Moving to Sony A6500

GSheehan

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
18
Reaction score
3
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I know there's plenty of threads similar to what I'm about to write but I felt like I wanted some direct advice too.

I currently have a Canon t5i, Canon 16-35 f/4L and Canon 55-250 f/4.5-5.6. I've had the camera for about 3 years now but find my self using it a lot more than I used to and getting into video a lot more too (as a hobby and for some jobs).

As a result I'm looking to change to a Sony a6500 as it seems to cover all my needs for photo and video. My predicament is with lenses.

I know the 55-250 won't be compatible with the Sony but I'm absolutely in love with the 16-35 as I take mostly landscape photos. I've only had it a few months but should I sell my 16-35 and get the Sony version or get Metabones or similar? I'm also concerned that I'll need a good telephoto lens and not sure if there is a good Sony equivalent in my price range which is drawing me towards an adapter and then a purchase of an original Canon 70-200 f/4. Also drawn to the adapters as I see that they are getting better and Metabones V looks to cover nearly all features of the A6500 and I'd love to be able to use more Canon lenses as Sonys are crazy expensive.

Thanks in advance!
 
First of all, what exactly is your budget? That doesn’t seem particularly clear. And yes, the high-end adapters can access nearly all of the features, however, I believe the autofocus is still a tiny bit slower than with native lenses. If most of your shooting is of still objects, or at least slow objects, then this probably isn’t a huge deal. If you want to shoot sports, it could be a problem.

Also, are you ever planning on upgrading to full frame, and want to start out with full frame lenses, or are ASP-C lenses okay? Full frame lenses can be used on both ASP-C cameras and full frame cameras, but are often bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

I can give you a quick run-down of what’s available as basically the direct equivalents is what you have.

First, there is a full frame 16-35 f4, which would be very similar to what you have. It has excellent reviews. There’s also a full frame 16-35 2.8 GM, which has absolutely phenomenal reviews, but it’s insanely expensive.

For APS-C, there’s the 10-18 f4, which is beloved for landscape photographers. Not sure if that’s too wide for you, since you’re used to 16-35 on a crop sensor already. There’s also the 16-70 f4 Zeiss and the 18–105 f4. Both have great reviews. The Zeiss is smaller and many argue has better image quality, and the 18-105 is cheaper and has more range.

For telephoto, there’s the very cheap APS-C kit lens, 55-210. I recommend getting it used, because you can find great deals on it. I own this lens, and it’s sharp enough and fast enough, although not really exceptional.

For full frame, there’s the 70-200 f4. It’s a fairly large lens, but gets absolutely fantastic reviews. It’s fast, sharp, and gorgeous. The 70-200 2.8 is even better in every way, but it’s MASSIVE and you’ll probably have to sell a kidney in order to afford it. At least, I know I would. :p The 70-300 is another to consider. Great reviews and a little bit more range than the others.

While Sony has some lenses that aren’t very well received, the ranges that you’re looking for all have multiple choices that all get pretty good reviews. The biggest deciding factor will probably be your budget and how strict of a budget you need to stick to. Some of these lenses are pretty new and aren’t often available on the used market, but if you can find them, that would probably save you a considerable amount.
 
First of all, what exactly is your budget? That doesn’t seem particularly clear. And yes, the high-end adapters can access nearly all of the features, however, I believe the autofocus is still a tiny bit slower than with native lenses. If most of your shooting is of still objects, or at least slow objects, then this probably isn’t a huge deal. If you want to shoot sports, it could be a problem.

Also, are you ever planning on upgrading to full frame, and want to start out with full frame lenses, or are ASP-C lenses okay? Full frame lenses can be used on both ASP-C cameras and full frame cameras, but are often bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

I can give you a quick run-down of what’s available as basically the direct equivalents is what you have.

First, there is a full frame 16-35 f4, which would be very similar to what you have. It has excellent reviews. There’s also a full frame 16-35 2.8 GM, which has absolutely phenomenal reviews, but it’s insanely expensive.

For APS-C, there’s the 10-18 f4, which is beloved for landscape photographers. Not sure if that’s too wide for you, since you’re used to 16-35 on a crop sensor already. There’s also the 16-70 f4 Zeiss and the 18–105 f4. Both have great reviews. The Zeiss is smaller and many argue has better image quality, and the 18-105 is cheaper and has more range.

For telephoto, there’s the very cheap APS-C kit lens, 55-210. I recommend getting it used, because you can find great deals on it. I own this lens, and it’s sharp enough and fast enough, although not really exceptional.

For full frame, there’s the 70-200 f4. It’s a fairly large lens, but gets absolutely fantastic reviews. It’s fast, sharp, and gorgeous. The 70-200 2.8 is even better in every way, but it’s MASSIVE and you’ll probably have to sell a kidney in order to afford it. At least, I know I would. :p The 70-300 is another to consider. Great reviews and a little bit more range than the others.

While Sony has some lenses that aren’t very well received, the ranges that you’re looking for all have multiple choices that all get pretty good reviews. The biggest deciding factor will probably be your budget and how strict of a budget you need to stick to. Some of these lenses are pretty new and aren’t often available on the used market, but if you can find them, that would probably save you a considerable amount.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply! I'm based in Ireland so dealing in Euro. I can get the A6500 for 1100 euro and in the short term I have about another 800 euro to spend on lenses and other bits. I seldom shoot sports so quick AF isn't a top priority.

I bought the Canon 16-35 a few months ago with the view to upgrading to full frame Canon but now that I'm moving more towards video, I want the best of both worlds and Canon isn't offering anything that's blowing my mind. I'd love to go a little wider for landscapes but don't want t give up IQ if I can help it by getting the 10-18mm Sony. I would love to get an A7RII but the budget doesn't allow it even with the expected price drop after the III was announced. But I would definitely want full frame lenses if possible. Top priority is something wide and 2nd is a 70-200 or similar for telephoto with the intention of getting an 18-105 or 24-105 down the line to cover all the ranges.

The price of Sony lenses has me leaning towards an adapter and the option of Canon lenses and with the IBIS in the A6500, I'm not as worried about buying telephotos without IS.

Overall, my budget would be pretty strict for the initial camera purchase and first lens and I'm wholly confused as to whether to ditch the Canon 16-35 and get the Sony equivalent or just bite the bullet, get an adapter and see how I fair with adapted lenses for a few months.
 
I don’t think you’d be sacrificing IQ by going with the Sony 10-18, because it gets excellent reviews. However, if you think maybe someday you might move to the full frame mirrorless, then it probably would be best to focus on full frame lenses (the 10-18 is for APS-C.)

It does sound like getting an adapter is definitely going to be your best bet for starting out. If you buy used and decide you don’t like it, you could likely sell it for hardly any loss at all.

The one thing that I would check in reviews is about lens noise, since you’re planning on doing video. I know some lenses are loud when they autofocus, which is disastrous in video. I don’t know if this is ever an issue with adapters, and I don’t know if any of the Canon lenses you’re using or considering make noise that can be heard in the video, but it’s something to check reviews for before you purchase.
 
"I'm looking to change to a Sony a6500 as it seems to cover all my needs for photo and video."

Curious what you think the Sony is going to add to your photography? They are both the same size sensors. I've made the switch from Canon to Sony and don't believe the grass is all that much greener over here.

My real world experience with the adapter and I've used a couple different varieties including the Metabones is they are hassle and often don't work (if you miss the shot because the system is hunting) then No. You paid for an AF lens, you paid for an AF compatible adapter and then you get blah. (yes I've always updated the firmware) Putting an adapter onto a mirrorless then placing a large zoom makes the handling unbalanced, heavy and honestly unpleasant to work with, either on a tripod or handheld.

Finally, unless you have found a good deal on a used one or really really need to switch I probably would wait for their next model as it's probably less than sixth months away. After February I want to see if we finally start seeing h265 in cameras, a hopeful maybe(???)
 
I own Nikon and Sony.
You will like your new Sony, low light performance and dynamic range will be a nice big step from your current camera.
Why do you want the A6500 and not a6300 ?
I was on the fence when it came to which Sony to get and at the end I chose the a6300, for video on the move you will need a gimbal, the a6500 IBIS will not make much difference there.
There is a pretty big jump in price so it was not worth it for me.
Mind you the main PITA with Sony is its ridiculous small batteries, every small walk for few hours means 3 to 5 batteries, on the other hand these batteries are very cheap buying third party.
Also I wouldn't recommend using non Sony lenses as from all the reviews I saw the AF isn't working as good as it does with native lenses.
Another thing Sony isn't as reliable as Canon/Nikon from my experience, the camera suddenly get stuck for no reason, only battery removal will restore this, it happened out of the blue, not a big deal but still annoying.
And last its AF isn't as good as a good DSLR even though all in all its a good AF system.
 
I own Nikon and Sony.
You will like your new Sony, low light performance and dynamic range will be a nice big step from your current camera.
Why do you want the A6500 and not a6300 ?
I was on the fence when it came to which Sony to get and at the end I chose the a6300, for video on the move you will need a gimbal, the a6500 IBIS will not make much difference there.
There is a pretty big jump in price so it was not worth it for me.
Mind you the main PITA with Sony is its ridiculous small batteries, every small walk for few hours means 3 to 5 batteries, on the other hand these batteries are very cheap buying third party.
Also I wouldn't recommend using non Sony lenses as from all the reviews I saw the AF isn't working as good as it does with native lenses.
Another thing Sony isn't as reliable as Canon/Nikon from my experience, the camera suddenly get stuck for no reason, only battery removal will restore this, it happened out of the blue, not a big deal but still annoying.
And last its AF isn't as good as a good DSLR even though all in all its a good AF system.

I honestly think you should be checking if you have some settings that are draining the batteries or if you got a faulty camera. 3-5 batteries in a couple hours? One battery is pretty much guaranteed to last me about 4 hours, the number of photos taken doesn’t seem to matter much. I know on one particularly “spray-and-pray” day, I took over 1200 pictures in about an hour, and still had about 70% battery left.

I’ve never heard of anyone with the kind of battery life you’re mentioning. I really think it’s worth getting it looked at.
 
I own Nikon and Sony.
You will like your new Sony, low light performance and dynamic range will be a nice big step from your current camera.
Why do you want the A6500 and not a6300 ?
I was on the fence when it came to which Sony to get and at the end I chose the a6300, for video on the move you will need a gimbal, the a6500 IBIS will not make much difference there.
There is a pretty big jump in price so it was not worth it for me.
Mind you the main PITA with Sony is its ridiculous small batteries, every small walk for few hours means 3 to 5 batteries, on the other hand these batteries are very cheap buying third party.
Also I wouldn't recommend using non Sony lenses as from all the reviews I saw the AF isn't working as good as it does with native lenses.
Another thing Sony isn't as reliable as Canon/Nikon from my experience, the camera suddenly get stuck for no reason, only battery removal will restore this, it happened out of the blue, not a big deal but still annoying.
And last its AF isn't as good as a good DSLR even though all in all its a good AF system.

I honestly think you should be checking if you have some settings that are draining the batteries or if you got a faulty camera. 3-5 batteries in a couple hours? One battery is pretty much guaranteed to last me about 4 hours, the number of photos taken doesn’t seem to matter much. I know on one particularly “spray-and-pray” day, I took over 1200 pictures in about an hour, and still had about 70% battery left.

I’ve never heard of anyone with the kind of battery life you’re mentioning. I really think it’s worth getting it looked at.
Nah, I have a unique shooting style, played with my buddies a6000, it was a relatively short test, got same rough battery use.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top