camera/lens advice please

QuietOC wrote: I like the lowly Sony FE 1.8/50 a lot. It has grown on me. At first I thought it was overpriced. It is not at all sealed. It just make nice images. The Sigma and Samyang 45's are strong alternatives, especially the Sigma.

What made you think the Sony 50/1.8 was overpriced? It is a slightly better classic 50mm, so, the price being cheaper then, say, a Canon 50/1.4 USM would be fair. For APS-C I would choose the 50/1.8 OSS any day, and I have got an 55/1.8 as my normal lens in stead of the 50/1.8 - but the more I look at reviews, the 50/1.8 is a nice lens that has a fair price. Is it the AF with older bodies that made you think it was overpriced?

I looked long and hard at normal lenses, I got a Samyang 45/1.8, but I did not like it. Then I looked at the 55/1.8, but I think it is somewhat overpriced then I looked into the 50/1.8 - I almost went for it, but in the end, the colour and contrast of the 55/1,8 made me decide for the 55/1.8 when I found one for a good price. But I think the 50/1.8 is a good lens with later full-frame bodies

I regret buying the Sony FE 1.8/85. It is not a focal length I use often, and it doesn't compare well with other 85's for how I'd use 85's. It is a better 85 than the Samyang 75/1.8. The Samyang is better at being small, light, and less expensive.

It seems you're the only one who does not like the Sony 85/1.8. I love mine. It is a better lens then the Minolta 85/1.8G and the Canon 85/1.8 in all respects. But then, unlike you, 85mm is important to me

The 2nd runner in my options here is quite a bit different from the A7II + 28 + 50 macro. This pairing intrigues me:
- a6400
- 10-18/4 OSS

Both the a6400 and SEL1018 have mention of WR on their Sony pages. And I've gotten very attached to the RX100 (and GX9) corner viewfinder position. Shame the A7C is so new and out of budget but I'd not view the a6400/10-18 pair as a compromise - just different. I would delve into more wide angle work. It could be my 2 years on APS before I then move to the A7C (when II launches). I'm almost certain that I'd shoot in 16:9 and not 3:2 when I shift to APS or FX anyway with ventures into wider formats too (e.g. Dyxum / Open Talk / Project 21x9) ... so a 10-18mm ('15-28mm') could be a lot of fun. I could treat it the same way as an A7II/28, as a one lens set-up.

The negative here is that it is only f4. And I'd not really be stepping back into a world of bokehness (week50mm styley). I can match APS f4 with an f2.8 on m43 and there are plenty of options there.

Also conscious that Sony's optics tend to be centred on FX stuff so I'd be moving to Sony APS for pretty much just one lens in their native APS line-up. Since I'm not really looking to build a system bigger than 1-2 lenses that should stop me though.

The SEL1018 reviews rather well in here:
https://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sony-10-18mm-F4-OSS_lens708.html

- - -

The 3rd option is to re-consider my dismissal of any third party lenses. I'm not a fan of the advisory notes that I've seen. And have had historically two poor experiences of Sigma. Luckily nothing Sigma does today (while pretty impressive and liked) is something that fits my need. But Sony have licensed their mount/specs so these third parties are not working from a reverse engineer start point.

Tamron have a triplet of 20/24/28mm primes that deliver 1/2 size macro. And the lenses are kinda small, sort of 28/2 sized. My fave macro of olde was the Minolta 50/3.5 (1:2 macro) - I rarely bumped into close focus limit and appreciate a macro as a close-up lens as much as anything else. Tamron also mention some form of sealing (although the trust/performance of that sealing is questioned in the one review each lens has in here).

A Tamron 24/2.8 or Tamron 35/2.8 on A7II could be a well placed alternative to 28/2 + 50 macro as a ONE lens option. I wish they hadn't skipped 28mm! I'm sure I could adapt to 24 or 35 view if it means I also always have my 'macro' mounted.    

- - -

I could even combine the Tamron 24/2.8 with the a6400 and have a '37mm' walkabout which also does macro. I'm not really a fan of full-frame lenses on APS bodies (departed that when I left dSLR for mirrorless in 2008). But at least the Tam 24 is small and designed for mirrorless.

size and shape is pretty similar:
camera size > a6400 / 10-18 / Tam 24 / A7II / 28 / Tam 35

I like the APS-C 35/1.8 OSS and 50/1.8 OSS. Sigma also has some nice offerings for a small APS-C set-up.

I tend to bring full frame for really serious stuff, but the A6400 for anything else. Used it a lot during my lock-down hikes.

I am in the market for a 20mm lens, but I ruled out the Tamron 20mm based on the reviews of that lens. It seems the 24mm and 35mm are fine.

Thank you @peg - it might be your review in the database here that helped me consider the 10-18/4?

I've seen mention of it working on FF a few times now. Odd on it's own. Odder than it only works at 12-16 (not at either end, zoom tech huh). I doubt I'd get into an 'R' body (I would take a 12mp FF sensor in a snap, Nikon D700 era please).

This shouldn't really be a factor but the biggest thing keeping me away from the a6400/10-18 is the price of the a7II/28f2. I just cannot get my head around dropping more money on an APS outfit than full-frame. I think the a6400 is well spec/price-d. Perhaps it just shows what an absolute bargain the A7II is.

And as a general thank you to all for making your lens reviews - as a rusty gear geek I'm seeing lots of helpful info in that resource.

The Tam 1:2 macro triplet will still be considered. 24/2.8 would prevent me from getting the other two. But Tam 20 + Tam 35 are also a near match for Sony 28/2 + Sony 50/macro price. There is also Tam 24 + Sony 50 as an option on A7II (24 as a small walkabout, 50 for proper macro) - I shoot details a lot.

Ideally I want just one lens (and happy for that to be prime or SMALL zoom). The 28/2 is top of my list. Shame I'm not ready to drop A7C budget. Also that there aren't many small APS lenses with mention of WR. I know the 'WR' labeling is suspect on some items with lack of rubber ring but I do need some protection.

I'm getting close to a decision - thanks all for your help.

dCap wrote: Also that there aren't many small APS lenses with mention of WR. I know the 'WR' labeling is suspect on some items with lack of rubber ring but I do need some protection.

As long as you stay out of downpours, you'll be fine, you do not need WR. Most people do not shoot in bad weather and most lenses are made well enough to withstand some unexpected rain or mist.

dCap wrote: While I don't like the idea of putting FE glass onto an E/APS body as I'm a fan of 'made for this sensor' design. I would happily mount a Sony 50 macro to an APS body - it is one exception I'd make.

If you like narrow DOF (as most here seem to do, judging by the lenses they choose) there is an argument for using FF lenses on APS-C sensors (or FF sensors in crop mode) to avoid the dreaded 'cat's eyes' in OOF light sources. I always find these particularly annoying this time of year which is why I generally pair the A58 with Minolta primes for my Christmas light photography.
The old Minolta 50mm f1.7, for example, gives particularly good bokeh circles away form the centre when used on APS-C. The 28mm f2.8 is also good.

Perhaps the RX100 is just right for me?
Not WR but fits in my pocket and I can get one a year if the salt/sand kills it.

I would 'like' a proper camera though.

I'm as tempted as anything to just sell all the trial cameras I got (X-E3, X-T3, 16/2.8, 35/2, Pan GX9, 14, 20, 25, 12-60) and continue with the RX100 until something viable comes along. None of that lot is as much fun to use as the RX100.

The thoughts of grabbing a used Nikon D700 and then a used Canon 5D II for 6 months at a time were legit. I'd find a used prime in the 24/28/35/50 zone and show it what sand and salt spray looks like. No bag, just the camera and one prime on a strap. A beater.