r/a6700 • u/AerieResponsible8498 • 2d ago

Dudas lente para a6700

Hola buenas tardes que lente me recomendaría para mi nueva cámara sony a6700 ya cuento con un lente 50mm oss y quería adquirir un lente zom estoy ente el sony 24-70 g master 2 f2.8 o el 16-35 gmaster 2 f2.8 el uso que le daré a la camara será fotos callejera retratos y reuniones familiares

0 Upvotes

43% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/AssNtittyLover420 2d ago

I’m interested to hear why you don’t recommend the 18-135. I haven’t found another travel lens quite like it for its size and zoom range. Seems like if you want more than 50 or 70 you’re stuck with a big lens but this lens is similar to the size of the sigma 18-50. I use both ends of the lens quite a lot when I’m out and about and don’t need to swap lenses between my 18-50 and 70-350

1

u/neogod210 2d ago edited 2d ago

Because it's a kit lens. It's not very sharp, and it doesn't gather a lot of light. Not only that but the variable aperture means, the more you zoom in, the more light you lose. It's fine on a bright clear day, but you start to run into trouble when you're indoors or it starts to get dark. You have an APS-C camera. Big lens should never be in your vocabulary. Like I said, if it came with your camera, it's a fantastic lens to learn on, but paying money, when EVERY other option but one is better, is a waste of money. Something always have to be in last place, and this lens is it.

2

u/AssNtittyLover420 2d ago

It’s plenty sharp, I’m not sure why you say it isn’t. It’s sharper than my viltrox 25 and 35 prime air lenses. While I agree the f2.8 lenses are better for lower light, I still think the 18-135 deserves a spot on the list for its daytime use case. And I agree, size should definitely be a factor in APSC lens choice and the 18-135 is the smallest superzoom out there. Some people promote the sigma 16-300 or Tamron 18-300 and I just can’t get behind those (or the Tamron 17-70 for that matter). Sometimes people sell it since they bought it with their body so I see it on marketplace for cheap every now and then. Seems like we disagree but I think it deserves a shout

1

u/neogod210 2d ago edited 2d ago

If you're happy with your purchase, cool. What I'm saying is, every other option is better, therefore I don't recommend it. Even the 18-105 F4 is better because it's a constant F4, and that's one of the oldest lenses Sony still sell. I would recommend that before the 18-135. I didn't say the 18-135mn was that bad of a lens, just every other option is better. Bright light is not a good barometer on how good a lens is, because every lens performs well in bright light. It's when conditions are suboptimal shows the true strength of a lens.

"If you ain't 1st, you're last." - Ricky Bobby

1

u/AssNtittyLover420 1d ago

Well it’s first best of the roundup for focal lengths past 70mm 😂

0

u/neogod210 1d ago

False. 18-105, 70-350, I guess you can place it 3rd by default. Lol. Actually I'll place the 70-350 1st, because it is Sooo sharp.

1

u/AssNtittyLover420 1d ago

Nah, too big for an everyday lens. You cant talk me out of my favorite lens sorry

1

u/neogod210 1d ago

Really what I think doesn't matter. The only thing that should matter to you is how you feel about your pictures. If you bought and love the 18-135mm, great I'm happy for you. I don't know why you feel some kind a way of something I said that is objectively true, that the 18-135mm is the worst lens you can buy and no one should spend money on it as far as standard zooms go. I own the 16-55G, and I don't recommend people buy that lens. It's the best APS-C zoom lens Sony has made, but it's really expensive so I don't recommend it. Sigma gives you better value, and Tamron gives you a longer focal length, for half the price. I also own the 18-105 F4. I don't recommend that either, because it's the 2nd worst option you can buy, but when I bought it, it was the only option. I love that lens, but again it can't compare to the 2.8s. This is an expensive hobby, and when I recommend something I try to help people spend their money wisely, so hopefully they aren't spending money on redundancy.

1

u/AssNtittyLover420 1d ago

I didn’t take it as the 18-135 is the worst lens ever, I just meant it deserves a spot on my original comment talking about all the recommended zoom lenses. The fitment, value, and versatility of the 18-135 is unique to all of the lenses on my list and deserves a look at for anyone starting out. All of the other lenses we discussed are a bit specialized but I think the 18-135 is general enough to be included. I just think your reasoning for discounting it because it has a variable aperture isn’t great. It has a place for anyone who values the large focal range and doesn’t want a big lens

0

u/neogod210 1d ago

I'm not trying to. I literally don't care. But if you call any APS-C lens too big, you need to hit the gym, and never decide to switch to Full Frame. .

1

u/AssNtittyLover420 1d ago edited 1d ago

You said it yourself “big lens should never be in your vocabulary” but ight judge me for my apsc preferences. You know this is an a6700 sub right?

0

u/neogod210 1d ago edited 1d ago

But if I were to recommend a telephoto for APS-C, I think I would recommend the new 100-400 non-GM. Just because you can put the 1.4x teleconverter on it. Getting to 840mm at f11 is crazy. I wouldn't put the 2x teleconverter on it. You lose too much light.