Primary lens for A6x000?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

jf3193

Contributor
Messages
174
Reaction score
20
Location
Usa
# of dives
100 - 199
Good evening.
I’ve decided to go with an A6x00 series camera for my first mirrorless. ( upgrading from compact)
To keep costs down, I’m looking at used selections, and quite a few have the option to buy without the kit lens.
Given that option, what would be a good primary lens to purchase? The 16-50mm appears to be the primary kit lens for that line, but I was wondering if I saved money by not buying the kit lens, would I be better suited going to an upgraded lens ( if I decided to start with just one)
I’m typically a caribbean diver, and focus more on reef life, fish portraits, and macro over wide angle type shots , if that helps.
I’m new to this world, so any advice would help.

Also, I’m looking at the salted line for housings, and will build up from there.

Thanks!!
 
Good evening.
I’ve decided to go with an A6x00 series camera for my first mirrorless. ( upgrading from compact)
To keep costs down, I’m looking at used selections, and quite a few have the option to buy without the kit lens.
Given that option, what would be a good primary lens to purchase? The 16-50mm appears to be the primary kit lens for that line, but I was wondering if I saved money by not buying the kit lens, would I be better suited going to an upgraded lens ( if I decided to start with just one)
I’m typically a caribbean diver, and focus more on reef life, fish portraits, and macro over wide angle type shots , if that helps.
I’m new to this world, so any advice would help.

Also, I’m looking at the salted line for housings, and will build up from there.

Thanks!!
I shoot an A6000 underwater. So far, the two lenses that I have used have been the 10-18mm f/4 and the kit lens.

For a kit lens, the Sony 16-50mm PZ is actually a pretty good lens. It is reasonably sharp and the 16-50mm range covers most of what you are likely to shoot underwater. Yes, there will be times that you will wish you were wider and it is not a macro, but for a starter lens, it does "check off a lot of boxes".

The difference in price between an A6000 body only and an A6000 with the kit lens is pretty small. They almost give away the kit lens, so there is not much to be saved by not getting it.

Here are a couple shots that I took with my A6000 on a trip to the Bahamas:

It is not a macro, but it can get reasonably close to small subjects such as Feather Dusters and Christmas Tree Worms. (It would do even better with a Macro "Wet Lens".)
Bahamas 2017-68.jpg


Bahamas 2017-74.jpg



As for Wide angle, it is fine for subjects up to the size of Reef Sharks ...
Bahamas 2017-76.jpg


... or shots of the wall ...
Bahamas 2017-111.jpg


... or a turtle.
Bahamas 2017-145.jpg


It is a good all around lens above the surface too.
Bahamas 2017-89.jpg



I am not trying to give you the impression that this is a perfect lens. It isn't. I plan on upgrading my lens from the kit lens to the Sony/Zeiss 16-70 f/4 before my next trip. What I am trying to say is that it is a good lens with which to start.

One unsolicited piece of advice that I will throw in, is that while this lens is a good starting point, PLEASE make sure that you get a strobe (or ideally a pair of strobes) It is virtually impossible to get good results in underwater photography without strobes.
 
I shoot an A6000 underwater. So far, the two lenses that I have used have been the 10-18mm f/4 and the kit lens.

For a kit lens, the Sony 16-50mm PZ is actually a pretty good lens. It is reasonably sharp and the 16-50mm range covers most of what you are likely to shoot underwater. Yes, there will be times that you will wish you were wider and it is not a macro, but for a starter lens, it does "check off a lot of boxes".

The difference in price between an A6000 body only and an A6000 with the kit lens is pretty small. They almost give away the kit lens, so there is not much to be saved by not getting it.

Here are a couple shots that I took with my A6000 on a trip to the Bahamas:

It is not a macro, but it can get reasonably close to small subjects such as Feather Dusters and Christmas Tree Worms. (It would do even better with a Macro "Wet Lens".)
View attachment 620739

View attachment 620741


As for Wide angle, it is fine for subjects up to the size of Reef Sharks ...
View attachment 620742

... or shots of the wall ...
View attachment 620743

... or a turtle.
View attachment 620744

It is a good all around lens above the surface too.
View attachment 620745


I am not trying to give you the impression that this is a perfect lens. It isn't. I plan on upgrading my lens from the kit lens to the Sony/Zeiss 16-70 f/4 before my next trip. What I am trying to say is that it is a good lens with which to start.

One unsolicited piece of advice that I will throw in, is that while this lens is a good starting point, PLEASE make sure that you get a strobe (or ideally a pair of strobes) It is virtually impossible to get good results in underwater photography without strobes.
Great photos Hoag! I’m trying to figure out if I can keep the entire size decent with 2 strobes. I always see 2 strobe setups in the water, and look like their being pushed. I really like holding my camera in between my folded arms when I’m cruising along. Possible?
 
Great photos Hoag! I’m trying to figure out if I can keep the entire size decent with 2 strobes. I always see 2 strobe setups in the water, and look like their being pushed. I really like holding my camera in between my folded arms when I’m cruising along. Possible?
Also, for a primary stills camera, do you see any major differences in getting the later model A6x00’s? From what I’ve seen , the A6000 is still an amazing camera.
 
Great photos Hoag! I’m trying to figure out if I can keep the entire size decent with 2 strobes. I always see 2 strobe setups in the water, and look like their being pushed. I really like holding my camera in between my folded arms when I’m cruising along. Possible?
As for size, I have 2 Inon S2000 strobes, and a Nauticam housing. I can fit my camera with 2 lenses, the housing a dome port + the port for the kit lens and my 2 strobes into a very small backpack that I use as my carry-on. Once assembled, I cradle it in pretty much the method you mention when not taking a photo.

Thank you for the kind words about my pics. I just wanted to give you an idea of what to expect from that lens from a real world perspective as opposed to a pro photographer doing a review.

You ask about the advantages of one A6xxx camera over the A6000. The one that IMHO, does offer some significant advantages would be the A6500. The two big advantages that the A6500 has are In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) and 425 AF Points compared to the A6000's 179.

Here is a website that offers a direct comparison between the two cameras. At that point, it becomes a matter of whether you see the advantages of the A6500 to be worth the difference in price or not. That is a decision that only you will be able to make.
 
As for size, I have 2 Inon S2000 strobes, and a Nauticam housing. I can fit my camera with 2 lenses, the housing a dome port + the port for the kit lens and my 2 strobes into a very small backpack that I use as my carry-on. Once assembled, I cradle it in pretty much the method you mention when not taking a photo.

Thank you for the kind words about my pics. I just wanted to give you an idea of what to expect from that lens from a real world perspective as opposed to a pro photographer doing a review.

You ask about the advantages of one A6xxx camera over the A6000. The one that IMHO, does offer some significant advantages would be the A6500. The two big advantages that the A6500 has are In Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) and 425 AF Points compared to the A6000's 179.

Here is a website that offers a direct comparison between the two cameras. At that point, it becomes a matter of whether you see the advantages of the A6500 to be worth the difference in price or not. That is a decision that only you will be able to make.
Thanks a lot!
 
The only other lens that I've tried with A6000 is the Sony prime E 2.8/20. It has better performance than the 16-50/PZ (which, amazingly, works better at longer zoom than at 16-20 mm) but your flexibility will be limited. BTW, LR does pretty good job in correcting 16-50/PZ lens profile.
 
The only other lens that I've tried with A6000 is the Sony prime E 2.8/20. It has better performance than the 16-50/PZ (which, amazingly, works better at longer zoom than at 16-20 mm) but your flexibility will be limited. BTW, LR does pretty good job in correcting 16-50/PZ lens profile.
Thanks! What exactly is “LR”?
 

Back
Top Bottom