How does this lens compare with the 16-50 kit lens that comes with the A6000 camera? It's heavier and bulkier, what ways is it better?
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
763551
It's about the same this lens is what the earlier models came with I think I have the 16-50 lens too this one is just all manual and it feel there's more attachments for it like wide angle and fish eye instead of buying a whole new lens for both of those options.
1891734
i have a d5100 and a d600. i had a very hard time getting focus with the d5100 and this lens for portraits. i actually used liveview to make it work. however, once i got the d600, it became soooo much better. the improved af and field of view on the d600 makes it much more reliable to shoot at f2.8 - f/4. shooting head and shoulders shots with the d600 at f/4 is amazing!
298203
Thanks for all of the feedback. I bought the E-510 about month ago and it has been great. I am glad I went with the two lens kit for $650 on amazon. Its great to have both lenses. The E-510 is proving to be a great camera.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
1410557
No. Not directly. If you're looking for a good "50mm equivalent", I would suggest the Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS SEL, or if you're looking for a good 50mm lens (which would be the equivalent of about an 80mm on that camera) I would suggest the 55mm 1.8 Sony Zeiss. If, though, you'd rather use this lens (it's beautiful, but a little bulky for that camera) then by all means, just pick up the LA-EA4 adapter. Without an adapter, though, the lens will not mount on the Sony A6000.
885111
The clear advantage of the a6000 is the bigger sensor, the clear advantage of the Olympus is the SIGNIFICANTLY bigger selection of lenses.
543325
No comparison! This lens even out performs Canon's 1.4 in most areas! One area it really blows a lot 50mm out of the water in is bokeh quality! It has 9 round blades that make a heck of difference and give it it's quality D.O.F. and bokeh. Some have compared it's build quality and performance more closer to Canon's 50mm 1.2L. I'm a fashion and beauty photographer and use this lens quite often, and I can confidently stand behind this glass! If you can buy it, buy it! To see some of the photos I've taken with this lens visit my site: www.richardanthonyevans.com.
583554
I found that the photo's I've taken with this lens are much sharper. It's almost like the kit lens was looking through a double paned window in comparison. The color saturation seems to be better too, but it could be due to the crispness of the image. If your unsure - rent one and compare, or find a friend willing to share and try it for a day. This lens is much heavier to carry (more elements means more weight). I don't find this a fault.
866362
its, a better lens that the kit lens by far, it's bigger heavier and the filter is bigger, its the lens I keep on my Camera all the time...
1489083
Sigma makes an E-Mount version of the 60mm F2.8DN E lens that should work on the a6000. Just be sure to get the E-Mount version.
110373
Actually, I did sell my 12-60 to help pay for this lens -- they're about comparable w.r.t. image quality. The 12-40 doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, but is optically faster.I've also heard about a couple of examples of this lens having structural issues. But mine is holding up nicely, even in spite of a bit of accidentally rough treatment (I slipped on a muddy slope and landed on the lens).
735069
It definitely has a far superior build quality. I feel more confident with it on my camera. I have taken quite a few shots wide open at 2.8 and have been very pleased. The focusing motor is also a lot quieter than the nifty fifty. I would like the extra stops but i feel i picked the right starter prime lens and plan on a 30 mm sigma 1.4 in the future. (my brother owns the 50 1.8 and this is what i base my opinions on as I have shot some with his lens on my camera.)
1815191
Absolutely, it goes to 105 so you are going to have more zoom (and a little less wide angle), it's a very good lens, I use it with my a6000 and work very good for every day use and casual photography, fast enough (f4), good quality (G badged), much more versatile than the kit lens, better bokeh. If you want faster and crispier lens have to go prime..!Cons: Block down left angle of included flash light(in a6000 camera), no problem with pro flash, and little heavy and big. Good enough to recommend it, go for it.
357723
I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it.... » Read More I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. « Show Less
859022
A great lens, but it is heavy (~3lbs). I use it with a 5D mkii and it's fantastic!! highly recommended.
1939948
Truthfully I think the 50mm 1.4 lens is better made and the resulting picture quality is great. I think it is definitely worth it to spend the extra cash to purchase the lens.
505915
Yes. I've been using it on my a6000 for a few months, and I'm very happy with the resultant image quality. I also recommend the 60mm.