New NEX-6 owner - Which glass should I buy next?

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by Cyberratchet, Jun 20, 2013.

  1. Cyberratchet

    Cyberratchet New to TalkEmount

    Jun 20, 2013
    Hi everyone,
    I’m a photography newbie and yesterday I’ve bought a NEX-6 with the 16-50 kit lense, two spare batteries, 32 GB SD Card, infrared money and extended warranty for about 60% of the original price. I’m currently experimenting with aperture, ISO, etc. and the cameras software features. I’m very happy with the NEX-6 so far and I’m glad that I didn’t bought the 5r (the EVF was quit handy today).
    My main interest with this camera are:

    • Landscape photography
    • Street/City photography
    • Macro photography
    • Short videos

    The kit lens alone should work for a short time, but I want to extend repertoire in the next months. First on my list is a telephoto lens, I really need more zoom for some shots. Let me get this straight, I was in a “HTL” until this monday and I will go to the technical university, so I don’t have too much money to spend :biggrin: .
    First on my list is a telephoto lens, I really need more zoom for some shots. The SEL55210 seems like a reasonable priced lens and all the sample shots I’ve seen so far looked quite good.
    A wider angle would be great too. Does someone one the Sony SEL-16F28 + Sony VCL-ECU1 combination? Are you happy with it, what do you like and what do you don’t like? It would be quite cheap to get a fisheye converter, if I would buy the 16F28.

    I also own to old lenses, a Minolta Rokkor-PF 55mm f1.7 and Minolta MD 28mm 2.8. A cheap adapter is on the way, so I’m able to play around with manual lenses ^^.

    What lenses would you buy, if you were in my situation? Are the SEL55210 and 16F28 (with the one or booth adapters) a good choice? Are there additional lenses on which I should keep my eyes on (I’m willing to learn, so manual lenses would be ok too)? It would be nice, if you could prioritize your list (1.. first to buy, 2 … second to buy,…).

    Thank you in advance for your responses,
    Greeting from Austria, Julian.
  2. seachicken

    seachicken New to TalkEmount

    Jun 17, 2013

    Here's my thoughts.
    You might want to look at the 10-18mm. It's expensive, but covers a lot focal lengths you'd probably find useful for 225g, and covers them very well. It's stabilized too.
    I have this lens and love it.

    The 16mm+convertors will do a similar job for a lot less money. From the samples I've seen there's a price in image quality, and whether you are happy with that well depend on you.
    Here's a sample shot (with the VCL-ECU1) at f/8, which is probably around the optimal aperture.
    The Samyang 8mm fisheye is also worth considering, if you think you'd use a fisheye. It's a great lens. I own this one too, and (surprisingly) it's turned out to be one of the sharpest lenses I have.

    For macro, I'd either get a Raynox convertor to use with the 55-210mm you have on your list, or a decent adapted macro lens to be used with manual focus.
    Most macro lenses are excellent, so there are plenty of choices.
    Extension tubes are another way. You can pick up a set with electrical contacts on eBay for $50 or so. These should work nicely with the kit lens you have.
    Out of all these options, I'd personally choose a macro lens in the 50~100mm range.

    The Rokkor will be a *great* lens for portraiture. I have an adapted S.M.C. Takumar 55mm which is a little bit similar, and it's been very rewarding.
    I bought it just to see how a $20 piece of junk would perform, and I realized pretty quickly that I was very wrong, it wasn't a piece of junk.
    Stopped down it's razor sharp, and at wider apertures it renders beautifully (thanks to a ton of spherical aberration), and it's built like a modern-day Zeiss.
    It's probably the nicest lens I have to focus. I've seen a lot of output from the 55mm Rokkors, and they deliver bokeh to die for.

    Prioritized it would go something like this:
    1) Wide/ultrawide
    2) 55-210mm
    3) Fisheye
    4) Macro/macro convertor/extension tubes

    You're probably better at judging your priorities that me however. ;)
    The fisheye should be below the macro lens, if you're being rational... but I have had so much fun with mine that I think it deserves a promotion.

    The 28mm you already have should make a good standard prime. If you use it a lot and would prefer AF, there are 4 lenses in the system that could take its place.
    The Zeiss 24mm, Sigma 30mm, Zeiss 32mm, and Sony 35mm. They are all good in their own way. I'd see how you get on with the Minolta, and buy an AF lens if you feel there's a need.
  3. sleekdigital

    sleekdigital TalkEmount Regular

    May 7, 2013

    I do recommend the SEL55210. It's a bit slow, but I like everything else about it.

    Probably hard to go wrong picking a legacy macro as seachicken mentioned. I recently picked up the Cosina 100mm which I am enjoying so far... Inexpensive, lightweight, and surprisingly good optics.

    Flickr group dedicated to the Cosina...
    Flickr: Cosina 100mm f/3.5 Macro
  4. Cyberratchet

    Cyberratchet New to TalkEmount

    Jun 20, 2013
    Thank you both for your answers.

    The 10-18mm costs about 760€ in Austria at the moment, which is indeed a bit expensive. I think I’ll have to pass on this lens for now, the 16mm seems to be the best option for me right now.
    A manual macro lens is a good idea ! I’ll keep my eyes on the „Minolta MD Macro-Rokkor 50mm f3.5“ and the „Cosina AF 100mm f3.5“ (Pentex-K Mount?). I’m not into insect photography, so I’ll probably get the Minolta.
    The SEL55210 looks like a no-brainer, I thinks its number one on my personal list ^^.
    I’m glad that the two Minolta lenses are usable. I’ll search for a few example pics for the 28mm and 55mm, but it seems that they are more than useful for beginning. :D
  5. Selten

    Selten TalkEmount Regular

    Oct 22, 2012
    Rhineland, Germany
    Fornon insect photography I could recommend the Vivitar 55mm 2.8 as well. Here a few examples, all unedited (only cropped) and straight out of camera JPEGs.



    I had the 16mm pancake plus both converters. In the end I have kept the fisheye coverter with the pancake and do not regret it. The corners are a bit meh sometimes, but playing with the perspective is fun.
  6. Cyberratchet

    Cyberratchet New to TalkEmount

    Jun 20, 2013
    I’m back from my trip to Egypt and I really start to love my NEX-6. My MD-adapter arrived after my departure, so I only had the SEL1650. It did the job most of the time, but I would have needed a longer focal length one or two times.
    I’ve tested my two Minolta lenses and I really like them, but I would love to have a macro lens. You already have suggested some macro lenses like the “Cosina 100mm”, “Vivitar 55mm 2.8“ or the 50mm Minolta Macro. The Minolta Rokkor 35-70/3.5 seems like a nice lens too, especially with its adjustable focal lens.
    I’m not sure which focal length is the best for me. Which are the advantages and disadvantages between a 50mm’ish and 90-100mm’ish lens for macro photography?
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.