Hope you guys enjoyed this tier list video! Affiliate links galore in the description and video links to other reviews I've done. What's the next tier list video topic?!
Yes please ! Do manual Lenses, I use manual focusing most of the time, so I really do not need autofocus (which such anyway !). You should have some affordable Lenses for full frame included, some of those are both compact, cheap or cheapish. If you want the very best Lenses you need some of the full frame Lenses...
Mostly, I agree with your rankings. Except, the 70-350 is great for landscape and is affordable when compared to the full-frame version (plus, has extra reach). Thanks for all the work it took to put this together.
Thanks ! I'm a young french guy who search a camera for my channel and all of this informations that you tell in your content about the sony a6000 are great ! I think I'll buy it in the next few years. Your channel is really helpfull, keep it up ! (sorry for the spelling if i made some mistakes)
Just wanna say thanks man! With your videos being a big part in learning my camera and helping me make the decision on which lenses to invest in. And I can officially say my personal business is kicking off to a great start! Thank you again ‼️
Bought the 6400 with the 18-135 as a kit ... and complemented it with the SEL35F18 when it was on sale ... happy to see confirmed here that this seems to be not the worst combo 🙂 Nice video ... again! Definitively and since quite some time one of my go-to channels when it comes to Sony APS-C 👍🏻
Your video on the 18-135 and 18-105 comparison really helped me decide to go for the 18-135 and it’s just a great lens. Hoping to sell it soon to upgrade to the 17-70 😝
I hv the zeiss 24 1.8, bought used. Excellent lens. 4 years plus, no problem, no dust. Its light, sharp, great for street, travel. Superfast focusing on a6600.
bought the a6000 about 1 month ago with the kit lens, the 55-210 zoom lens, 2 camera bags, old pentax lenses, macro filters and a small sturdy tripod for 400€. I think it was a steal for that price
Thanks for your video, I really liked your walk through! You did though get the Sony 20mm 2.8 pancake wrong in my opinion. It's very sharp in the middle from 2.8 and across the whole frame from 7.1, has nice colours and the fastest auto focus any Sony lens. It's so compact that it turns your A6xxx into the worlds best compact camera, I have it with me in my pocket always, and results are great. It's far better than the similar 16mm 2.8
I dig the 20 f2.8 too! I haven’t pixel peeped but the quality never made me look twice, and the fact that it fits in the tiny pockets that girls get is a huge huge plus for me! It’s also a sentimental lens for me because it was the first lens I bought and it on a trip to New York at the B&H store - what a cool experience!
Nearly choked at the tier c for the 18 to 105! Possibly the best for video on that list and sensational for street and landscape. If that's not your bag then fair enough but to tier c it despite knowing that is incredible
@@kyletaggart I need a lens for portrait photos (indoors studio) and a lens for video (outdoors) Do you have any recommendations for which lens I should buy next? 🧐
16 50 is my favourite. And then sony 50mm oss, sigma 30mm dc dn, sony 55 210 and finally helios 58 f2 :) I've seen new lenses in your video. Thank you...
Got the 16-70f4 used for $300 and ever since... It has barely left my a6000 and now a6500. It is my new favorite lens for going out and having everything on a small bag. I do also have the 50 f1.8 and trying to get the Tamron 35 f2.8 to complete my set. Maybe if the Zeiss lens was $900 to $1000 I would agree still, but at $300 this lens is amazing.
Loved this video. It’s time I sold some of my lenses so I can upgrade. I also love the Sony 18-135. My copy is sharp and the range is fantastic for a lightweight travel kit. For tele, the 70-350 all day long. But the Tamron 17-70 could replace my Sony 50. Like you I love the 35 and should use it more. It’s probably time to say goodbye to the 50, 10-18, & 50-210 that I have hung onto. But the little kit lens is just too handy and I learned so much about photography from it that I just can’t part with it. Besides, it’s so small you can throw it in your bag for a backup. I really bought lenses at the beginning of my learning, and now can fine tune the collection. Thanks for giving apsc some love.
Awesome comment! And I need to downsize too. I really want the tamron 11-20 f2.8 and want to try out the Samyang 12mm f2. Sometimes it’s worth to trade in a lens if the value is there, sometimes it’s better to just hold onto it. Thanks for checking this out!
I've tried most of the lenses on the list, and I'm afraid I have to disagree with quite a few of them on B and below, but you've nailed it for the ones in the S and A tier. However, everyone can have different opinions, and it was enjoyable to watch. Thanks.
Looking to purchase my first camera and decided on the Sony ZV-E10. Trying to look for best apsc budget lenses. WOULD LOVE for you to do a manual lens video. I’m assuming they would be much cheaper than these correct? Keep up the great content and congrats on getting married man!
congrats on the camera! they would be cheaper overall yes. Some manual lenses for sony APSC can get up there in the $200 range. I am in the process of making that video. Getting back on the video wagon after our wedding/honeymoon. Good things coming, I promise!
These ranking videos are fun. I wouldn't generally disagree with your lists. 1) I too find that the Sony 35mm 1.8 is my choice vs the Sigma 30mm 1.4. I have both but tend to grab the Sony. I really don't see a sharpness difference. In fact due to the OSS I get more in-focus shots from the Sony. For outdoor family portrait shoots I use the A6600 and Sigma 56, while my wife uses the A6400 and Sony 35mm as a second shooter. It works out fine. 2) The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is for sale. My alternatives in this focal range are the Sony 35mm and the new Sigma 18-50 2.8. I don't need 3 lenses in this range. 3) I have, but rarely use, the Sigma 16mm 1.4. I'm just not a landscape or cityscape shooter. I keep this lens just in case I might need the wide aperture. I sometimes use this lens indoors for casual photography (grandkids birthday parties). I know this is an extremely popular lens; it's just not near the center of my applications. 4) The Sigma 56mm 1.4 is incredible. I do more portraits than anything else and this lens is amazing for portraits. I love this lens so much that even if I didn't have a camera I'd still keep this lens on a shelf like part of the family. It isn't just that it is so sharp but the contrast and color also stand out. I can treat this lens like it is a zoom lens because I can crop without losing any detail. 5) I use the FF Tamron 70-180mm for portraits. I have to stand a long way from the subject but the resulting photos are wonderful. 6) The Sony 18-135 is the one I kept. It's not as fast as the 18-105 f4 but on the low end it is actually faster. I compared the sharpness between the 18-135 and the 18-103 and couldn't see the difference. 7) I sold the 18-105. That wasn't an easy decision. It was this lens that led me to shift from the Sony Alpha SLT-A77 over to the newer E mount system. But I don't do video which is where this lens fits better. 8) 16-50 Kit lens. Great features. Really small. Crappy photo results. The only reason I keep it is selling it is just a bother given the very low selling price I would get. My cell phone takes better photos than this lens. 9) The new Sigma 18-50 f2.8. This lens is going to live on my a6600 most of the time. It is more than acceptable in sharpness. In fact I've already done a portrait shoot with it. The only drawback is less bokeh than the Sigma 56mm 1.4. What a wonderful addition to the Sony APS-C E mount line. If the Sigma 56mm is rated at 10 then this can be rated at least an 8. Low price, small, and light make this a true winner. If anybody asks which lens to buy first I would easily recommend this one. In certain cases the Sigma 18-50 will perform as well as the Sigma 56 because there are times when ultimate sharpness isn't beneficial or right for some subjects.
Hi Kyle, I generally agree with your rankings with most of my differences having to do with my differing personal experience and lack there-of. For example I would put the Sigma 16 as A because I know it is super highly regarded, but I haven't ever used it whereas I would put the Sigma 56 in S instead of A because I have it, and it has got to be the sharpest lens for Sony APS-C, and super 1.4 fast and so compact. I also have the Sony 50 1.8, and it just isn't so deadly sharp wide open, but it is a great lens too especially for the OSS on unstabilized bodies and still a keeper along side the 56. So I have to speak to the F grade for the 24 1.8. You have to keep in mind that it came out December 2011 and that until about 2020, there was zero true alternative for this focal length. There was soon the 20 2.8, which is close in focal length but not very good. There is the excellent Sigma 30 1.4, but equivalent 45 just isn't the same as equiv 36mm. Because you have never used it, and because it is admittedly over priced, you give it an F, but I don't think that is a responsible approach. Here is why. There has been a lot of controversy over the S/Z 16-70 f/4 about sample variation and the possibility that it is impressive even on a good copy only in a very narrow range from about 24 to 50, and it too originally cost almost $1,000. But the image quality and overall quality of the Sony 24 1.8 was never much in question. It isn't as sharp as the Sigma lenses at f 1.4, but the color is very nice, and it is very sharp quickly. It has a nice feel in the hand but isn't really too heavy, so for anyone like me that always cherished using a 35 Summicron when using film, there is really no substitute for a 35mm equivalent lens for in-door and out-door flexibility and walk-around. So I put off buying it until 2018, and even then I was only willing to pay $800 for the gray market version new. I would be very curious to see a head-on review against the Viltrox 23 1.4 that has the advantage of the aperture ring also. However, I still probably wouldn't want to sell the 24 just because I feel you lose too much in such transactions. So if a person can trade for or find a good price on a 24, it is perhaps the most-handy lens for a Sony aps-c body. Didn't you ever wonder why it was one of the very first lenses introduced with the NEX-7?? It was pricy but also a real system-maker. Before I bought it, I bought the Sigma 30 2.8, Sigma 18 2.8, Rokinon 21 1.4 manual focus, then Sigma 30 1.4. I've always imagined Sony had agreements with other makers to share the mount info only by agreement not to compete with the 24 for ten years - and so as intended - I bought all those other lenses, but they couldn't substitute...and keep in mind there was no Sony 16-55 2.8 nor Tamron 17-70 2.8, so there was no good zoom option for an equivalent fast-ish 35mm AF lens. I probably should have bought the 24 in the first place instead of those other 4 lenses! (but I kept the Sigma 30 1.4 too...) Today there are many more options (including the Sigma 18-50 to be announced next week!) But the made-in-Japan ten-year-old 24 1.8 stands up even today....but for what price? Today I'm not sure.
Appreciate the comment! All good to disagree, we all don’t have the same experiences or use cases. I haven’t tried all the lenses available either! Thanks for watching and weighing in.
Yes please ! Do manual Lenses, I use manual focusing most of the time, so I really do not need autofocus (which such anyway !). You should have some affordable Lenses for full frame included, some of those are both compact, cheap or cheapish. If you want the very best Lenses you need some of the full frame Lenses...
Great video, I have only 4 lenses, sigma 16mm, sigma 30mm, sony 18-105 f4, and sony 70-350, I was thinking of the new sigma 18- 50 f2.8, I like the size of the lense, and a good price, what do you think of the lense
Hey there man! What do you think of the Sony 18-105mm? I'm really looking at getting a new lens and it seems perfectly priced. Really want to start taking social media and working for businesses seriously, I already have the 50mm f1.8, so the 18-105 gives me WAY more focal length and is great for video since I've always been a videographer really, but want to get into photography. However I was wondering if it's worth saving an extra £200 for the Tamron 17-70?
Would love to see your in depth opinion on the 18-200mm and the 30mm macro (or maybe a dedicated macro lens video review, if possible). For me, these would be two lenses that I would be very interested in investing in down line. For now, I’m still battling with myself between the 35mm & 50mm!
I’ve had the 30mm macro for a few years. Sharpness in the middle is good. Very light, and not too big. If you plan to only photograph stationary objects, then it will serve you well.
18 - 200 mm Sony is my main lens, super sharp and super versatile. No regrets whatsoever and I saved a lot of cash with it. Is my sleeper. When i show up to a photo shoot eith one lens they think im crazy or amateur but the lens is a sleeper again and i dont need to carry on a lot of lenses for what i do
Hey Kyle, I picked up my a6000 just last week and have been loving all your videos! Quick question, I have the 16-50 kit lens and the sony 50mm f/1.8. I mainly want to do street photography and record music videos (sometimes in low light settings). I am tossing up whether to buy the Sony 35mm f/1.8 or the Sony 18-105mm f/4 next. Which would you recommend to buy first?
The 18-105mm f4 is great for video, and it’s nice to have a lens with such a wide range. For low light music video shots, the 35mm f1.8 would be nice. Both are great lenses - I’m a prime guy and I absolutely love my 35mm. I think it just depends what you want to do next.
@@darkdaze240 I know this is late, but if you haven't gotten a lens yet I totally vouch for getting a prime. Primes are always better quality and a lot of times having a prime lens will make you interact with your subject more. You can't just zoom in. It's all preference though. After 5 years and a decent amount on photography I will say that 90% of the time I have the the Sigma 16mm or the 35mm depending on what i'm doing. I've owned a few zoom lenses and they're versatile and convenient but for me personally once I got my first really good prime lens I never went back. Getting a nice lens is the most important purchase for your camera. I remember my first camera I spent like $600 on the body, and just got a kit lens. I should have gotten a $200-300 camera and a nice prime lens instead. Oh well. No matter what you get its all about going out and taking photos, having fun and living life! That's how I feel at least now
Only thing I disagree with is the 20mm 2.8. It’s well known the 20mm pancake is much better than the 16mm version if you look around. I own both and it’s very odd but the 20mm is much sharper and has no distortion compared to the 16mm which may be Sonys worst prime. I’d recommend you try it and you will be surprised.
My kit: Sony A6100, Sony 70-350 mm, Sigma 16/f1.4 and Sigma 30/f1.4. I personally would put the 70-350 higher. Although costly (got it on sale for $750), the pictures it produces compared to my old 55-210 are remarkably crisper and more vibrant. The autofocus also works remarkably well, and the build feels decently balanced On my 6100. Until Tamron or someone makes another ultrazoom lens, this is the unquestionable choice! Looking to add the Sigma 56/f1.4 next! Also really tempted by the new Tamron wide zoom lens which looks incredible, please do a video once you get it!
I would also put the 70-350 in the S column. Bought it used for usd650, and it’s a stellar performer. The Sigma 56 is also in my S column. Nothing beats the sharpness of that lens. Although I like the performance of the Sigma 16, I would put it in A column just because of it’s bulk and weight. That annoys me sometimes.
I was only waiting for the 35mm f1.8 sony to pop up. Since you ranked it here also as S tier im gonna buy it now new or used, saw one used for 250€ and new on Amazon rn for 300€.
While I don't agree with your ranking (F) of the Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 I can understand why it isn't more popular. Mainly because it is simply too expensive for what it is, although it has come down a couple hundred dollars of late. I bought my Zeiss well before the Sony 24/1.4 G Master lens came out. The Zeiss is a fine lens, although it is prone to color fringing on high contrast subjects (tree branches against a bright blue sky). I can fix that in post so I don't consider it a big deal, although others certainly might after paying so much for the lens. When the Sony G Master 24/1.4 came out I had the opportunity to try one out. It's a great lens but not enough better than the Zeiss to make me want to spend the money on it. The other thing about the Zeiss 24/1.8 is it is an old design and it shows. I would like to also add that folks need to reign in their Zeiss enthusiasm these days. The Zeiss name no longer guarantees much any more... other than the price will be high. I have a Zeiss 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Tessar (T* coatings) made in Germany (Contax/Yashica mount). If I taped over the name and handed it to you to test you would most likely swear it's some old Soligor lens from the 1970's. Sadly, anymore the Zeiss name has lost its clout, at least for me. And I have quite a few Zeiss camera lenses. Thanks for a nice video, Don
*When I Bought My a6400 (body only) my FIRST Lens was the Kit Lens as I got it open box for $165 and then bought the 50mm f1.8 but didn't like it returned it and got the 16mm f2.8 which I love for Vlogging and then of course I bought 2 Sigma's the 16mm and 30mm f1.4 and although there isn't THAT much of a difference between the f2.8 and f1.4 for me it's the size when carrying it around for vlogging but I'll be looking to get the a6600 for the OSS *
Funny, the only two lenses I own so far are the only two in S-tier. Hopefully the Tamron 11-20 is good for astro and landscape because I'm looking for a lightweight setup for backpacking
100% agree with your S tier! I would put those two in my top tier as well, with the addition of the Tamron 17-70 for the versatility. I'll take my Sony 35 with me to the grave 😂
So what you are saying is buy it? I've currently got the sigma trio, and not gonna lie the 30mm just isn't doing it for me. Would the 35 bridge the gap for me?
Thanks for this awesome and informative video. I have the Sony 35mm and honestly I don't think it's as sharp as it should be. I got it second hand and I'm not sure if there's something wrong with it and I don't have another sony 35mm lens to compare it with. How can I find out?
Really? Well, there’s tests you can do, but there’s also a question if it’s the user vs the lens. Do you have the kit lens? You could compare shots to that lens (use a tripod). Shoot a photo of something not moving, like a brick wall (something with detail). There’s also graphs for this purpose you can use. Also keep in mind, the full sharpness of a lens is almost never at its fastest aperture. So for the Sony 35mm f1.8, it’s really at a lower f stop, most likely f5.6 (I don’t know what aperture for 100%). But the sharpness will increase as you stop it down, f2.8, f3.5, etc. then the sharpness will decrease as you hit f11, f16 etc due to diffraction (usually). I’d say perform some tests for yourself and compare center and corner sharpness - and take photos at diff apertures and see how the center and corners change. Use aperture priority mode - set the ISO to 100, And then only shutter speed will change. This will give you a better idea of how the lens sharpness performs throughout its aperture range.
Great video Kyle, at this time I only own 4 lenses sigma 16mm and 30 mm 1.4, sony 18-105 for, and sony 70-350,I want to try ASTRO photography when I go on cruise in September, are the sigma lenses good for that or what would you recommend, I recently tried taking fireworks pictures and used my 18-105 sony, I guess I was a little disappointed, maybe because of the f4,what would use? Thanks for any input
The sigma 16mm f1.4 has a trick to it when nailing auto focus. You go to infinity - then turn the lens as you see it “notch” 3 times. That will be true infinity focus. Focus by wire lenses are not great for Astro - but once you get this down with the sigma 16mm it becomes easier. Also focus magnification on the brightest star helps!
The weight and size were also a factor for me. I really liked the 18-105 but did end up selling it and replaced it with the Sony 18-135 which is smaller, lighter, has a tiny bit more reach, and is just as sharp. At the wide open end it is even faster than the 18-105.
Hi kyle thank you so much for your informative videos, just found out about you with the SD Cards vid and I loved it, I'm getting started with this and my first camera is actually a Sony A6000 but i have oine question, how do I know which lens to chose? What criteria should I be applying in order for me to chose a lens for this particular camera:(
Though ur video is very subjective, I still love it, I have the zeiss1670 and I love it so much because of it's photography's colour, thanks for comparison
I would be curious on what you think on the sony 18-200mm. I just started tinkering with photography on an A6000, and this is one of the lenses I have for it. BTW as for weight it is 100g heavier then the Sigma 16.
Enjoyed your review. Two differences of opinion. Really love my 10-18. Best travel lens I've ever owned. Would have gotten the Tamron 11-20 though if it was out then. Hated the 55-200. I could never get a really crisp shot with it. So it might be that particular lens, or it may be style of shooting.
thanks!! i saw your review of 35 mm and i just bought it... i bought the 18-105 too and im looking for a longer lens to shoot skate pictures.. what lens do you recomend?
Definitely is! I just don’t use it often. So you want a longer lens than the 18-205? I went over some tamron lenses in this list. Sony and tamron have older 18-200’s👍🏻
Great vudeo, i use for my A6000 also Sigma 30mm f1.4, is great Lens to but i need now something new like 10mm what you can recommend for me in good price not for thousands pound ?
Hey Kyle, I would like to know your opinion on the FE 85mm 1.8 from Sony. Some call it the nicest portrait lens for the sony apsc cameras. It surely isn't the most versatile, but from what i've seen it's super sharp and has full frame levels of bokeh.
Hi Kyle, I'm really excited with your tier list of lenses. Actually when I bought my sony a6000, which I have up to now, I wanted something much sharper and optically superior than the kit lense 16-50, so I bought the sony zeiss 16-70 f4 as a "kit" with the a6000, and also I have bought the sony 50 f1.8 for the low light conditions, night photography, etc. Remember that all this was back in 2014, so there were barely no alternatives to the sony lenses back then. I'm very disappointed with the 16-70 lense, it's extremely soft at the edges of the zoom range, so at 16 or at 70 mm. And in between it is really not that great, it is not worth the money. So now I want to get rid of this lense for some money, like 250 bucks or something, and get the new tamron 17-70 f2.8 instead, which I believe a really superior lense. The real problem that I have with my hobby of photography is that I have v e r y shaky hands, so I must put my camera on a tripod or a monopod every time I want to have sharp images, but it slows me down and I really want to be able to taking good photos handheld. So, I must have stabilized lenses, because the a6000 doesn't have ibis. I know that the sigma trio are awesome lenses, but they don't have image stabilization, so I have a problem with them. Also I want an ultra wide angle lens, but almost all of those are without IS, except for the not so great 10-18 f4...So, what do you think is a solution to my misery? I don't want to break the bank with the upgrade to the amazing a6600...
IBIS will help in video mostly, and for photo it will come in handy when it’s lower light, and you’re using a slower shutter speed. I’d challenge you to what scenarios your photos seem out of focus or not sharp. If you’re in aperture priority mode, it could be because your shutter speed is too slow. With the sigma lenses you can let in a little more light at f1.4 and bump up the shutter speed a tad. It really depends on the situation as well as your hands.
About the Sony 16mm pancake lens: optical, its nothing special. But you can get your Sony camera into your pants pocket. This gets me a ton of great shots around town, that I would have missed without the convenience of that Pancake lens. Not to mention, I like the 24mm equivalent. If Sony ever made a better version of this, I'd buy it.
Hi.. Great vids.. I have question but sorry out of topic, have you tried to use external mic using usb adapter for a6000? Someone said that its possible but I cant find real proof/video. Thanks
Great video. I agree with you on much of the stuff. I have had the Sigma 56 for more than a year now. Great lens. Shame!! Sony does not have a decent 35mm equivalent. The Sony 24 Z is bloody expensive. There should have been a a great bunch of 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135 mm primes for the system.
Viltrox made the 23mm f1.4 Ans I love it - it has vignetting at f1.4 but overall I love the lens. I wonder if someone will make a longer prime someday like an 85mm (APSC).
@@kyletaggart Thanks Kyle. I will try the Viltrox 23. I already like the sound of having another f1.4. I always wonder how the Sony 85mm f1.8 would work on the APS-C. It has the sharpness rating of 16 on DXOMARK for A6000, which is as sharp as the Sigma 30 f1.4. The Sony 85 is now a decent price too. It's weather sealed too.
@@kaushaltiwari9773 I’ve used the 85 on aps-c. While the sharpness was good, I felt that the optimum quality range is quite narrow on aps-c. Compared to using it on FF (where it is excellent), all the shortcomings of this lens gets multiplied on the smaller sensor. The CA and bloom is particularly distracting at wide open apertures. It still performs better than a lot of lenses, but compared to the Sigma 56, it doesn’t wow me as much.
Great video as usual. Actually, I think I'm ready to go ahead on a Viltrox 33 mm... I'll check your "Sony a6000 Lenses for under 100!" before heading to Amazon.
I’ve done reviews on a lot of manual lenses - most under $100. So def take a look. Manual lenses are fun as heck! But also understandable if you want AF. The Viltrox 33mm is slept on!
Great lens for the price! But it does have some shortcomings. Strong LoCA and slow AF in low light if mounted on an A6000. On newer bodies it performs better.
@@co2435 I used that lens for more than 2 years on an a6000, and I found the AF on the Sony 35mm f1.8 much better. For daytime it was accurate & snappy, but in low light it was lacking. Maybe it’s just my copy.. 🤷♂️
I have most of these lenses and my favorites are the Sony 18-135 and the Zeiss 24/1.8. I actually prefer the kit lens 16-50 over the Sony 16 or 20 pancakes. A stop slower, but much more versatile and almost a pancake. Not so fond of the Sigma 30/1.4. Autofocus is struggling. I also use a lot of Samyang's FF lenses, because these new ones are really good and light. Haven't tried any Viltrox though.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your ranking of the Sony Zeiss 24 mm f1.8 lens. You gave it the worst rating possible, even way below the 16-50 kit lens!! That really doesn't make sense. Yes, you could question if the cost is worth it, but you are trashing it while basing that on what you 'heard' about it. I bought it because of SO many excellent reviews of its sharpness, etc. Maybe now the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a better option, but I don't think the 24 mm deserves an F rating ;) Also, one thing you left out around the Sony 16-55 f2.8 vs the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. You did mention how the Tamron could now supplant the Sony, but since you are talking about lenses for the a6000, you left out how the Sony has no stabilization, and the Tamron does. Also the Tamron is less expensive than the Sony. That being said, I enjoyed this video, and liked that you covered all this wide range of options. Also, I liked that you often mentioned what you like to use, based on what you use the lenses for; clearly it is hard to say what lens is 'better' without considering what someone needs it for. As well, this is a nice reminder that Sony APS-C shooters have a very wide range of lens options. For me, I feel stuck a bit with difficulty deciding what to purchase next. I have the a6000 and the Sony 24mm f1.8 ZA, the Sony 10-18 f4, the kit 16-50, and the Sony 55-210 (and I also have an old Canon macro lens with an adaptor). For my next lens purchase, I find it hard to decide between the Tamron 17-70 (good, but expensive and heavy), the Sigma 56mm f1.4 (great, but missing the Zoom versatility), the Sony 18-135 (very lightweight, great as travel lens, but slow aperture), or perhaps the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 (FF lens, so helpful to have if I ever decided to move to FF). I also like the reviews of the Sony 70-350, while it is expensive and heavy, it sounds like it would have a lot of benefits over the 55-210. Of all these options, I've been leaning towards the Tamron 17-70, but my main hesitation is the size and weight, and whether I will find that too inconvenient. Since I have a new grandson, and want to do a lot of indoors and portraits, maybe the Sigma 56mm is a better option (vs the Tamron 17-70), since the Sigma is f1.4, and is smaller and less expensive.
The Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS is great but doesn't merit S tier, maybe A... It's super soft and low contrast at 1.8. Only matches the competition above 4.0. Very meh.
Hope you guys enjoyed this tier list video! Affiliate links galore in the description and video links to other reviews I've done. What's the next tier list video topic?!
Yes please ! Do manual Lenses, I use manual focusing most of the time, so I really do not need autofocus (which such anyway !). You should have some affordable Lenses for full frame included, some of those are both compact, cheap or cheapish. If you want the very best Lenses you need some of the full frame Lenses...
I do NOT like zoom Lenses ! Only prime Lenses !
Please make it for 2022 including the new releases.
Mostly, I agree with your rankings. Except, the 70-350 is great for landscape and is affordable when compared to the full-frame version (plus, has extra reach). Thanks for all the work it took to put this together.
My favorite lens for landscape work is the Sony 70-350 around the lake where I live as BIFs some time happens.
The 20mm pancake is a million times better than the 16 mm pancake. And putting the kit lens over it is insane!
Thanks ! I'm a young french guy who search a camera for my channel and all of this informations that you tell in your content about the sony a6000 are great ! I think I'll buy it in the next few years. Your channel is really helpfull, keep it up ! (sorry for the spelling if i made some mistakes)
Thanks, so cool people all over the world see my videos!
Just wanna say thanks man! With your videos being a big part in learning my camera and helping me make the decision on which lenses to invest in. And I can officially say my personal business is kicking off to a great start! Thank you again ‼️
Well that is amazing to hear! Anytime you need any help, I’m happy to answer any questions. I’m here or Instagram. Have a good one!
Bought the 6400 with the 18-135 as a kit ... and complemented it with the SEL35F18 when it was on sale ... happy to see confirmed here that this seems to be not the worst combo 🙂 Nice video ... again! Definitively and since quite some time one of my go-to channels when it comes to Sony APS-C 👍🏻
thanks so much! not a bad combo at all! :D
best tier list seen in the last 10 years of rpg
Your video on the 18-135 and 18-105 comparison really helped me decide to go for the 18-135 and it’s just a great lens. Hoping to sell it soon to upgrade to the 17-70 😝
I hv the zeiss 24 1.8, bought used. Excellent lens. 4 years plus, no problem, no dust. Its light, sharp, great for street, travel. Superfast focusing on a6600.
going to have to get my hands on it someday and use it a ton and really see what it's made of!
Sony 16-55 F2.8 G needs more recognition. The colors and the sharpness are gorgeous
bought the a6000 about 1 month ago with the kit lens, the 55-210 zoom lens, 2 camera bags, old pentax lenses, macro filters and a small sturdy tripod for 400€. I think it was a steal for that price
Thanks for your video, I really liked your walk through! You did though get the Sony 20mm 2.8 pancake wrong in my opinion. It's very sharp in the middle from 2.8 and across the whole frame from 7.1, has nice colours and the fastest auto focus any Sony lens. It's so compact that it turns your A6xxx into the worlds best compact camera, I have it with me in my pocket always, and results are great. It's far better than the similar 16mm 2.8
I dig the 20 f2.8 too! I haven’t pixel peeped but the quality never made me look twice, and the fact that it fits in the tiny pockets that girls get is a huge huge plus for me! It’s also a sentimental lens for me because it was the first lens I bought and it on a trip to New York at the B&H store - what a cool experience!
I’ve used both pancakes, and I agree. For me the 20mm is in the C column, and the 16mm i’ll put in the F column.
Nearly choked at the tier c for the 18 to 105! Possibly the best for video on that list and sensational for street and landscape. If that's not your bag then fair enough but to tier c it despite knowing that is incredible
I think looking back I agree with ya. I did it dirty.
I have sony a6400 with 35mm f1.8
can you recommend what next lens is suitable for pre-wedding photo and video?
Not sure what you mean. Portraits? What’s the specific use you’re looking for a lens for? I’ll be able to help better after clarification!
@@kyletaggart I need a lens for portrait photos (indoors studio) and a lens for video (outdoors)
Do you have any recommendations for which lens I should buy next? 🧐
16 50 is my favourite. And then sony 50mm oss, sigma 30mm dc dn, sony 55 210 and finally helios 58 f2 :)
I've seen new lenses in your video. Thank you...
Got the 16-70f4 used for $300 and ever since... It has barely left my a6000 and now a6500.
It is my new favorite lens for going out and having everything on a small bag. I do also have the 50 f1.8 and trying to get the Tamron 35 f2.8 to complete my set.
Maybe if the Zeiss lens was $900 to $1000 I would agree still, but at $300 this lens is amazing.
Loved this video. It’s time I sold some of my lenses so I can upgrade. I also love the Sony 18-135. My copy is sharp and the range is fantastic for a lightweight travel kit. For tele, the 70-350 all day long. But the Tamron 17-70 could replace my Sony 50. Like you I love the 35 and should use it more. It’s probably time to say goodbye to the 50, 10-18, & 50-210 that I have hung onto. But the little kit lens is just too handy and I learned so much about photography from it that I just can’t part with it. Besides, it’s so small you can throw it in your bag for a backup. I really bought lenses at the beginning of my learning, and now can fine tune the collection. Thanks for giving apsc some love.
Awesome comment! And I need to downsize too. I really want the tamron 11-20 f2.8 and want to try out the Samyang 12mm f2. Sometimes it’s worth to trade in a lens if the value is there, sometimes it’s better to just hold onto it. Thanks for checking this out!
I've tried most of the lenses on the list, and I'm afraid I have to disagree with quite a few of them on B and below, but you've nailed it for the ones in the S and A tier. However, everyone can have different opinions, and it was enjoyable to watch. Thanks.
Thanks!! 👍🏻
Definitely enjoyed this vid, which admittedly didn't feel long at all. How about a video regarding vintage lenses suggestions for the a6000 series?
Looking to purchase my first camera and decided on the Sony ZV-E10. Trying to look for best apsc budget lenses. WOULD LOVE for you to do a manual lens video. I’m assuming they would be much cheaper than these correct? Keep up the great content and congrats on getting married man!
congrats on the camera! they would be cheaper overall yes. Some manual lenses for sony APSC can get up there in the $200 range. I am in the process of making that video. Getting back on the video wagon after our wedding/honeymoon. Good things coming, I promise!
Had no idea that the 18-200 OSS was discontinued i absolutely love the lense for landscape
Please do a video on using Sony APS-C for wedding, parties and events. 🙏
Yeah it's so fascinating
These ranking videos are fun. I wouldn't generally disagree with your lists.
1) I too find that the Sony 35mm 1.8 is my choice vs the Sigma 30mm 1.4. I have both but tend to grab the Sony. I really don't see a sharpness difference. In fact due to the OSS I get more in-focus shots from the Sony. For outdoor family portrait shoots I use the A6600 and Sigma 56, while my wife uses the A6400 and Sony 35mm as a second shooter. It works out fine.
2) The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is for sale. My alternatives in this focal range are the Sony 35mm and the new Sigma 18-50 2.8. I don't need 3 lenses in this range.
3) I have, but rarely use, the Sigma 16mm 1.4. I'm just not a landscape or cityscape shooter. I keep this lens just in case I might need the wide aperture. I sometimes use this lens indoors for casual photography (grandkids birthday parties). I know this is an extremely popular lens; it's just not near the center of my applications.
4) The Sigma 56mm 1.4 is incredible. I do more portraits than anything else and this lens is amazing for portraits. I love this lens so much that even if I didn't have a camera I'd still keep this lens on a shelf like part of the family. It isn't just that it is so sharp but the contrast and color also stand out. I can treat this lens like it is a zoom lens because I can crop without losing any detail.
5) I use the FF Tamron 70-180mm for portraits. I have to stand a long way from the subject but the resulting photos are wonderful.
6) The Sony 18-135 is the one I kept. It's not as fast as the 18-105 f4 but on the low end it is actually faster. I compared the sharpness between the 18-135 and the 18-103 and couldn't see the difference.
7) I sold the 18-105. That wasn't an easy decision. It was this lens that led me to shift from the Sony Alpha SLT-A77 over to the newer E mount system. But I don't do video which is where this lens fits better.
8) 16-50 Kit lens. Great features. Really small. Crappy photo results. The only reason I keep it is selling it is just a bother given the very low selling price I would get. My cell phone takes better photos than this lens.
9) The new Sigma 18-50 f2.8. This lens is going to live on my a6600 most of the time. It is more than acceptable in sharpness. In fact I've already done a portrait shoot with it. The only drawback is less bokeh than the Sigma 56mm 1.4. What a wonderful addition to the Sony APS-C E mount line. If the Sigma 56mm is rated at 10 then this can be rated at least an 8. Low price, small, and light make this a true winner. If anybody asks which lens to buy first I would easily recommend this one.
In certain cases the Sigma 18-50 will perform as well as the Sigma 56 because there are times when ultimate sharpness isn't beneficial or right for some subjects.
Quite the comment! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on a bunch of lenses. I wanna do more tier list videos.
Hi Kyle, I generally agree with your rankings with most of my differences having to do with my differing personal experience and lack there-of. For example I would put the Sigma 16 as A because I know it is super highly regarded, but I haven't ever used it whereas I would put the Sigma 56 in S instead of A because I have it, and it has got to be the sharpest lens for Sony APS-C, and super 1.4 fast and so compact. I also have the Sony 50 1.8, and it just isn't so deadly sharp wide open, but it is a great lens too especially for the OSS on unstabilized bodies and still a keeper along side the 56. So I have to speak to the F grade for the 24 1.8. You have to keep in mind that it came out December 2011 and that until about 2020, there was zero true alternative for this focal length. There was soon the 20 2.8, which is close in focal length but not very good. There is the excellent Sigma 30 1.4, but equivalent 45 just isn't the same as equiv 36mm. Because you have never used it, and because it is admittedly over priced, you give it an F, but I don't think that is a responsible approach. Here is why. There has been a lot of controversy over the S/Z 16-70 f/4 about sample variation and the possibility that it is impressive even on a good copy only in a very narrow range from about 24 to 50, and it too originally cost almost $1,000. But the image quality and overall quality of the Sony 24 1.8 was never much in question. It isn't as sharp as the Sigma lenses at f 1.4, but the color is very nice, and it is very sharp quickly. It has a nice feel in the hand but isn't really too heavy, so for anyone like me that always cherished using a 35 Summicron when using film, there is really no substitute for a 35mm equivalent lens for in-door and out-door flexibility and walk-around. So I put off buying it until 2018, and even then I was only willing to pay $800 for the gray market version new. I would be very curious to see a head-on review against the Viltrox 23 1.4 that has the advantage of the aperture ring also. However, I still probably wouldn't want to sell the 24 just because I feel you lose too much in such transactions. So if a person can trade for or find a good price on a 24, it is perhaps the most-handy lens for a Sony aps-c body. Didn't you ever wonder why it was one of the very first lenses introduced with the NEX-7?? It was pricy but also a real system-maker. Before I bought it, I bought the Sigma 30 2.8, Sigma 18 2.8, Rokinon 21 1.4 manual focus, then Sigma 30 1.4. I've always imagined Sony had agreements with other makers to share the mount info only by agreement not to compete with the 24 for ten years - and so as intended - I bought all those other lenses, but they couldn't substitute...and keep in mind there was no Sony 16-55 2.8 nor Tamron 17-70 2.8, so there was no good zoom option for an equivalent fast-ish 35mm AF lens. I probably should have bought the 24 in the first place instead of those other 4 lenses! (but I kept the Sigma 30 1.4 too...) Today there are many more options (including the Sigma 18-50 to be announced next week!) But the made-in-Japan ten-year-old 24 1.8 stands up even today....but for what price? Today I'm not sure.
Appreciate the comment! All good to disagree, we all don’t have the same experiences or use cases. I haven’t tried all the lenses available either! Thanks for watching and weighing in.
Yes please ! Do manual Lenses, I use manual focusing most of the time, so I really do not need autofocus (which such anyway !). You should have some affordable Lenses for full frame included, some of those are both compact, cheap or cheapish. If you want the very best Lenses you need some of the full frame Lenses...
I do NOT like zoom Lenses ! Only prime Lenses !
Great video, I have only 4 lenses, sigma 16mm, sigma 30mm, sony 18-105 f4, and sony 70-350, I was thinking of the new sigma 18- 50 f2.8, I like the size of the lense, and a good price, what do you think of the lense
Great set of lenses! I love the 18-50, it’s a great size. Distortion at the wide end, but it’s great travel lens
Hey there man! What do you think of the Sony 18-105mm? I'm really looking at getting a new lens and it seems perfectly priced. Really want to start taking social media and working for businesses seriously, I already have the 50mm f1.8, so the 18-105 gives me WAY more focal length and is great for video since I've always been a videographer really, but want to get into photography. However I was wondering if it's worth saving an extra £200 for the Tamron 17-70?
I have 3 lenses for my a6000.
One was S tier, one was F tier and one was right in the middle.
I am perfectly balanced.
nice haha
Would love to see your in depth opinion on the 18-200mm and the 30mm macro (or maybe a dedicated macro lens video review, if possible). For me, these would be two lenses that I would be very interested in investing in down line.
For now, I’m still battling with myself between the 35mm & 50mm!
Awesome, thanks for the input Katy!
I’ve had the 30mm macro for a few years. Sharpness in the middle is good. Very light, and not too big. If you plan to only photograph stationary objects, then it will serve you well.
18 - 200 mm lens is my sleeper lens, my favourite, versatile AF
18 - 200 mm Sony is my main lens, super sharp and super versatile. No regrets whatsoever and I saved a lot of cash with it.
Is my sleeper. When i show up to a photo shoot eith one lens they think im crazy or amateur but the lens is a sleeper again and i dont need to carry on a lot of lenses for what i do
Love to hear this!
Hey Kyle, I picked up my a6000 just last week and have been loving all your videos!
Quick question, I have the 16-50 kit lens and the sony 50mm f/1.8. I mainly want to do street photography and record music videos (sometimes in low light settings). I am tossing up whether to buy the Sony 35mm f/1.8 or the Sony 18-105mm f/4 next. Which would you recommend to buy first?
The 18-105mm f4 is great for video, and it’s nice to have a lens with such a wide range. For low light music video shots, the 35mm f1.8 would be nice. Both are great lenses - I’m a prime guy and I absolutely love my 35mm. I think it just depends what you want to do next.
@@kyletaggart thanks for the advice! Keep up the great content. ❤ from Australia
@@darkdaze240 I know this is late, but if you haven't gotten a lens yet I totally vouch for getting a prime. Primes are always better quality and a lot of times having a prime lens will make you interact with your subject more. You can't just zoom in. It's all preference though. After 5 years and a decent amount on photography I will say that 90% of the time I have the the Sigma 16mm or the 35mm depending on what i'm doing. I've owned a few zoom lenses and they're versatile and convenient but for me personally once I got my first really good prime lens I never went back. Getting a nice lens is the most important purchase for your camera. I remember my first camera I spent like $600 on the body, and just got a kit lens. I should have gotten a $200-300 camera and a nice prime lens instead. Oh well. No matter what you get its all about going out and taking photos, having fun and living life! That's how I feel at least now
Only thing I disagree with is the 20mm 2.8. It’s well known the 20mm pancake is much better than the 16mm version if you look around. I own both and it’s very odd but the 20mm is much sharper and has no distortion compared to the 16mm which may be Sonys worst prime. I’d recommend you try it and you will be surprised.
A6400 + Sony 35mm f1.8 the best combo ever existed.
*chefs kiss*
Awesome ranking! Definitely some lenses I'm interested in, and maybe get rid of one. Keep these coming! Thanks!
Laowa 9mm + Sigma 16mm + Sigma 30mm + Sigma 56mm + Sony 70-350mm is already perfect.
Have same lenses,Use on the A6400 great results with camera and lenses.
Laowa 9mm. Interesting!
love to see videos on vintage manual lenses. Pentax, Nikkor and others. Better bang for the buck !!
Love your channel. Very informative. Thanks! Keep em coming! 🙌🏼
Thanks so much!
My kit: Sony A6100, Sony 70-350 mm, Sigma 16/f1.4 and Sigma 30/f1.4.
I personally would put the 70-350 higher. Although costly (got it on sale for $750), the pictures it produces compared to my old 55-210 are remarkably crisper and more vibrant. The autofocus also works remarkably well, and the build feels decently balanced On my 6100. Until Tamron or someone makes another ultrazoom lens, this is the unquestionable choice!
Looking to add the Sigma 56/f1.4 next! Also really tempted by the new Tamron wide zoom lens which looks incredible, please do a video once you get it!
Thanks Josh! Yeah that’s a great deal you got on the 70-350!
You just happen to have the exact three lenses that I want most.
But I have the Sigma 56mm.
I would also put the 70-350 in the S column. Bought it used for usd650, and it’s a stellar performer.
The Sigma 56 is also in my S column. Nothing beats the sharpness of that lens.
Although I like the performance of the Sigma 16, I would put it in A column just because of it’s bulk and weight. That annoys me sometimes.
I managed to the Sony G master 70-350mm for 700AUD, for the price I think it will be in S.
Cool video Kyle!! I really want to see you do the tier list for manual lens as well. 👍🏾
might have to! thanks
I was only waiting for the 35mm f1.8 sony to pop up. Since you ranked it here also as S tier im gonna buy it now new or used, saw one used for 250€ and new on Amazon rn for 300€.
While I don't agree with your ranking (F) of the Sony/Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 I can understand why it isn't more popular. Mainly because it is simply too expensive for what it is, although it has come down a couple hundred dollars of late. I bought my Zeiss well before the Sony 24/1.4 G Master lens came out. The Zeiss is a fine lens, although it is prone to color fringing on high contrast subjects (tree branches against a bright blue sky). I can fix that in post so I don't consider it a big deal, although others certainly might after paying so much for the lens. When the Sony G Master 24/1.4 came out I had the opportunity to try one out. It's a great lens but not enough better than the Zeiss to make me want to spend the money on it. The other thing about the Zeiss 24/1.8 is it is an old design and it shows. I would like to also add that folks need to reign in their Zeiss enthusiasm these days. The Zeiss name no longer guarantees much any more... other than the price will be high. I have a Zeiss 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Tessar (T* coatings) made in Germany (Contax/Yashica mount). If I taped over the name and handed it to you to test you would most likely swear it's some old Soligor lens from the 1970's. Sadly, anymore the Zeiss name has lost its clout, at least for me. And I have quite a few Zeiss camera lenses.
Thanks for a nice video,
Don
*When I Bought My a6400 (body only) my FIRST Lens was the Kit Lens as I got it open box for $165 and then bought the 50mm f1.8 but didn't like it returned it and got the 16mm f2.8 which I love for Vlogging and then of course I bought 2 Sigma's the 16mm and 30mm f1.4 and although there isn't THAT much of a difference between the f2.8 and f1.4 for me it's the size when carrying it around for vlogging but I'll be looking to get the a6600 for the OSS *
Thanks for this helpful video, Kyle!
thanks for watching!
Funny, the only two lenses I own so far are the only two in S-tier. Hopefully the Tamron 11-20 is good for astro and landscape because I'm looking for a lightweight setup for backpacking
+ for manual lenses video 👍
100% agree with your S tier! I would put those two in my top tier as well, with the addition of the Tamron 17-70 for the versatility. I'll take my Sony 35 with me to the grave 😂
Haha pry it from our dead hands!!
So what you are saying is buy it? I've currently got the sigma trio, and not gonna lie the 30mm just isn't doing it for me. Would the 35 bridge the gap for me?
Thanks for this awesome and informative video.
I have the Sony 35mm and honestly I don't think it's as sharp as it should be. I got it second hand and I'm not sure if there's something wrong with it and I don't have another sony 35mm lens to compare it with. How can I find out?
Really? Well, there’s tests you can do, but there’s also a question if it’s the user vs the lens. Do you have the kit lens? You could compare shots to that lens (use a tripod). Shoot a photo of something not moving, like a brick wall (something with detail). There’s also graphs for this purpose you can use. Also keep in mind, the full sharpness of a lens is almost never at its fastest aperture. So for the Sony 35mm f1.8, it’s really at a lower f stop, most likely f5.6 (I don’t know what aperture for 100%). But the sharpness will increase as you stop it down, f2.8, f3.5, etc. then the sharpness will decrease as you hit f11, f16 etc due to diffraction (usually). I’d say perform some tests for yourself and compare center and corner sharpness - and take photos at diff apertures and see how the center and corners change. Use aperture priority mode - set the ISO to 100, And then only shutter speed will change. This will give you a better idea of how the lens sharpness performs throughout its aperture range.
Great video Kyle, at this time I only own 4 lenses sigma 16mm and 30 mm 1.4, sony 18-105 for, and sony 70-350,I want to try ASTRO photography when I go on cruise in September, are the sigma lenses good for that or what would you recommend, I recently tried taking fireworks pictures and used my 18-105 sony, I guess I was a little disappointed, maybe because of the f4,what would use? Thanks for any input
The sigma 16mm f1.4 has a trick to it when nailing auto focus. You go to infinity - then turn the lens as you see it “notch” 3 times. That will be true infinity focus. Focus by wire lenses are not great for Astro - but once you get this down with the sigma 16mm it becomes easier. Also focus magnification on the brightest star helps!
@@kyletaggart That’s a great tip! I normally just use magnification when manual focusing, next time I’ll try your method. Thanks!
I had the 18-105 f4 and toko it on a few holidays. I got fed up with the weight and sold it!
The weight and size were also a factor for me. I really liked the 18-105 but did end up selling it and replaced it with the Sony 18-135 which is smaller, lighter, has a tiny bit more reach, and is just as sharp. At the wide open end it is even faster than the 18-105.
Hi kyle thank you so much for your informative videos, just found out about you with the SD Cards vid and I loved it, I'm getting started with this and my first camera is actually a Sony A6000 but i have oine question, how do I know which lens to chose? What criteria should I be applying in order for me to chose a lens for this particular camera:(
Depends what you’re shooting! There is no BEST lens for all purposes. Totally depends on what you’re shooting and trying to go for.
Though ur video is very subjective, I still love it, I have the zeiss1670 and I love it so much because of it's photography's colour, thanks for comparison
Thanks George! Just a fun change of pace lately
I would be curious on what you think on the sony 18-200mm. I just started tinkering with photography on an A6000, and this is one of the lenses I have for it. BTW as for weight it is 100g heavier then the Sigma 16.
I would like to test that lens, they should make a newer lighter version!
Great video! Any thoughts on Sigma's 18-50mm that they released?
Did a video on it! Love it. I brought it with me to my honeymoon and shot with it exclusively. ruclips.net/video/HrXepF0KvbI/видео.html
Enjoyed your review. Two differences of opinion. Really love my 10-18. Best travel lens I've ever owned. Would have gotten the Tamron 11-20 though if it was out then. Hated the 55-200. I could never get a really crisp shot with it. So it might be that particular lens, or it may be style of shooting.
viltrox 23mm f1.4 vs Sigma 30mm 1.4 which one you suggest
I personally like the Viltrox 23mm, but it’s just my opinion.
Hi Kyle, what do you think about Samyang AF 35mm F1.8 FE then Sony 35mm F1.8 OSS?
I prefer APSC lenses on APSC bodies. If you have an a600 body or similar I'd go with the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS.
thanks!! i saw your review of 35 mm and i just bought it... i bought the 18-105 too and im looking for a longer lens to shoot skate pictures.. what lens do you recomend?
by the way... such an amazing lens is 18-105 for video... it makes your camera a videocamera in a second... autofocus is amazing and the zoom is dope!
Definitely is! I just don’t use it often. So you want a longer lens than the 18-205? I went over some tamron lenses in this list. Sony and tamron have older 18-200’s👍🏻
Great vudeo, i use for my A6000 also Sigma 30mm f1.4, is great Lens to but i need now something new like 10mm what you can recommend for me in good price not for thousands pound ?
10mm? Or 100mm?
Time to update this list now that the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is out 😏
9:55 this one def enters full frame territory
Great video - full of info
Thanks Clint!
Hey Kyle, I would like to know your opinion on the FE 85mm 1.8 from Sony. Some call it the nicest portrait lens for the sony apsc cameras. It surely isn't the most versatile, but from what i've seen it's super sharp and has full frame levels of bokeh.
I’m sure it’s probably great, but this was specifically for APS-C lenses. 👍🏻
Thanks now back to accumulating more lenses instead of practicing my skills hahahah. Awesome video !
Hi Kyle, I'm really excited with your tier list of lenses. Actually when I bought my sony a6000, which I have up to now, I wanted something much sharper and optically superior than the kit lense 16-50, so I bought the sony zeiss 16-70 f4 as a "kit" with the a6000, and also I have bought the sony 50 f1.8 for the low light conditions, night photography, etc. Remember that all this was back in 2014, so there were barely no alternatives to the sony lenses back then. I'm very disappointed with the 16-70 lense, it's extremely soft at the edges of the zoom range, so at 16 or at 70 mm. And in between it is really not that great, it is not worth the money. So now I want to get rid of this lense for some money, like 250 bucks or something, and get the new tamron 17-70 f2.8 instead, which I believe a really superior lense. The real problem that I have with my hobby of photography is that I have v e r y shaky hands, so I must put my camera on a tripod or a monopod every time I want to have sharp images, but it slows me down and I really want to be able to taking good photos handheld. So, I must have stabilized lenses, because the a6000 doesn't have ibis. I know that the sigma trio are awesome lenses, but they don't have image stabilization, so I have a problem with them. Also I want an ultra wide angle lens, but almost all of those are without IS, except for the not so great 10-18 f4...So, what do you think is a solution to my misery? I don't want to break the bank with the upgrade to the amazing a6600...
IBIS will help in video mostly, and for photo it will come in handy when it’s lower light, and you’re using a slower shutter speed. I’d challenge you to what scenarios your photos seem out of focus or not sharp. If you’re in aperture priority mode, it could be because your shutter speed is too slow. With the sigma lenses you can let in a little more light at f1.4 and bump up the shutter speed a tad. It really depends on the situation as well as your hands.
Great list!
Appreciate it Kevin!
About the Sony 16mm pancake lens: optical, its nothing special.
But you can get your Sony camera into your pants pocket. This gets me a ton of great shots around town, that I would have missed without the convenience of that Pancake lens. Not to mention, I like the 24mm equivalent.
If Sony ever made a better version of this, I'd buy it.
Where would you put the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
Probably A maybe even S.
Hi..
Great vids..
I have question but sorry out of topic, have you tried to use external mic using usb adapter for a6000?
Someone said that its possible but I cant find real proof/video.
Thanks
Thanks! And no. It hasn’t worked when I’ve tried it.
Thanks for the review kyle! How about TTArtisan 35mm f1.4 vs Viltrox 33mm? but TT has much lower price
Because the TTArtisan doesn’t have auto focus.
@@kyletaggart hah but i love the feeling of the focus switching in the frame
Hi! Like your videos. Will you upload more new videos? Especially there are a lot new lenses
I’m thinking about it! Thanks for watching and your comment.
@@kyletaggart nice can't wait for it. It's a pleasure:D
Great vid! tks!
Great video. I agree with you on much of the stuff. I have had the Sigma 56 for more than a year now. Great lens.
Shame!! Sony does not have a decent 35mm equivalent. The Sony 24 Z is bloody expensive. There should have been a a great bunch of 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135 mm primes for the system.
Viltrox made the 23mm f1.4 Ans I love it - it has vignetting at f1.4 but overall I love the lens. I wonder if someone will make a longer prime someday like an 85mm (APSC).
@@kyletaggart Thanks Kyle. I will try the Viltrox 23. I already like the sound of having another f1.4.
I always wonder how the Sony 85mm f1.8 would work on the APS-C. It has the sharpness rating of 16 on DXOMARK for A6000, which is as sharp as the Sigma 30 f1.4.
The Sony 85 is now a decent price too. It's weather sealed too.
@@kaushaltiwari9773 I’ve used the 85 on aps-c. While the sharpness was good, I felt that the optimum quality range is quite narrow on aps-c. Compared to using it on FF (where it is excellent), all the shortcomings of this lens gets multiplied on the smaller sensor. The CA and bloom is particularly distracting at wide open apertures. It still performs better than a lot of lenses, but compared to the Sigma 56, it doesn’t wow me as much.
Sigma 56 is S tier, Sony 35 1.8 is A tier
Good job ! Thank You )
Thanks!
Great video as usual. Actually, I think I'm ready to go ahead on a Viltrox 33 mm... I'll check your "Sony a6000 Lenses for under 100!" before heading to Amazon.
I’ve done reviews on a lot of manual lenses - most under $100. So def take a look. Manual lenses are fun as heck! But also understandable if you want AF. The Viltrox 33mm is slept on!
@@kyletaggart I just did! I Think I'll stick with the viltrox. Exactly because the AF. thanks for sharing all your knowledge!
Where would you out the new sigma 18-50mm f2.8?
Freaking S. Love that lens so much!
Sony 50mm 1.8 oss is so stunning!
Great lens for the price! But it does have some shortcomings. Strong LoCA and slow AF in low light if mounted on an A6000. On newer bodies it performs better.
@@saifaldin_ i have the a6000 and this lens and the AF is good
@@co2435 I used that lens for more than 2 years on an a6000, and I found the AF on the Sony 35mm f1.8 much better. For daytime it was accurate & snappy, but in low light it was lacking. Maybe it’s just my copy.. 🤷♂️
@@saifaldin_ maybe
what lense is the best for sports games
Outdoor sports - a good starter is the Sony 55-210mm. Others are Sony 18-135mm, Sony 18-105mm f4.
Hey , what could be the grade for Neewer 35mm f1.7 ?
I plan on doing a manual lens list. I’d say it’s probably a B. Great sharpness for the price and it’s small.
@@kyletaggart Thanks for coming back!
I have most of these lenses and my favorites are the Sony 18-135 and the Zeiss 24/1.8. I actually prefer the kit lens 16-50 over the Sony 16 or 20 pancakes. A stop slower, but much more versatile and almost a pancake. Not so fond of the Sigma 30/1.4. Autofocus is struggling. I also use a lot of Samyang's FF lenses, because these new ones are really good and light. Haven't tried any Viltrox though.
I would be interested in the 11-20 too if it had stabilization considering its price
I like the performance, and I don’t need stabilisation for my particular use, but I do wish the price to be slightly lower.
Thanks man🙏
Thanks for watching!
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your ranking of the Sony Zeiss 24 mm f1.8 lens. You gave it the worst rating possible, even way below the 16-50 kit lens!! That really doesn't make sense. Yes, you could question if the cost is worth it, but you are trashing it while basing that on what you 'heard' about it. I bought it because of SO many excellent reviews of its sharpness, etc. Maybe now the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a better option, but I don't think the 24 mm deserves an F rating ;)
Also, one thing you left out around the Sony 16-55 f2.8 vs the Tamron 17-70 f2.8. You did mention how the Tamron could now supplant the Sony, but since you are talking about lenses for the a6000, you left out how the Sony has no stabilization, and the Tamron does. Also the Tamron is less expensive than the Sony.
That being said, I enjoyed this video, and liked that you covered all this wide range of options. Also, I liked that you often mentioned what you like to use, based on what you use the lenses for; clearly it is hard to say what lens is 'better' without considering what someone needs it for. As well, this is a nice reminder that Sony APS-C shooters have a very wide range of lens options.
For me, I feel stuck a bit with difficulty deciding what to purchase next. I have the a6000 and the Sony 24mm f1.8 ZA, the Sony 10-18 f4, the kit 16-50, and the Sony 55-210 (and I also have an old Canon macro lens with an adaptor). For my next lens purchase, I find it hard to decide between the Tamron 17-70 (good, but expensive and heavy), the Sigma 56mm f1.4 (great, but missing the Zoom versatility), the Sony 18-135 (very lightweight, great as travel lens, but slow aperture), or perhaps the Sigma 28-70 f2.8 (FF lens, so helpful to have if I ever decided to move to FF). I also like the reviews of the Sony 70-350, while it is expensive and heavy, it sounds like it would have a lot of benefits over the 55-210. Of all these options, I've been leaning towards the Tamron 17-70, but my main hesitation is the size and weight, and whether I will find that too inconvenient. Since I have a new grandson, and want to do a lot of indoors and portraits, maybe the Sigma 56mm is a better option (vs the Tamron 17-70), since the Sigma is f1.4, and is smaller and less expensive.
You got the zeiss cheap! Lol cheater! Haha
Good job.
Tamron 70-300?
The Sony 35mm 1.8 OSS is great but doesn't merit S tier, maybe A... It's super soft and low contrast at 1.8. Only matches the competition above 4.0. Very meh.
Zeiss touit 50??? Where is that
if sigma 16mm is s tier, then I’m disappointed by this ranking…I got one last month and the image quality was not that good…
What’s wrong with the IQ of the lens?
Naruto fans: is the background music the haku one handed jutsu of tik tok? :3
I love anime but somehow that’s one of the big ones I haven’t seen. It’s music from epidemic sound, but maybe it’s close to what you’re thinking lol
@@kyletaggart i think is the same, because is a music of some tik toks, not of naruto, but they do the hand sings of haku in those lol
you didn't even put ur hands on some of the lenses. bad reviews. i know it's you're opinion but it's based of other people's reviews. not good boy
It’s an opinion video. 🤷🏻♂️
i wonder how many time this guy said tier !!! need new name !!
It’s a tier list video lol. Maybe “rank?” 😂