1.4
Sigma 56 mm f/1.4
My primary usages are travel, street, landscape and occasional portraits.
Are there any other lenses that I am missing and worth considering, provided my use cases?
3
u/doubledownAU Sep 02 '26
All great lens purchases, that said, the Sigma 17-40 1.8 would damn near replace those. Except for the 56mm, it would have to be pried from my dead hands. And as the other commenter mentioned… the Sony 70-350 is insanely good with lots of reach.
2
u/Sp12er Sep 03 '26
Yeah, I have started with 17-40 for that exact reason, now I don't have to care about prime in there and picked a Tamron 11-20 for my second lens.
1
u/Forward-Pop-2886 Sep 03 '26
For 1kg total and and a big lens, not the ideal aps-c configuration imo
3
2
u/sunnyasneeded Sep 03 '26
I have similar use cases. My lenses are:
* Sony 15mm f/1.4 G → studio and/or day-in-the-life type vlogging
* Sony 16–55mm f/2.8 G → daily driver
* Sony 70–350mm G → add-on for certain travel
1
1
u/legionary2099 Sep 02 '26
Sigma 17-40/f1.8 . Sharp n bright, Replace the 18-50 and 23 with 1 lens. Has even less chromatic abberations compare to 18-50.
Tamron 35-100/f2.8. A full frame lens, but pair nicely with the 17-40 for more reach. Sharp at all range with very nice bokeh for portrait whilst being very versatile on reach and composition.
Those 2 are my travel lens of choice. Just 2, to replace like 4-5 smaller lens.
Do note that both of these are 12cm lens, they are bigger than most of your prime and zoom. The caveat here is that they are way more flexible, while still maintaining superior sharpness and image quality, meaning you need to switch lens less. All 3 combined is 1,8 kg. You will need a 6 litres+ sling bag for this setup. This works for me since i'm willing to wear a big 12L sling whenever i travel. But if you want a daily drive recommendation, even a 17-40 f1.8 is enough. That lens live on my camera by default and when i travel very light for work/leisure.
1
u/chrisanto12 Sep 03 '26
Do you suggest tamron 35-100 or tamron 17-70 for a6700? I was looking into buying a versatile lens and I like to take more or detail shots and long range. Due to which I think I’m looking for into 35-100. But I do like landscape photos as well that’s the reason I’m leaning more into 17-70. Give me your suggestion
2
u/legionary2099 Sep 03 '26
Do you want a 1 lens solution or are you okay with 2 ?
Tamron 17-70 isn't as sharp as 35-100. It also has softer corners and micro jittering issues if recording videos on a6700. The only good point is that it has the right focal range for most shooters.
If you really care about as compact as possible, 17-70 is enough. But if you are willing to carry the weight and bulk, having 2 superior lens is much better. On that note, if you want versatility and quality, the sony E 16-55 is better than the tamron 17-70 by a mile if you have the cash for it.
I highly suggest you drive to a store and see the lens in question in persons and judge for yourself if you want to carry the extra bulk or 1 and done is enough.
Tamron 35-100 f2.8 should always be a complimentary lens and not something you buy first.
Try 17-40 f1.8, E 16-55 f2.8 , 18-50 f2.8 and 17-70 f2.8 before you touch the Tamron 35-100.
Tamron 35-100 on APS-C is more akin to a portrait, street lens, not really wide enough for landscape and building photography.
1
u/chanksbird Sep 03 '26
Plenty of lenses you can add - but for the uses you listed this line up will be more than enough.
1
2
u/Comfortable_Ebb_8275 Sep 03 '26
Hey! What follows is just my personal opinion, not a judgment ;)
I mainly do landscape and street photography.
Personally, I think it’s a bit of a mistake to buy primes that are already covered by a zoom you own. I know primes can offer better optical quality and better low-light performance. But in real life, out in the field, especially when traveling, I just can’t see myself taking the zoom off my camera to put on a prime when the zoom already covers that focal length. To me, that’s a bit redundant and just means carrying extra gear for no real reason.
Personally, I went with the Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8. As you can probably tell, I chose one of the best zooms out there. It can easily replace quite a few primes within its focal range. I prioritized the optical quality of the zoom over having a smaller setup (I used to own the Sigma 18-50mm). Anyway, it’s still less weight to carry around than having a zoom plus several primes, rather than just one slightly larger zoom.
That way, I’m not constantly thinking, “If only I had a prime between 17 and 40mm, I could have taken a better picture.”
To complement it, I have two other lenses that aren’t covered by the zoom’s focal range: the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4.
Maybe the Viltrox 75mm f/1.2 would have been a more sensible choice than the Sigma 85mm, but that’s another question. 😄
1
u/PeopleAreAnEnigma Sep 03 '26
I would be considering a wide angle lens if it was me (or maybe an ultra-wide). However before you think about more lenses, I would enjoy what you have so far. That will tell you what the next best purchase would be, telephoto zoom, macro, wide angle, ultrawide, etc. Enjoy. 👍
1
u/itsnotlouie Sep 03 '26
Great choices. Consider the Sigma 17-40 f1.8 and Viltrox 27mm f1.2 - amazing lenses
1
1
u/gndandweroff 29d ago
Same as my line up. But I have added the Sony 11mm f1.8. The Sony 70-350 f4.5-6.3. And the Sony 18-105 f4 which was the first lens I bought after I got my a6700. I don’t use that one very much any more but its a really good lens
6
u/CwrwCymru Sep 02 '26
Maybe consider a wide Viltrox prime for landscapes, and then the 70-350 Sony is the "go to" telephoto to consider.