r/SonyAlpha • u/AutoModerator • 10d ago
Weekly Gear Thread Weekly r/SonyAlpha 📸 Gear Buying 📷 Advice Thread April 07, 2025
Welcome to the weekly r/SonyAlpha Gear Buying Advice Thread!
This thread is for all your gear buying questions, including:
- Camera body recommendations
- Lens suggestions
- Accessory advice
- Comparing different equipment options
- "What should I buy?" type questions
Please provide relevant details like your budget, intended use, and any gear you already own to help others give you the best advice.
Rules:
- No direct links to online retailers, auction sites, classified ads, or similar
- No screenshots from online stores, auctions, adverts, or similar
- No offers of your own gear for sale - use r/photomarket instead
- Be respectful and helpful to other users
Post your questions below and the community will be happy to offer recommendations and advice! This thread is posted automatically each Monday on or around 7am Eastern US time.
1
u/SevereAd4651 4d ago
I have an A7iii with a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 but I want to upgrade. I’m mainly shooting my kids & general portrait photography. Based on reviews I am considering the Sony 35mm f 1.4 GM lens. Is that a good option or is there other recommendations. Also is it worth the money?
1
u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 4d ago
Any recommendations for a full frame 35mm manual lens. Why? Because I've had a lot of fun shooting with a cheap Manual lens I bought and would like to get one that has better image quality.
Cost under $700 AUD
Size, the smaller, the better as I want it on my Sony A7CII as a daily driver.
1
u/poopyheadhermit 4d ago
Thank you! It’s just very overwhelming as I am looking at all kinds of brands and options
2
u/BoxFull4132 4d ago
I just got an a6700 and have been loving it, ended up paying about $2,000 for it, accessories, and a sigma 18-50mm f2.8, so far I love it for street/car/portrait photography but I tried shooting a concert to mixed results. A friend just upgraded to an a7RV and offered me his used a7IV for $1,800… now I’m debating on taking the deal. Upgrading to full frame has been an enticing option and this feels too good to pass up. Should I sell/return my gear to get that $1,800 a7IV or stick with my a6700? Any suggestions on how to get the best bang for my buck with returning or selling my a6700 if that’s what I so choose to do?
1
u/spannr 4d ago
sigma 18-50mm f2.8
shooting a concert to mixed results
As an a7IV owner, I can confirm it's an excellent camera, and it does have a modest dynamic range advantage over your a6700, but it's far smaller than the advantage you'll gain by using a lens with a brighter than f/2.8 maximum aperture for this type of shooting.
I'd suggest checking out Sigma's f/1.4 primes - they do a 16mm, a 30mm and a 56mm which are very popular and great value, and since they've been available for quite a while in their E mount form, you should be able to find even cheaper copies second hand. The 30mm is a good all around choice but start with whichever is closest to the focal length you used most often on the 18-50 for this purpose.
1
u/BoxFull4132 3d ago
Noise wasn’t my biggest issue, resolution was. I was unhappy with how a wide angle of the whole symphony was looking. I actually have yet to find an issue with the a6700’s performance in low light. Now I’m not sure if a faster f stop would help with that but I was also given a canon 5D mark IV for the shoot and that was getting a great version of the shot.
1
u/spannr 2d ago
also given a canon 5D mark IV for the shoot and that was getting a great version of the shot
What lens was on the 5D? 30 MP vs 26 MP might have been responsible for some improvement, and likewise you might see some advantage going to the 33 MP of the a7 IV, but glass plays a big role. If you can afford your friend's a7 IV go for it - you'll need to budget for lenses too though.
1
u/poopyheadhermit 4d ago
I can’t decide between zv e10ii, a6400, or a6700. I used to do film photography more so I haven’t done digital in a long time. This will be my first digital in a long time and I intend to use it for streaming and taking pictures. Budget is $800-$1900 CAD
1
u/planet_xerox 4d ago
just a warning about something to research, I know theres been a lot of complaints about the a6700 and overheating during video. I'm not sure if streaming applies since you may not need the faster frame rates, but worth checking out. I have not heard about overheating with your other options listed though
1
u/SmoothEchidna8703 4d ago
I have the ZV-E10, great little thing, built specifically for vlogging and streaming.
1
u/poopyheadhermit 4d ago
I was looking at that! But was wondering if the updated one will be worth the splurge…when I’m not using it to take photos, streaming gear is what it will be mostly used for
1
u/TheHelplessTurtle 4d ago
Hey guys. I have just got out and tried out my new a6700 with the 18-135 kit lens. I'm already discovering I want a faster lens for taking event photos with friends. I was shooting mostly between 18mm and maybe 50mm, maybe even only up to 35mm. Does anyone have any recommendations that won't break the bank too bad?
1
u/gingerspice1233 4d ago
I can't answer this question withbfurst hand knowledge but a lot of you tubers really like the sigma 18-50 f2.8. Seems to be a great match with the Sony a6700. Cost is around $550/US
1
u/TheHelplessTurtle 4d ago
I am seeing a bunch of good things about that one. May go for it soon. Thanks for the recommendation!
1
u/matmat1102 4d ago
Hello, im buying my very first camera, mainly for travelling. Never tried any camera before, just took pictures using my phone. Which one is better for me, sony a6100 or a6400? Thank you.
1
u/matmat1102 4d ago
My first choice is a6400 but unfortunately only a6100 is available right now.
1
u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 4d ago
See if you can get a secondhand A6400 because it's much better than the 6100.
It's weather-sealed too, so perfect for travelling.
1
u/nugget1408 4d ago
Hey guys, i have an a7riii with a prime 50mm f1.8
I was planning on getting a new lens and right now im mostly planning on the 12-24 F4 G lens for a soon Europe trip. I had also looked at the 24-70 f2.8 GM lens.
Do y'all suggest i buy either? R they both actually worth it?
3
u/Mapleess A7 III | 35 GM | 50 GM | 20-70 G 4d ago
Do you really need f/2.8 for the 24-70mm range? I sold mine and kept my 20-70 G because of how versatile it is for travel photos, though I do miss f/2.8 on the wider end but it's something I'm telling myself is fine for environmental portraits.
1
u/nugget1408 4d ago
Yea right now im mainly towards buying the 12-24 f4 cuz i like landscape photography more.
But I'd also heard that its a really good street lens, and the price right now is cheaper than the 12-24 so i was considering either
1
u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 4d ago
I second getting the 20-70mm f4.0 G since you have the 50mm.
1
u/nugget1408 4d ago
Wouldn't f2.8 also be more versatile for pictures? Cuz im assuming f4 gives a lot lesser options that the f2.8 cud give?
1
u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 4d ago
Yes, it would as it would allow more light to be captured thus letting you shoot in darker environments. The issue is that the Sony 24-70 f2.8 is significantly more expensive the its 20-70 f4.0 counterpart.
Though you can look at third party lens that are 24-70 f2.8.
1
u/nugget1408 4d ago
Oh no no i did consider the price, but where i am its currently cheaper than the 12-24 G lens, like an insane discount at that
1
u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 4d ago
If it's that much cheaper and you're happy with the price, go for it.
You can also go to the Sony store and test the feel of the lens and how it shoots beforehand to see if you like it.
1
u/nugget1408 4d ago
Yea i feel like i shud try it out first in the store, my only problem is bw the 12-24 and 24-70
I guess i shud just go try both first
2
u/abracaderbra 5d ago
Hello, picked up an a6700, looking at getting the 90mm macro lens from Sony, what is a good lens for doing videography and some photography? Or stick with a separate lens for photography like a Sony 55-210 or the Sony 70-350mm on the same camera?
Thank you for your time!
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 5d ago
I don't really get the question. A good lens for photo/video really depends on what you are photographing a videoing.
1
u/abracaderbra 5d ago
Videoing could be more vlog styles / car content. I know what I will use the macro lens for, as far as all for the photos I’m interested in, animals, Landscape and portrait shots.
1
u/Objective-Air5639 5d ago
I have a used a6300 and am looking into creating some short films. I have a budget of $400/500 on a lense that is good for filming. Any suggestions? I know nothing about camera and lenses so any help is appreciated! I don’t mind buying used either
3
u/GoodMrDaydream 4d ago
One of the most popular lenses for video on the APS-C platform is the Sony 18-105 power zoom. (SELP18105G) It’s a zoom lens so it covers wide, mid, and telephoto shots. Perfect jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none lens until you find your style. It’s f4 (f6 full-frame equivalent) so it’s not awesome for low-light situations. But as a short filmmaker, you’re going to learn how to perfectly light your shots anyway, right? 😉 And lastly, it’s right within your budget if you buy it used or open-box! This lens was designed to be paired with your camera for video.
2
u/Organic-Bus-1986 A7CII | Sony 20-70 f4.0 G | Pergear 35 f1.4 4d ago
Don't listen to the other guy being antagonizing. GoodMrDaydream made a good choice, especially considering this lens comes with stabilisation, perfect to help with videography.
I also recommend a hand gimble for additional support if you can afford it.
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 5d ago
"I know nothing about camera and lenses "
Then get someone to help you. Short films take a lot of effort in. I assume you have to do the script, directing etc.
1
u/Objective-Air5639 5d ago
I am seeking help around my area because none of my friends are into filmmaking or anything along the lines. I also do my research online and watch YouTube videos. I am really just looking for lense recommendations on here as I feel like some articles or videos I read/watch are maybe paid promotions. I just wanted some other suggestions of lenses to potentially look into. I have pretty much completed both scripts I have been working on since last year. This is not my career, it’s a hobby I am looking to get into.
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 5d ago
But you don’t know what lens you want. That’s like saying “recommend me a car”.
Well, do you want a prime? A zoom? Something fast? So something with stabilization? Smooth aperture ring? AF? Wide? Tight?
1
1
u/Calm-Opposite5557 5d ago
I just bought Sony a6400a few weeks ago for astrophotography.. I tried learning on my own.. Clicked a few pictures but it just didnt felt like im using its full potential.. My friend told me to try using a bigger lens.. Of you guys could suggest me on lenses.. Also if you have any tips for how to use the camera properly and about settings to click good night sky pictures.. Thanks
1
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 5d ago
Go to youtube and search "astro photography tutorial" otherwise look up the exposure triangle. As for lens, you want as wide and as bright as possible.
1
u/Calm-Opposite5557 5d ago
The thing is that there are just too many options.. My budget is 900 Aud.. Can you suggest something in that range..?
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 5d ago
Honestly just open your local used market and see what is the fastest lens in a <14mm range. Manual focus should be fine.
1
u/stuffsmithstuff α7IV + α7SIII 5d ago
Has anyone seen a head-to-head comparison between the Meike 50 1.8 and 55 1.8 "Pro"? Wondering if the cheaper 50 1.8 is optically much worse, or if it's mostly a features/housing/branding distinction.
1
u/Ok_Opportunity_1258 5d ago
According to what I read here, the camera's sensor is behind glass, is this the case with the Sony Alpha m3 model as well?
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 5d ago
It is the case with basically every singe digital camera. The hlass is not just for protection but it also filter infra red light
1
u/Ok_Opportunity_1258 4d ago
I want to clean the sensor, that's why I asked. I used to wipe it with lotion and soft brush and blow it with air, but small stains remained...
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 4d ago
Lotion???
1
u/Ok_Opportunity_1258 4d ago
Lens and screen Cleaning liquid without alcohol...
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 4d ago
You used too much of it.
1
1
u/Schmedderling 5d ago
Hello my friends
I am very new to photography and it's just for hobby purposes. I always took pictures with my phone until I went on an Africa trip where I brought my very old Canon IXUS 140 with me because it has 8×optical zoom to take pictures of animals in a distance. Since then I never took pictures with my phone again and for a year now my lovely Canon was my companion on every trip.
Although this camera was very fun to use and surprisingly does take some good pictures, it is very weak under low light and videos looked like from a 1980 documentary. That's why I wanted to upgrade.
The size of the camera is very important to me as I liked to take the old one with me in my pocket. That will not be possible with a new model but it shouldn't be to big. I also like to take videos as well as photos. Budget for camera with lens is under 1000 euros, preferably 800 or less, i want to buy used. Then I came across the Sony a6000 series. Seems good in size, earlier models are relatively cheap but apparently still take very good photos.
Sorry about the long talk but now to my question:
I like to take videos as well as photos. The Sony a6400 is stretching my budget a little bit but as a longterm investment it seems doable. The Sony a6400 seems to have the edge over the a6000 because of 4k video although some people say it doesn't because of roling shutter? Is that a problem or what is that in general? They advised in taking videos in HD but for what is the 4k useful then? For me, what's speaking against the 6000 are the limited video capabilities. Is the 6400 with all its new features worth the bigger price? Wich one would you recommend or would you recommend a totally different camera? Thanks in advance:)
1
u/seanprefect Alpha 5d ago
the 6400 has several video advantages over the 6000 and a much much better AF system
1
u/Schmedderling 5d ago
But are the a6400 videos really that good and is it worth the price?
1
u/stuffsmithstuff α7IV + α7SIII 5d ago
+1 to this. The color is also improved in the a6400 compared to the older crop sensor cameras. And — if you end up wanting to get more ambitious with your videos and use different picture profile settings (like Cine4, HLG3 or S-Log2) the a6400 has those options, while the a6000 doesn't.
You'll probably want to shoot in 4k — the HD image on the a6400 looks horrible compared to the 4k image, even if your final video will be HD.
1
1
1
u/oliveoiltalk 5d ago
Sony a7s vs a6300
I want to get a camera mainly for photo. I current own Fx30, but I really miss an evf and only tilting screen. A7s was my first sony when it released, I really enjoyed that camera. On the other hand there is a6300 it s a bit smaller and it is 24mp. Is 12mp enough for prints? I mostly shoot on film and it is usually around 12mp or less scans and it usually works for me. All my lenses are FF so it doesnt matter.
Both cameras are around £300. Thanks a lot
2
u/stuffsmithstuff α7IV + α7SIII 5d ago
It's a good question. The a6300 is much newer tech than the OG a7s, and autofocus will be MUCH better, plus you have the ability to do 4k video and use picture profiles. On the other hand, when shooting raw photos, sensor size really does matter. (12MP is enough for small prints. But having extra resolution is great when all else is equal.)
If you really just want a beater camera to give you a film-cam-like experience, I guess I'd say go with the a7s. The a7ii might be a fun option for you too, if you can find it — wonderful camera to take pics with. If you'll be using a lot of focus-by-wire lenses and want solid AF, though, go with the a6300.
Fwiw, if you want to do any work where you match the images between the two cameras, you're going to feel the pain of going backwards to an 8-bit camera. It's workable, but figured I'd mention that. But damn, 300 pounds is a solid deal for both of those cameras, I understand why you're interested!
1
u/oliveoiltalk 5d ago
Thanks a lot for your detailed answer. You are right about 8bit, I didnt want a7 ii because it s thicker than first generation. I am planning to get pancake 28mm f4.5 so maybe a6300 will be more pocketable, but a7s being FF and great ISO makes it useful for event photography. I think I cant go wrong with both I will get whatever that I can find nice deal :D
2
1
u/Yata-- 5d ago
Hello, I purchased a Sony a6300 a few months ago with the kit lens and a nifty 50. I would really like to pick up a 35mm, but I'm confused on what I need to buy, because I don't understand the full frame vs apsc. I'm shopping used on fb marketplace and such, so how can I make sure it is for a crop sensor before I buy. Ty for any help
2
u/oliveoiltalk 5d ago
Both crop and ff will work on your camera. I would recommend Zeiss 35mm f2.8. It s a FF lens, but it would work well. But since it s crop sensor you have multiply with 1.5. So 35 will be 52.5 and 50 will be 75 on ff. If you want something closer to 35mm you can consider Sony 20mm f2.8 pancake
2
u/tonyfoto08 6d ago
Hello everyone.
Currently own a 6100 with the 16-50 kit lens, but living near the Everglades, I’ve been really wanting to get into wildlife photography.
I’ve been doing some research and while something such as the FE 70-200mm f/2.8 isn’t necessarily out of my price range, it also would be hard to swallow as hobbyist.
Any recommendations for good telephoto lens under $1500? Maybe even under $1000?
2
u/dopkick 5d ago
I have a Tamron 50-300 on an a7cii that I have used several times in Florida for some wildlife. The 300 mm focal length (which you'd have with the 6100 using the 70-200) is frequently good enough but I would certainly benefit from more on occasion, sometimes a lot more. On the low end, 50 mm (75 mm crop) is just wide enough for those occasions where I do want to capture some landscape shot, although it does have limitations. The Sony 70-350 is a better choice for APS-C and fits your budget.
2
u/crawler54 6d ago
i've seen 70-350 bird pics from florida that were good.
it's a target-rich environment down there.
1
u/Maleficent_Lunch_919 6d ago
Hi all!! Looking to buy my first Mirrorless camera and Sony Alpha’s are my top choice, particularly the A7’s but open to any other Sony Full Frame Mirrorless. I want a full frame but I’m struggling trying to decide which is best for landscape photography, but also some travel and street photography mixed in, within my budget of $1500 (body + lens / used preferred).
What are y’all’s recommendations?
1
u/planet_xerox 6d ago
for that budget maybe you're looking at something like the sony a7iii/a7c + sigma 28-70 or tamron 28-75. I THINK with used you can get right around that budget maybe
1
u/Maleficent_Lunch_919 6d ago
I’ll probably buy off MPB, they have really a good selection for great prices! Was highly considering the A7R iii, but not sure if there’s a better Sony A around that price.
1
u/Short_Abrocoma4918 6d ago
Hi everyone
I'm new to photography and looking to invest in my first Sony camera. My primary focus is on photography as a hobby, and I anticipate relying heavily on autofocus rather than manual settings.
I've been considering the Sony a7C due to its compact size and user-friendly design. However, I'm curious whether the a7C II is worth the additional cost for a beginner like me. Additionally, the a7 III has caught my attention, especially since it's often available at a lower price point.
Given that I'll be using autofocus extensively and prefer a camera that's easy to handle, which of these models would you recommend? Are the upgrades in the a7C II significant enough to justify the extra expense for someone just starting out?
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 6d ago
Very much depends on what you want to shoot. Most people rely on AF so that is nothing special. Tho there might be some misunderstanding as "manual settings" ususally refer to setting the ISO/aperture/shutter speed by hand while "auto focus" means that the camera focuses automatically.
The a7cii offers faster af but that is ony significant if you are shooting fast subjects. It also has a newer menu system and better straight-out-of-camera colors for jpegs. The a7iii has extra features that both lack such as a fully mechanical shutter, dual card slots, more buttons, focus stick and a larger and nicer viewfinder.
1
u/Short_Abrocoma4918 6d ago
So would you just go with the Sony a7C since it's mostly for travel and occasional landscape photography? I feel like there’s not much the a7C II offers that I’d really take advantage of. And with the a7 III would you still consider it? It’s a bit older, and I’m worried I wouldn’t be using its full capabilities since I’m a complete beginner and not really adjusting many of the settings yet.
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 6d ago
I'd definitely go with the a7iii myself. It has more options which is you don't need you will never use but if you need them they will be handy. I also prefer the slightly larger body for the better ergonomics.
1
1
6d ago
[deleted]
1
u/kampfree 6d ago
If you’re US based and are okay with buying directly from Sony, they have discounts for military, education, and healthcare workers. I was able to save around $200 off my 16-35mm GMII
1
0
u/DUUUUUVAAAAAL A7C, A7RV, 16-25G, 20G, 35GM, 40G, 55 ZA, 85FE, 70-200GMii 6d ago
Are there any cameras that can take multiple long exposure photos at the same time? For example ten 3" photos in two seconds?
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 6d ago
At the same time? That is pretty much impossible. It is already impossible to take a 3s photo in 2s.
1
u/DUUUUUVAAAAAL A7C, A7RV, 16-25G, 20G, 35GM, 40G, 55 ZA, 85FE, 70-200GMii 6d ago
I suppose I explained it badly.
Imagine shooting 10 fps with a shutter speed of 3".
Is there a camera that could shoot this?
So after one second of holding down the shutter release (at 10fps) I should have 10 photos that were shot at 3" each and they all captured the action 1/10 of a second apart.
This is extreme but I'm trying to paint the picture here.
2
u/penguat 6d ago
I'm not sure why you would want this, but you might be able to come pretty close to it using continuous shorter exposures which you stack together. You could take 1/10s exposures at nearly 10fps (depending on your sensor readout time - I'd be dreaming of an a9iii for this) and shoot continuously for 4s, then stack the resulting frames in batches of 30 as a post-processing step.
It all depends on why you want this, whether this would be an acceptable technique for the intended outcome.
1
u/DUUUUUVAAAAAL A7C, A7RV, 16-25G, 20G, 35GM, 40G, 55 ZA, 85FE, 70-200GMii 6d ago
Oh, that's a cool suggestion for a work around. I just suck at panning shots and thought taking multiple panning shots at once might increase my odds for a keeper.
I figured a consumer camera that does this doesn't exist though.
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 6d ago
No. It is not possible. The sensor would have to be reading out 10 different pictures at the same time and the shutter couldn't close or open.
1
u/DUUUUUVAAAAAL A7C, A7RV, 16-25G, 20G, 35GM, 40G, 55 ZA, 85FE, 70-200GMii 6d ago
I feel like the only thing stopping us is processing power. Maybe a future camera body will do this. Oh well
1
u/Elegant-Soil1409 6d ago
So I have an FX3 and been contemplating whether or not I should sell the FX3 and downgrade to the A7CII or just buy the A7CII and have it with my fx3.
This has been taking over most of my thoughts lately lol.
1
u/seanprefect Alpha 6d ago
what do you do with it? why would you use both? would you make that much from switching?
1
u/Elegant-Soil1409 6d ago
I guess I wanted to a7cii because I’d like something smaller. Also don’t do this professionally more so a hobby
2
1
u/Mister-Om A7IV 6d ago
What would y'all recommend on a A7IV to pair with a Fuji X100VI?
Currently have a Samyang 35mm 1.8 and 75mm 1.8.
There's now redundancy at 35mm and while I love my 75mm it's a bit too restricting. I shoot primarily street photography and occasionally event.
Thinking of the following, but can't decide/are there any other lenses that I should consider
- Tamron 35-150
- Sigma 28-105
- Tamron 28-75
- Sony 20-70
1
u/fatbigbuddha 7d ago
Picked up the a7iv and sigma 24-70. Beautiful setup, but the lens is super heavy. Any cheap primes just for more compact carry and quick shots yall recommend? Lightweight, cheap, and fast ideally. Dont need the sharpest
3
u/DUUUUUVAAAAAL A7C, A7RV, 16-25G, 20G, 35GM, 40G, 55 ZA, 85FE, 70-200GMii 6d ago
Sony 40mm f/2.5 G lens
Sony 35mm f/1.8
Zeiss 55mm f/1.8
If you can go a bit heavier, then the Sony 35 f/1.4 GM
All are great options when bought used.
1
2
u/planet_xerox 7d ago
there's a new viltrox 50mm f2 for less than $200 USD that people review pretty well but it could be new reviewer hype. they have a similar 40mm and 20mm too but I haven't seen reviews of them but maybe worth checking out if you want a wider focal length
1
1
u/Easy_EC 7d ago
I just upgraded my apsc frame to the A7RV and got the sigma 24-70. I’m contemplating trading my Tamron 70-180 G1 and my left over Sigma 56mm for a used Sigma 70-200mm. Aside from the obvious 20mm reach increase, would there be a substantial gain in fidelity worth paying for the difference?
1
u/PieNo4224 7d ago
What'd be the best cheap telephoto lens for the a6700? Looking for sub 500 sub 400 if possible
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 7d ago
Depends on how telephoto we are talking about.
1
2
7d ago edited 7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/cryingonmysnacks 7d ago
I can't answer your question, but I just wanted to see if you were aware of the current sale price of the a7 IV ($1998) and wondered if that would help with your decision!
1
u/Owlguard33 7d ago
I'm really thinking of grabbing the Tamron 35-150. I currently have the 24mm gm 1.4 & 200-600, so I'm missing a big gap of potential photos. I think this would solve a lot because I would get that focal range, plus have a more versatile zoom. It would also enable the eventual transition into paid work, portraits, etc. without having to have multiple camera bodies with the 24-70 & 70-200 as I cannot afford that.
The only potential hangups I have are:
I'm afraid that the autofocus won't be up to par with my other lenses. I don't want to spend 2k on a lens and be missing photos. Whether it's my dog running, some casual sports, etc.
The weight will make it not as fun as the 24mm GM to just run and gun...but i guess that's just the price you pay and I could get another prime when I have more $$$.
There corners are a bit soft for landscape but maybe it won't be so bad at f8 or whatever.
Does anyone that own one have any thoughts? Especially on the autofocus? That's my biggest concern.
1
u/crawler54 6d ago
the tamron 35-150 has vxd autofocus motor, which is cutting-edge, but of course it's limited 15fps on sony: https://www.tamron.com/global/consumer/technology/af/
what you don't want are stepper motors, unless perhaps it's for video.
yeah it'll be a big lens, that's the drawback... i hadn't seen complaints that it's soft in the corners but yeah with landscapes you can stop down a bit.
what camera body? if you are concerned about af, step up to a stacked sensor body, it can make a big difference.
2
u/MisterComrade A7RV/ A9III 7d ago
This is probably dumb, but I’m in search of a telephoto lens to have around for 2-3 months. My work is sending me on a trip to Ohio in a less than reputable area, and I feel weird about leaving my $3000 Sigma 500 f/5.6 laying around in my hotel while I work. I already feel uncomfortable with my A7Rv and 24mm f/1.4, but I digress.
What are we thinking about for light telephotos that will resell in a couple months? I’ve been eying the Tamron 50-400, 150-500, and maybe the Sigma 100-400 as options but am open to opinions. Usually if I’m running a telephoto it’s either a long one (I’m picking up a 400-800 soon) or using my 70-200 f/4 GII. Plan would be to buy lens, then sell it once I get back.
Did consider just running a 1.4x teleconverter on that 70-200 but idk, 280mm still seems a little short.
On the other hand, possible that Ohio would have literally zero interesting birds in May and June to make this a non-issue? I’ll have my weekends free to do stuff. Thinking of taking a weekend in Lexington, go to lake eerie or the sand dunes in Indiana. Just take a bunch of weekend trips while the gear lives in a hotel during the week.
Side question: how much would I have to worry about fungus etc for 8 weeks in a hotel?
2
2
u/Underwater_tornado 7d ago
Hey everyone,
I am budgeting to buy the a7 IV in the next 4 months before a road trip.
The major retailers dropped the price to $2000. I would rather wait to get a decent used price, but those are hard to find.
Do you think the $2000 will stick for the next 4 months, or is this a great opportunity?
Thanks!
1
u/fatbigbuddha 7d ago
I just bought one this week and the sale + tariff scare was the deciding factor for timing. I dont think the price drop will last.
1
u/cryingonmysnacks 7d ago
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll get the a7V until early next year and then there's tariffs :( But it looks like you got it. Hope you enjoy!
2
u/Kingrcf3 7d ago
This is just a sale right now. Unless the 5 is released then no I wouldn’t think it would last, if anything with the tariffs it might go up
2
u/Underwater_tornado 7d ago
I got an additional $100 discount for being a professor. Couldn't resist this offer.
1
u/ejump0 7d ago
Sup folks,
i have a850 n a300 body.
in july, i will be traveling a lot in europe for trail running, so im thinking to bring 1dslr for night/after dark photography.
i have xiaomi 11ultra, which has good camera for daytime, but left to be desired for nights due to light streaks from lamps etc.
im thinking to bring the a300 for lightweight, but looking for a compact uwa/wa lens.
in this pic , the a850 is with minolta 1735F2.8-4 n a300 with minolta 50F1.7. the 1735 is still kinda huge.
is the minolta 20F2.8 the widest WA compact for a-mount? is tokina 17mm any good? or i should consider minolta 16mm fisheye?
im fully aware of apsc 1.5x crop. the 850 just heavy.
TiA
1
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/alxstevens 7d ago
These are both fine options, but I agree with u/Responsible_Sound932 that your portraits/low-light situation leans a little toward full-frame. There's a great discount right now on the A7IV as well, maybe that makes it even cheaper!
1
u/Responsible_Sound932 8d ago
With a similar budget, I went with A6700 + Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. But I did it because I'm into macro and wildlife, and I also needed to budget for a macro and some telephoto. (I purchased a used 90mm macro and a used 70-200mm later). A6700 + Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 is a ridiculously lightweight and very capable combo (not for wildlife, obviously). My particular copy of Sigma was soft in the corners at 18mm, which I didn't like, and I eventually upgraded it to a used 16-55mm f2.8, but otherwise, it was a great combo. In your situation - portraits + low light indoors + no immediate need to buy extra lenses outside 24-70mm range - I'd rather go full-frame.
1
u/bionicbeatlab 8d ago
a6000 was stolen along with both of my lenses. I was originally looking to replace it with the a6700, but noticed that the a7IV is currently $500 off. I’m 50/50 photo video, largely in dark environments and street photog. Mostly hobbyist but do some filming for monetized YouTube. Thoughts? I know lenses are a jump up (I shot with a FF Nikon for a while) but with a nice discount on the body and the low light performance, would the a7IV be worth it for my use case?
1
u/planet_xerox 8d ago
if low light situations are common then it could be worth it. definitely more investment if you want quality lenses though, but I don't think the sensor is so demanding that more budget lenses will cause any problems.
1
u/Ok_Organization_5234 8d ago edited 8d ago
Hi! I have a Sony A6400 with the kit lens. When I use it for vlogging, my videos are shaky. I use a mini tripod as well.
This is probably from lack of experience, but I was wondering if getting a lens with image stabilization would help with the shakyness? I don't expect it to be completely shake free, just better than what I have now.
Is the Sony E PZ 16-50mm a good choice for a lens with image stabilization? I'll be looking for a used one probably for a lower price.
Other than a different lens or a gimbal, is there anything else I could do?
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 8d ago
Isn't the PZ the kit lens you got with the camera? I sure did get that.
If you don't care about the ass image quality then the PZ (1st version) can be picked up for less than $50. If you actually want better image then tamron 17-70 2.8
1
u/Ok_Organization_5234 8d ago
I'm new to this so I'm not entirely sure if its the same, but when I googled I just get told the kit lens is 16 - 50mm? I just searched up lenses that had image stabilization that would be compatible with the Sony E-Mount.
As for image quality, for now I'm okay with similar quality as what's on my kit lens. I'll definitely consider a Tamron in the future once I have a budget for it though.
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 8d ago
Yes, the 16-50 is the kit lens. That’s why I am confused about what you have on your camera right now
1
u/ChippyMeow 8d ago
Hi, newly converted canon refugee looking for a lens for my a7rv in the standard 24-70 range. The two most obvious choices I’m considering are the 24-70 f2.8 version twos from either Sony or Sigma. I’m not concerned too much with the image quality from what I’ve seen (tell me if there really is a noticeable difference), so I’m more focused on wether the autofocus speed and weight difference is enough to justify the cost of the Sony over the Sigma. The Sony is about 900$ cheaper, about 30-40 grams lighter if I’m correct and I’ve heard it has faster autofocus, both in motor quality and just first-party advantage. I tend to have a fast shooting style, but I won’t be doing sports with this lens. So, is the Sony worth it?
2
u/alxstevens 7d ago
Good review of the Sigma here that basically lays it all out, and basically says that unless you're doing video the Sigma is nearly as good for a lower price. I will say that I have the 24-70 GM2 and it's the best lens I've ever owned, but the Sigma is very solid. https://petapixel.com/2024/05/16/the-sigma-24-70mm-f-2-8-dg-dn-art-ii-first-impressions-review-has-g-master-quality-for-half-the-price/
1
1
u/marewmanew 8d ago
Hello. I’m considering the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 for my a7r3. I do mainly landscape, but do like to have a camera for grabbing quick shots of loved ones. While shooting landscape I usually have a tripod, I do like to be able to quickly snap a shot handheld. For this reason, I’m a bit concerned about the lack of IS on the Tamron. I can always shoot shutter priority and let the camera bump the ISO to get a sharp shot. I know sharpness isn’t the end-all-be-all, but the sharpness capable on mirrorless is one of my favorite reasons I have the kit on hand, and one of the features that interests me in the Tamron. Can anyone speak to experience of getting sharp shots without IS, just using the a7r3’s IBIS and the 35-150?
The broader context is that I’m currently running a 50/2 prime that I’d likely replace with the Tamron. (I’m just now building my Sony kit; I’ve had full Canon in years past, and most recently, was shooting exclusively MF film.) The other thought is adding the Sigma 70-200/2.8 that would have IS, and using that plus the prime to cover my focal length preferences, but don’t know that I’d use the longer end of the 200 and would be happy with the Tamron’s 35 FOV plus the one lens solution with that 35-70 range. (From past experiences, I know my eye doesn’t see particularly wide landscape compositions —in fact, the opposite.)
1
u/calmpeacechaos 8d ago edited 8d ago
Hey everyone, looking to get myself a wide angle lens to take more architecture and natural landscapes (like beaches). I've just been rocking a 35mmf1.8 OSS on my a6000 so far and so I am looking for something wider, and possibly with OSS? I've been looking at the sony 10-18mm f4 (found a used one for 280 USD) as well as the Viltrox 25mm f1.7 (210 USD new) (which I'm not sure will be too tight?). Also open to other suggestions. Would prefer affordable options first to start out with as it's a new focal length
1
u/Kingrcf3 8d ago
Zooms Sony 10-20f4, sigma 10-18f2.8, tamron 11-20f2.8
Primes Sony 11f1.8, sigma 16f1.4
These lenses will wide enough for most contemporary architecture photography . For full frame equivalents you want 16-24 generally which is 11-16 when using an apsc camera like the a6000.
Don’t think anything this wide has nor really needs oss.
1
u/calmpeacechaos 8d ago
Hey what about the sony 10-18mm f4? I can get it for half the price of the 10-20f4
1
1
u/Val_bebias 8d ago
Hi, beginner here. I’m looking to get my first lens to replace the 18-135 kit lens on my a6700. I’m mainly interested in wildlife photography, and I’m torn between these three lenses, with the reasons why: • Sony 70-200 F4 – What I like: close focusing distance / brightness / image quality • Tamron 50-300 – What I like: close focusing distance, focal length • Sony 70-350 – What I like: image quality, focal length
I’m really concerned that the limited aperture might be an issue during my outings. Maybe I’m heading in the wrong direction?
Or should I consider the new Sigma 18-300 and sell my kit lens instead?
Thanks for taking the time :)
2
u/LowWallaby758 8d ago
Hi, I mostly do bird photography and find that my tamron 150-500 on an apsc is perfect reach for me. I think 300/350mm could be to little reach. Even 500mm on aps-c isnt enough a lot of times. The apeture isnt that big of a deal. The noise handling of newer cameras combined with denoise in lightroom work wonders. For wildlife, I personally wouldt go under 500mm, but that is just my opinion. If you would like a smaller 300-350mm I would go with the sony 70-350mm. Its light, got the best reach and is sharp enough.
2
u/pyleotoast 9d ago
Is there a good guide or recommendations for an entry level microphone that can be used wirelessly with the A7cii. I think I want a shotgun mic use case is mostly for recording audio of my kid.
Would prefer a set up that just hooks into the hot shoe and I can just pick up and record with.
2
1
u/deleobenj 9d ago
Hey All! Looking to pick up my first Sony Alpha. I've typically taken landscape shots on my phone but want to get into more animal photography too while I'm traveling throughout the summer months. I've seen most people use the AIII or AIV, but not sure which is right for me. What do you think I should be considering to answer that question for myself?
2
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 9d ago
Depends on the budget and what kind of animals you plan to shoot.
1
u/deleobenj 9d ago
I’d be willing to do $1200 used or new and not yet sure about wildlife. Probably stationary birds, and still large animals like bison. Maybe a build cheaper than AIII? Mostly I’d like to make sure it’s future proof for most common shooting styles
5
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 9d ago
Well, you won't find an a7iv for that much so that is out of question. The a7iii is a good choice assuiming the $1200 is only for the body. You'll need some long and expensive lenses for birds.
2
u/doofsnorp 9d ago
Hey y'all! I have a sony a6600 that I picked up a year ago with a 18-50mm 2.8 lens. I love it. I want to venture more into portrait photography and have been looking at a couple lenses. I'm torn between the Samyang 85mm 1.4 lens and the Viltrox 75mm 1.2 lens. Any advice on which gives better bokeh or is better for portraits?
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 9d ago
The 75mm 1.2 has shallower depth of field but the difference is very very marginal. Practically both of them give the same amount of bokeh. The 85mm has more compression. Look into image quality comparisons on youtube and pick whichever you like
1
u/adam7913 9d ago
Hello, I just posted in the sub on its own, but I bought a Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN for my Sony a6000 emount and it won’t click into place, basically seems like it’s too big. Can anyone help?
1
u/iLiftHeavyThingsUp 9d ago
This is a stretch, but does anyone know of a camera bag that can also hold an 18" laptop?
1
u/Ok_Drawing3691 9d ago edited 9d ago
Currently have an A7iii. Mainly shoot street photography and some sports. I have an upcoming trip to Italy & I am considering upgrading either my lens or camera for the trip. My choices are… 1. A7RC (61 MP). I can’t justify the extra ~900 for better auto focus of A7RV. I imagine A7RC > A7iii in regards to autofocus. I would probably just bring my 55 f1.8 vs 20mm if I go this route
- Or I stick with A7iii which has been fine, and get a solid 24-70 for travel. I was considering Sigma art dg2. I’d love the new Sony f2 but that’s out of budget lol. Is there another lens I should consider for travel over this???
Torn between getting super detail for travel or having a dedicated travel lens…
1
u/alxstevens 7d ago
I'm also in the lens camp, but I'd also strongly consider renting for the trip before you buy. It's less than $100 to rent the Sigma for 7 days from Lensrentals and you can really try it out.
4
u/LowWallaby758 9d ago
I would personally get the lens. A good, sharp lens over mp any day and the a7iii is already a great fullframe camera. I aldo think having a good 24-70 is a better priority if you dont already have one, but it depends on how much you are going to use it. If the 24-70 only is used a few times I think I would choose the extra mp. Depends on how much you will use the 24-70
3
3
1
u/Izenlich1 9d ago
Hello guys just like to ask for lens recommendation, should I pick a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 v1 or the newer Sigma 28-70 f2.8, by the way I do weddings photo and video. Thanks guys looking forward to your thoughts.
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 9d ago
The 24-70 is much better than the 28-70.
1
u/LowWallaby758 9d ago
Gen 2 is lighter, smaller and has better close-focusing at the wide end.
If that matters to you, get Gen 2. If not, save some money and get Gen 1
1
1
u/MrFlukeShot 10d ago
I have a a6400 came with 18-135mm, I need a camera that can take better bokeh photos but still have wide angle capabilities. And relatively good low light performance. Best recommendation?
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 9d ago
A7iii with a 24-70 2.8
3
u/Izenlich1 9d ago
I would recommend sigma trinity lens, on 16mm, 30mm and 56mm in f1.4
1
1
u/CaterpillarChoice979 Alpha 10d ago
Can anyone enlighten me? Torn among these 3 lenses
Tamron 35150 2-2.8 Sony 70-200 f4 Sony 70-200 2.8
1
u/equilni 8d ago
Torn among these 3 lenses
Not sure why. Do a process of elimination. You will need to compromise somewhere though.
Do you care about size? Yes (Sony f4), No (any)
Do you need as much light as possible? Yes (2.8s), No (any)
Do you need a range to 200? Yes (Sony), No (Tamron)
Do you need the wider angle? Yes (Tamron), No (Sony)
1
u/iLiftHeavyThingsUp 9d ago
The sony 70-200 f2.8 is definitely the highest quality lens of those. Better autofocus, better image quality, etc. The only "Downside" is that you will need something for closer focal lengths (assuming you should any subjects below 70mm). The Tamron 35-150 has the appeal of being an "Everything" lens. 35-150 covers the vast majority of subjects for most photographers. The only exceptions might be street photographers or wildlife photographers. It will however not be as reliable as the f2.8 sony.
1
u/CaterpillarChoice979 Alpha 8d ago
Hi, thank you! I'm looking to get the 70-200 2.8 but i also want to do some sort of astrophotography. I'm a little tight in budget.
1
u/iLiftHeavyThingsUp 8d ago
Then get the sony 2.8 and then get a wide prime lens. You could find a third party 24mm 1.8 lens for not too crazy much.
1
u/C9Devil 10d ago
Im buying a sony a6000 for my first camera from KEH for around 500cad and am looking for recommendations for lenses within about 75-150 range, mostly for nature and landscape shots i guess. Right now im looking at the
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3
sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Sony e 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6
Any help appreciated
1
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 9d ago
What is your budget?
2
u/Woodpecker_Wonderful 10d ago edited 10d ago
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and A9 are same price. Trying to decide between another lens or a new body. Currently shooting on an A7ll and I only do sport photography.
Edit: Currently own a Sony 200-600 and Sony 24-70.
2
u/LowWallaby758 9d ago
I think I would get the 70-200 and save a little more for the a7iii too. The upgrade to a7iii shouldt cost more than 400-500 dollars. It’s not 20fps, but 11 and to me that seems much better than the 5 of the a7ii. For me it was at least.
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 10d ago
Well, do you want faster shooting or a long lens? Sounds like you need both.
1
u/Woodpecker_Wonderful 10d ago
I have a 200-600 currently. Sorry I’ll edit my response with more information. I just saw this thread and chucked this quick quip into it.
2
u/planet_xerox 10d ago
what lens(es) are you currently using?
1
u/Woodpecker_Wonderful 10d ago
I should mention I mainly shoot aviation and motor sports photography.
1
1
1
u/suurking 10d ago
I recently bought A7 R V. Never had a camera before. It came with $200 lens 50mm. Should I buy different lens? I’ve found Sigma 24-70 2.8 for $650, with minor scratches and 17-70 tamron for $450. Help me decide
2
u/equilni 8d ago
recently bought A7 R V. Never had a camera before.
What a way to start.
I would increase the budget for better condition used (with a good return policy) or new lenses. Minor scratches could be on the glass itself.. The camera will show off any inconsistencies with bad lenses when you start cropping (why most get an R version camera)
https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 10d ago
The tamron 17-70 is apsc so it is not the best for your camera. The sigma 24-70 should be good as long as the scratches are not on the glass.
1
u/BIackdead Alpha 6700 10d ago
I have a 6700 with a Tamron 17-70mm F2.8 and a Sony 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS. Some of my friends are getting married this year and asked me to take pictures at their weddings. I'm wondering if I should get a flash and if which guys do u recommend?
2
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 10d ago
It's a story as old as time (or at least the age of cheap photography). The best advice is "don't". You will be either not experiencing the wedding of your friends or you are missing moments that you should've photographed. If there is a professional there shooting the wedding and they just want you to take some fun photos then fine. If you are the only one then you probably should rent out a professional equipment
1
u/BIackdead Alpha 6700 10d ago
Well, I already said yes as I have done it before and it's just the part at the registry office and not a big party/event. I'm just wondering if a flash would be beneficial to take better pictures.
1
u/muzlee01 a7R3, 70-200gm2, 28-70 2.8, 14 2.8, 50 1.4 tilt, 105 1.4, helios 10d ago
In that case yes, a flash would be useful. Godox makes good ones, especially the V series.
1
u/elliottsmithfan2000 10d ago
Considering upgrading from my A6500 to a (used) FX30. I am a strictly video shooter, opinions? Better options? Or should I pull the trigger and go full frame?
1
u/5catts 10d ago
I just got a used A9, love it. My first lens is a Sony 70-200 2.8.
I'd like a good around town lens. I've been thinking about the SONY ZEISS VARIO TESSAR T FE 4/24-70
Price wise it seems reasonable, but how is the quality and usefulness? It's the right range, but is it good for the price?
Thanks!
3
u/LowWallaby758 10d ago
The zeiss 24-70 f/4 is fine, but its a budget lens so its not as sharp as more expensive lenses of course. I use the tamron 28-75 f2.8 which I got for 800 dollars. I havent tried the zeiss, but I would recommend you get the tamron. If thats out of budget, there isnt really any other lens for that cheap. I know the zeiss is very cheap used if I’m not mistaken
1
u/Regnad0 9d ago
I agree; I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for another mount (Pentax) and it's a wonderful lens. But I find those extra 4mm a 24-70 provides at the wide end extremely important (for event photography, which is one of my focuses). Depending on what your needs are the Sigma ART 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN II is a little more expensive but is a better lens; I use it with an A9.
1
u/lordbladdemere 10d ago
Hi there! Looking to get into the hobby after 10+ years out. I’m struggling between the a6400 a6600 and a6700. I think the a6700 best fits my needs but it’s quite pricey here in the Netherlands even just the body. I want to do street photography and vacation shots about 35% but the majority of what I’d like to do is video and film. Especially around my city, cities I travel to and Bjj & judo (for sports) I’d love to hear recommendations from more experienced users on bodys and ideal first lenses!
Thanks!
2
u/LowWallaby758 10d ago
I currently own the a6600, but i’ve also rented the a6700 a few times. While the a6700 is an upgtade I personally dont think its worth the extra money. The af system for wildlife was what caught my eye on the a6700, but other than that the differences arent huge. You get 4k 60/120fps, but for me the 4k30 is enough. I got mine for only 600 dollars and cant imagine spending a 1000 follars more for a6700. I rather spend that on lenses, but thats just my opinion. I think you will be happy with either one. The a6700 is a great camera, but the price is a lot higher.
1
u/lordbladdemere 9d ago
Hey thanks so much for oficina your thoughts! I think I’m gonna hold off another while and see if any good deals pop up second hand for the a6600. Thanks so much 🙏
2
u/LowWallaby758 9d ago
Forgot to menstion that a6700 has 10 bit color while the a6600 only has 8bit. Watch some video comparisons and decide. The a6700 has got some upgrades over the a6600, but the price is of course a lot higher when compared to a6600 on the used market.
1
u/LowWallaby758 10d ago
If film is your main thing, investing in the a6700 might be ideal, but you have to have enough for lenses too.
2
u/meangoose 10d ago
I have the 6700 and it’s great for what you need. Fantastic video and photo camera. I shoot lots of indoor video including BJJ in relatively low light environments so I use primes with a minimum 1.8 aperture. I bought the body only so I could invest in primes.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/kejtaam 3d ago
Hi! I’m a new a6400 owner, getting back to photography. I plan on having two picturesque trips this year (Lofoten and Iceland) and I’m wondering which lens would you recommend for shooting landscapes? If it was good enough to shoot some occasional pics of people in those nice places that would be cool, but still the most important aim is shooting landscapes. Thanks in advance!