Need help picking a lens!

[jeveretts]

Pulled the trigger tonight and ordered a Sony NEX-6 with the 16-50mm kit lens. My initial plan was to buy a second hand 55-210 on the bay @ around $200 beans. But now I am thinking... "hey! why not buy an adapter and some vintage glass!"
Thinking maybe I will get much better performance out of an old FD 70-210 F4 or something like it, for even less money.
I am not too sure how the Sony 55-210 is, but I bet it is a little soft at the far end, which is what I would want it for

Any suggestions?

 

[cgw]

Keep in mind the crop factor for old glass. Fast(ish) primes in orphan MF mounts like Minolta/Canon FD are worth exploring.

 

[jeveretts]

Keep in mind the crop factor for old glass. Fast(ish) primes in orphan MF mounts like Minolta/Canon FD are worth exploring.

That's what I was thinking. Adapters are plentiful, as are old lenses. I have had the thought of a Canon FD 200mm 2.8, seems pretty fast for 200, and on a NEX 6 that would probably give some nice reach for birds and whatnot?

 

[Braineack]

and on a NEX 6 that would probably give some nice reach for birds and whatnot?

200mm is still pretty short on a 1.5x as far as birding goes.

 

[albianir]

I Have tested various mirror less cameras, the micro43 cameras offers the best autofocus (em1 and gh4 especially) and m43 offer the most biggest lenses park. I'm disappointed only for small sensor that produces images with bif depth of field and not 3d images but with its smallest lens is the best choice for velocity and accuracy AF and high IQ. Sony is FF highest images quality and 3d bute lens are big and most expansive zeiss, AF is slowly and much much noise shot (sound) because have mechanic system. My compromise is for Fuji x cameras with excellent fast primes lens, build excellent, and superb quality image. Use is very very good with aperture ring. AF is fast only in XT1 and XE2. But the best camera for me is xpro1 (Leica style, excellent dial an doll commands are in right position with easy accessibility. I use actually two bodies (xpro1 and xe1) with 14 2.8 (21 equivalent, sensor is apsc) and 35 1.4 (50mm equiv) and 56 1.2 (85 equiv)



Inviato da mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

A lens is only really sharp when it's DEAD-ON in-focus...if you cannot get perfect focus, even the best lens will look soft and crummy. My suggestion is to evaluate the thrill of a good deal on a used, old lens versus the utility of AF from a "native mount" lens that offers you AF...it's not really clear-cut which would be the better course of action for you.

I dunno...if you want "reach", a 200mm lens doesn't offer nearly as much as say a decent 300mm prime lens does. if you want low-cost and 200mm and SHARP, as in really SHARP, the m42 thread mount Super-Takumar 200mm f/4 is VERY sharp, and is available for like $65-$70 in great shape. It also has a rather long, precision focus throw, so it's easy to NOT have that hair-trigger focusing action so many lenses have these days.

I was looking at a NEX 5R this week and debating about it myself...

 

[dxqcanada]

Why do so many people buy a new state of the art camera and then throw an old lens and a cheap fiddly adapter on it ??????

... you should ask Danny (nzmacro) that question.

I would have done that if they (mirrorless cameras) were around before I sold all my good Canon FD lenses ... I like many of the "old" lenses.

 

[dxqcanada]

PBut now I am thinking... "hey! why not buy an adapter and some vintage glass!"
Thinking maybe I will get much better performance out of an old FD 70-210 F4 or something like it, for even less money.

Check out the Olympus Zuiko 65-200mm f/4 lens.

 

[jeveretts]

Funny thing happened. I bought the Sony, used it for two weeks and returned it and bought an Olympus E-M5. I have two 'kit' lenses with my E-M5 and I have one Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.4, which seems pretty sharp to me.
But I get what you mean, I have the 40-150, and even with that and AF I have a hard time getting flying birds in focus, I can only imagine with a legacy lens it would be completely impossible.

 

[dxqcanada]

It is possible with skill ... Danny (nzmacro) shoots all his moving subjects with MF lenses.
Heck, us old photographers shot everything manually (and some still do) before there was AF.

 

[weepete]

Tbh the only thing that puts me off buying some vintage glass is the loss of f stops with the adapters. The only way round that seems to be a custom fit mount conversion which is pricey when added to the cost of a lens and I've only seen Eddie Huston (aka the lens doctor) selling them.

 

[robbins.photo]

It is possible with skill ... Danny (nzmacro) shoots all his moving subjects with MF lenses.
Heck, us old photographers shot everything manually (and some still do) before there was AF.

Kids.. kids.. get in here. Grandpa is going to tell us all a story about what life was like before we had autofocus.

Lol

 

[dxqcanada]

It is possible with skill ... Danny (nzmacro) shoots all his moving subjects with MF lenses.
Heck, us old photographers shot everything manually (and some still do) before there was AF.

Kids.. kids.. get in here. Grandpa is going to tell us all a story about what life was like before we had autofocus.

Lol

Back in the old'n days we didn't have that newfangled zoom thingy, we had to run closer or further away to change the view.
... and don't get me on that whole roll film craze. We had to get the perfect shot on just one sheet of film.