Kit Lens or Prime whn buying a A 6400

[martin phillips]

I'm new to the forum . Hello all . Sorry that this is a question I guess you get all the time but : Im about to buy the A 6400 hVING USED A rx100 for the extra sensor size and a bit less fiddly for my hands . I am hoping for a good quality picture staright out of the cmera . I have tried a DSLR crop sensor with kit lens and picture very average out of the camera . My questio is : should I buy the Sony with the kit lens + £110 , or should I buy body only and instead a small prime lens to get better pics ? Thanks all

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

If you are shooting in low light that kit lens is useless. How many lenses are you planning on buying? Or do you want a one lens kit?

 

[martin phillips]

Thanks for contacting. Well I will only be able to afford one .Low light is not a particular need but inside yes . 3.3 of the kit is fairly poor really .Its the image quality I'm worried about more than anything as my Canon kit lens seemed very poor

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

In all honesty mate, as a one lens camera I'd be looking at a Fujifilm X-S10 with the 16-80mm lens package if you can stretch the budget there. The A6400 kit lens or the 18-135mm ain't going to deliver as good overall results as the Fujifilm combination.

Another option could be something like the A6400 with Sigma's 16mm and 52mm primes, but that only increases the budget. Personally I'd be leaning towards a zoom if it's going to be a one lens kit as just a single prime on it's own isn't going to give you much versatility.

The Sigma primes on an A6400 will improve your image quality over the RX100, but those two zooms I've mentioned won't be a dramatic improvement if any. The biggest advantage of the 18-135mm lens over the RX100 would be reach/versatility, that's about all.

 

[martin phillips]

Thanks for that. The fuji idea is good except that fuji last time I tried were well behind both sony and panasonic in achieving reliable and quick auto focus and metering .I guess that could have changed but its critical as its the number of successes. The little rx 100 lens at 1.8 gave some stunning shots.I found the whole kit too fiddly for my hands and the viewfinder not really usable .Maybe on the point and shoots they've got good glass on there. Will consider further , thanks

 

[Slug]

I use a Sigma 30 mm 2.8 on my A6400. Gives great results as city lens and not expensive.

 

[martin phillips]

Thanks im going to have a kook

 

[martin phillips]

Look

 

[TerryL]

Thanks im going to have a kook

Look at the Sony 20mm G too. A wonderful prime.

 

[Gaz]

My first SLR camera (1982) involved purchasing a 50mm prime lens with aperture of F1.7

I didn’t need anything else for three or four years.

 

[martin phillips]

Yes I too have great memories of my Nikons and I had 28 and 85 and they did everything . They were both fast and that made a big difference whereas these kit lenses will do anything but are slow . My question is whether to buy the kit lens for now or try to go straight to a prime . I've ruled out pancake as they too are a bit slow and too short and the other primes are a lot bigger than the OSS kit

 

[martin phillips]

Yes I too have great memories of my Nikons and I had 28 and 85 and they did everything . They were both fast and that made a big difference whereas these kit lenses will do anything but are slow . My question is whether to buy the kit lens for now or try to go straight to a prime . I've ruled out pancake as they too are a bit slow and too short and the other primes are a lot bigger than the OSS kit

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Thanks for that. The fuji idea is good except that fuji last time I tried were well behind both sony and panasonic in achieving reliable and quick auto focus and metering .I guess that could have changed but its critical as its the number of successes. The little rx 100 lens at 1.8 gave some stunning shots.I found the whole kit too fiddly for my hands and the viewfinder not really usable .Maybe on the point and shoots they've got good glass on there. Will consider further , thanks

While not trying to steer you away from Sony, I will just say that your information on Fuji is a bit out of date. Fuji cameras like the XT4 and XT5 are outperforming the a6400 in image quality and megapixels, though I believe the a6400 has the edge over the XT4 in autofocus.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I'm new to the forum . Hello all . Sorry that this is a question I guess you get all the time but : Im about to buy the A 6400 hVING USED A rx100 for the extra sensor size and a bit less fiddly for my hands . I am hoping for a good quality picture staright out of the cmera . I have tried a DSLR crop sensor with kit lens and picture very average out of the camera . My questio is : should I buy the Sony with the kit lens + £110 , or should I buy body only and instead a small prime lens to get better pics ? Thanks all

So I should have led with "Welcome to the forum" first haha, didn't mean to scare you off by saying Fuji isn't as bad as you thought.
As for the a6400, I love mine, but I loathed the original 16-50 kit lens. The 18-135 was better for outdoor shooting and travel. But it wasn't until I got the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 that I believed I had found my preferred "one-lens-solution".

Primes are fine, amazing even, if you've matched the focal length to the situation. Nothing else will get you as bright an aperture, or sharp a picture.
You want to do night sky or landscape? Sigma 16mm f1.4.
You want a "nifty-fifty" equivalent? Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Sony 35 f1.8.
You want the sharpest portrait lens on the APSC market? Sigma 56mm f1.4.
You want to shoot bugs? buy a dedicated Macro lens.

Primes have their place.

If you really want to challenge yourself to learn the camera, stick with a prime and learn to shoot with the limited focal length. Zoom with your feet and spend less time fiddling with zoom to learn better composition within the given focal range.

That said, if you cover events, or are doing family photos and don't want to miss a moment, then zooms are where its at. There are only 2 fixed aperture lenses at f2.8: the Tamron 17-70mm, and Sigma 18-50mm. Both are bright lenses, but the tammy is heavier and has optical stabilization where the sigma is lighter and more suited to a minimalist's kit.

Finally, a word of warning. If you're looking for amazing results "straight out of camera" you may be disappointed. Most of the pictures that impress the potential buyer were taken in RAW and edited in post production (Lightroom, Capture One, ON1 etc). If you do not want to learn how to edit photos like this, you may be disappointed when a mate brings out their iphone and gets better pictures, in a faster timeframe, than you will with your camera. Just food for thought. EDIT: apologies if this last bit sounds condescending, 100% not my intention!

 

[martin phillips]

Thanks for this synopsis and it echoes very much where I find myself . Mobile phones have made this a whole new game .
1. OK there is no way I can really make the A 6400 into a pocketable cameras as the best lenses make it too big . A small shoulder bag may be ok though and for that I think I need to go to a shop and try it
2. I'm surprised if the A 6400 cannot match the RX100 3 with its kit lens for pictures straight form the camera but perhpas not with the kit lens . Some of the most spectacular shots were with the 1.8 wide open so its either the speed or the quality of the lens that I need
3. I'm sure that the 6400 metering and focus will be as good as its newer technology so I'm not bothered with that
4. I was really disappointed with the Canon 77D with Kit lens and have sold it . Wobbly pics and wrong exposures and " dead " quality . Actually I also didn't like the camera as it seemed to be neither one thing or the other - DSLR with good viewfinder or mirrorless back screen viewer . Just awkward . If I have to put that much effort post shot its not really worth it for me . I'm not so much interested in the spectacular photos that you experts do , just nice photos that are a true representation of what I see and with 'life' in them .
5. I've also realised that I'm viewing the pics on a Dell monitor which is not so good as the I pad so need to take that into account.

So at the moment I have a little way to go to get it all sorted out and seem to be arguing myself into getting a similar but updated pocket camera . I think that the little lenses will not last that long though , I had been very careful with mine and the larger format does give the flexibility to try other lenses . The A 6400 looks quite tough

I very much appreciate yours and all the inputs form the group to be able to chat ith through is great a

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Martin, you're right that the a6400 isn't exactly pocketable. You would most likely be carrying it strapped over the shoulder or in a bag of some sort. I like the peak design 6 liter bag, but I think there's a 3L version if you just wanted a small carrying case and won't have multiple lenses with you.

If you have steady hands and don't mind a total lack of built-in stabilization, you might be happy with the a6400 and the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. Its a nice lens that gives you a wider aperture and zoom but without weighing as much as the Tamron 17-70. Here's a size comparison for you (kit lens on the left) :

If you want to play with the size comparison, here's the website: https://pxlmag.com/db/

If you want a prime lens recommendation based on size, ie small but sharp and bright, I recommend the Sony 35mm f1.8. It has OSS, a compact size, and the focal length is almost equivalent to a 50mm on a full frame. On the negative side, it can be expensive brand new, so maybe you might have luck finding one used for a decent price.

Sigma recently announced a 23mm f1.4 for the APSC which could be a GREAT lens (equivalent to full frame 35mm). Results look nice and sharp, but its new, so expect to pay brand new prices. If I've confused you now, I'll see myself out

 

[martin phillips]

Many thanks for the comparison

 

[MeowZzz]

My first SLR camera (1982) involved purchasing a 50mm prime lens with aperture of F1.7

I didn’t need anything else for three or four years.

Minolta? Yeah, but, I would add that that style of using a camera can still be so -- indeed, I find it very pleasurable to remove focal length anxiety/worries and just go out with my 55mm attached to the Sony (or 50mm to the Nikon) and just leave it there -- I get what I get as such.