Photography Thoughts: New cameras lead to new lenses lead to new cameras lead to .... a cascade!

View from Braeriach in the Cairngorms, June 2023. Sony a6600 & Sony E 11mm f1.8

There's a cascade of tech that often follows the purchase of just one item. Suddenly previous items don't work so well with it as they did with the item it replaced so it seems a good idea to replace them, which triggers more of the same until a whole system has been replaced even though the original intention was for just one item.

This has happened with my camera gear. Back in May I replaced my seven-year old Sony a6000 with the Sony a6600 as the former was developing some irritating quirks and the old batteries faded very quickly. The a6600 has a much bigger battery that lasts much longer along with some other appealing features the a6000 lacks. 

Sony a6600 & Sony 11mm lens

At the same time I replaced my old Samyang 12mm lens with the Sony E 11mm f1.8 because the latter has electronic connections and so its details are in the DxO Photolab 6 database, which I now use for processing raw files. At least that's what I told myself and wrote in this post. I suspect though the desire for a new lens to go with the new camera also played a part.

That I thought was it. My other lenses were all in the DxO database and all still worked fine. However some rainy weather changed my mind. The a6000 isn't a weather-sealed camera. The a6600 is but the only weather-sealed lenses I have are the 11mm and the big Sony 70-350 zoom, which I don't use that often and never take on multi-day walks. I did use the non-weather-sealed Sony 10-18mm f4 zoom a fair bit and always took that on long walks. Now I found that having weather-sealing on the camera but not the lens was frustrating when it was raining, especially when there was an alternative in the weather-sealed Sony 10-20mm f4 lens, which is also smaller and lighter. So I traded in the 10-18. The 10-20mm doesn't have image stabilisation, unlike the 10-18mm, but the a6600 does, unlike the a6000. 

With the Sony a6600 & 18-135mm lens in Knoydart, May 2023

My most-used lens however is the Sony E 18-135mm zoom. This doesn't have weather-sealing. At present there is no weather-sealed alternative to this, which is probably good for my wallet. I both want and don't want Sony to bring out a new weather-sealed 18-135mm!

So, long-windedly, this brings me to the new Sony a6700, the replacement for the a6600 that was launched recently. This has a few advantages over the a6600 - the controls look easier to use, the screen flips out to the side, the eye tracking focus sounds astonishing - but nothing like those of the latter over the a6000. So why am I considering (and so far resisting) buying one?

Because I now have a system whose components aren't as compatible as I'd like them to be. On long walks I usually carry two cameras, both in case one fails (it has happened) and so that I don't have to keep changing lenses and risking dust and dirt on the sensor. Along with the a6000 I carried the older Sony Nex 7. Both cameras take the same battery. Neither is weather-sealed or image stabilisation. Essentially they are interchangeable. 

Now I have a camera that takes a different battery and that has weather-sealing and image stabilisation plus two lenses that have the former but not the latter. If I take the a6000 as my other camera that means carrying different batteries and remembering which body and which lenses are weather-sealed or stabilised. Not a big hassle but I'd rather have two bodies that work the same way with all my lenses and take the same battery, hence my interest in the a6700. I've probably persuaded myself to buy one in writing this post!

Now I just need that weather-sealed 18-135mm!

So deciding to replace a camera body has ended up with me also buying two new lenses and likely to buy another new camera. I didn't intend this!

I haven't mentiond image quality. That's because I don't expect the a6700 to take noticeably higher quality ones than the a6000. The a6600 certainly doesn't, In fact the images from it are indistinguishable from those from the NEX 7. The new lenses are more likely to make a little difference but probably not much. 

What does make a difference, and with some images a big one, is DxO Photolab 6, which I wrote about last month. 

Photography Post: The Biggest Lens I've Ever Owned & Some Photographs Of Birds & More.

Bynack More, May 7, 2021. Sony a6000, Sony E 70-350mm @ 350mm, 1/1000 & f8, ISO 200

Until last year the longest zoom lens Sony made for its APS-C range of cameras was the 55-210 f4.5-6.3, a lightweight lens at 379 grams and one that produces reasonable quality images, especially given its low cost. I've had this lens for over ten years and have been generally happy with the results, even when cropped (quite a few have been published). However I have at times wished for a longer reach and several years ago I purchased a Sony 1.7x tele conversion lens that increases the long end of the 55-210 lens to 357mm, which is equivalent to 535.5mm in full frame/35mm terms. The combination works reasonably well in good light but is a bit clumsy and awkward to use and I haven't actually used it much.

Sony E 70-350 with lens hood reversed, Sony a6000

Then last year Sony issued one of it's rare new APS-C lenses, the 70-350 f4.5-f6.3. This received excellent reviews, as it should given the cost. As well as expensive I noted it was heavy and dismissed it from my thoughts. However during the lockdown periods of the last year I took many photos at home and on local walks and started using the 55-210 more often, both for wildlife and for a different perspective on familiar scenes. I got out the 1.7x tele conversion lens as well but found that the image quality really wasn't good enough for big crops. My thoughts returned to the 70-350. Maybe there would be secondhand versions around now. There were and I bought one described as in good condition for much less than the cost of a new one. It looks as good as new anyway.

From the top, Sony 18-135, 55-210, & 70-350

At 697 grams the lens is heavy. It's big too, by far the biggest lens I've ever owned. I doubt I'll be taking it on long backpacking trips. However it doesn't feel too clumsy on my little Sony a6000 and NEX 7 cameras even when fully extended.

It's a slow lens, which means combinations of low ISOs and very fast shutter speeds need bright light, as in the photo at the top of this post. However the lens has Sony's Optical Steady Shot stabilisation and with care I can get sharp shots at shutter speeds down to 1/100 second and lower if I lean on something. Of course with a tripod this isn't a problem, though the lightweight one I take on walks won't support the weight. I do have a much heavier tripod which I might end up taking out at times.

Sand Martin. Sony a 6000, Sony E 70-350mm lens at 70 mm, 1/400 @ f8, ISO 200. Cropped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After some initial trials I took the lens on a short walk beside the River Spey hoping to see some birds  photograph with the intention of cropping the images. The walk on a dull day beside the swollen river was a joy and I took photographs of pied wagtails, common sandpipers, goldeneye ducks, and, sand martins. The last were very difficult to photograph as they never stay still, except for fractions of a second as they hover above the water to seize an insect. Watching them was a delight - there were at least twenty - and I was quite happy to get one passable image, especially as it's a huge crop, as you can from the full image below.

Other photos that were much easier to take also cropped well. Here's a selection with the full originals, all taken the a6000 camera and all handheld, sometimes leaning on a bridge.

Common Sandpiper. 350mm, 1/40 @ f8, ISO 200

Willow. 93mm, 1/60 @ f8, ISO 200

Pied Wagtail. 350mm, 1/250 @ f8, ISO 200

Goldeneye. 350mm, 1/320 @ f8, ISO 200

A New Lens for Backpacking: Sony E 18-135 f3.5-f5.6

Sony E 18-135 with lens hood

For several years my photography setup for backpacking and hillwalking has been Sony a6000 and NEX 7 bodies with Sony E 10-18mm and 16-50mm zoom lenses. This system went on the GR5 through the Alps walk last autumn and the Yosemite Valley to Death Valley walk two years before that. I've found it versatile and easy to use. Two cameras, two lenses, slung across my body in padded cases. Never any need to change lenses, always accessible.

Sometimes though I've wanted a longer lens - for wildlife, to zoom in on distant features, to pick out details. I've had the Sony E 55-210mm zoom lens for many years and this often comes with me on day walks, rarely on longer ones, as I like the two cameras and lenses system and I don't want to give up either of the shorter zooms. That leaves the 55-210 in the pack, where it too often stays, forgotten.

Sony E 18-135 fully extended

I accepted this two, sometimes three, lens system as there were no compact lightweight alternative lenses to the 16-50 that had a longer reach other than an expensive Zeiss 16-70, and the extra cost and weight didn't seem worth it for a measly 20mm increase.

Then, a year ago, Sony brought out the first new lens in many years for the a6000 series cameras, the 18-135 f3.5-f5.6. Light, compact and with a 7.5x zoom as opposed to the 3x zoom of the 16-50 this interested me straight away. I then spent a year deliberating!

Of course compared with the 16-50 the 18-135 is enormous and considerably heavier - 360 grams as opposed to 127 grams. The 55-210 is 380 grams so the saving over that lens plus the 16-50 is only 147 grams. I think though that the longer reach is well worth the extra 233 grams over the 16-50.

The big benefit of the 18-135 for me is that it extends my two cameras, two lenses system considerably. 10-135mm is a big range, equivalent to 15 to 202.5mm in 35mm/full frame. This is the biggest range in two lenses I've ever had.

I've had the 18-135 for nearly two months now and I've taken 310 images with it, half of them at focal lengths over 50mm. I'm pleased with the results. Reviews - and I read quite a few - suggested the image quality was good, better than the 16-50 in fact. I'm happy with that lens so I expected to like the 18-135. It's certainly sharper than the 55-210.

I did sometimes crop images taken with the 16-50 but this does mean lower quality and, more significantly to me, I found it harder to 'see' the image. With the 18-135 I can compose much more precisely. Looking at the data (ah, the wonders of Lightroom!) I can see that I've used just about every focal length at least once.

Carrying the 18-135 hasn't felt noticeably different to the 16-50 despite the difference in size and weight. I do have a bigger case of course but I carry it the same way.

I think for now I have found an ideal combination.

Here are some 18-135 images at different focal lengths, all taken in the Cairngorms on April 5.

18mm

24mm

31mm

71mm

95mm

135mm

My Photography in 2018: Thoughts & Favourite Pictures

View from Beinn a'Chlachair after sunset in June. Sony a6000, Sony E 16-50mm @ 39mm, 1/30 @ f8, ISO 200

I've taken around 9000 photos this year, which sounds a lot but I do take pictures almost every day and it includes many similar shots and ones of gear, camps, books, magazines, myself and other record and work pictures. Less than half that 9000 are photographs taken to capture a beautiful or spectacular scene. Here I'm posting my twenty favourites of those, with technical info for anyone interested.

Strathspey, January. Sony a6000, Sony E 16-50mm @ 16mm, 1/320 @ f8, ISO 100

My photo gear stayed the same all year, Sony a6000 and NEX 7 bodies with assorted lenses.. My most used lens was again the Sony 16-50mm zoom, usually at either end of the range. After that came the Sony 55-210mm and then the Sony 10-18mm. On and off I toyed with the idea of buying the Sony E 18-135mm zoom that was launched last January. I may still do so. On my GR5 walk I took the 16-50 and 10-18 zooms and missed having a longer zoom. The 10-18 and 18-135 sounds a good combination.

Snowstorm, January. Sony a6000, Sony E 55-210 @ 148mm, 1/160 @ f8, ISO 800

View from Toll Creagach, February. Sony NEX 7, Sony E 10-18 @ 10mm, 1/400 @ f8, ISO 100

After sunset, Strathspey, February. Sony a6000, Sigma E 60mm f2.8, 1/1250 @ f8, ISO 200

Woods, Strathspey, March. Sony a6000, Sony E 16-50 @ 50mm, 1/80 @ f8, ISO 3200

Ben Rinnes, April. Sony a6000, Sony E 55-210 @ 210mm, 1/500 @ f11, ISO 100

Cairn Gorm at sunset, April. Sony a6000, Sony E 55-210 @ 210mm, 1/160 @ f8, ISO 400

Loch Morlich, July. Sony NEX 7, Sony E 10-18 @10mm, 1/200 @ f8, ISO 100

Mists clearing at dawn, French Alps, September. Sony a6000, Sony E 16-50 @ 41mm, 1/80 @ f8, ISO 100

Lac Ste Anne, French Alps, September. Sony NEX 7, Sony E 10-18 @ 10mm, 1/60 @ f8, ISO 100

Forest sunlight, Strathspey, October. Sony a6000, Sony E 16-50 @ 50mm, 1/40 @ f8, ISO 100

After sunset, Glen Feshie, October. Sony a6000, Sony E 16-50 @ 50mm, 1/80 @ f8, ISO 100

After sunset above Glen Feshie, October. Sony NEX 7, Sony 10-18 @ 10mm, 1/20 @ f5/6, ISO 400

Autumn colours, Glen Feshie, October. Sony a6000, Sony E 16-50 @ 16mm, 1/250 @ f8, ISO 100

Lochan Uaine, November. Sony a6000, Samyang 12mm f2, 30sec @ f2, ISO 400

On Bynack More, November. Sony NEX 7, Sony E 16-50 @ 17mm, 1/320 @ f8, ISO 100

Mists, Strathspey November. Sony a6000, Sony E 55-210 @ 210mm, 1/160 @ f8, ISO 400

Birch trees, December. Sony NEX 7, Sony E 55-210 @ 77mm, 1/125 @ f8, ISO 200

Strathspey & the Cairngorms, Christmas Day. Sony NEX 7, Sony E 55-210 @ 127mm, 1/500 @ f8, ISO 200

Just One Lens: A Photography Gear Post. Updated July 28.

Since I wrote this piece in February I've found that I'm using the 55-210 zoom lens more than before as the limited reach of the 16-50mm often feels frustrating. I don't like changing lenses and I don't want to carry the 55-210 on long trips so I've almost decided to get the Sony E 18-135 mentioned in the last paragraph before the postscript. Almost.

Whilst I haven't bought the 18-135 yet I have bought another fixed focal length lens, the Sony E  35mm f1.8 (52.5mm 35mm equivalent). This weighs just 201 grams. I bought it for low light use. It's faster than the Sigma 60mm and is stabilised, which the Sigma isn't. How much will I use it? I'm not sure yet. It's been on one backpacking trip where I took the image below with it.

Ironically  in June Alex Roddie, who started this train of thought about fixed focal length lenses, posted  that he's ditched his Fuji gear for a much lighter Canon PowerShot G9x Mk II with a 10.2-30.6mm zoom lens (28-84 35mm equivalent). It's near the bottom of this interesting piece on the electronics he carries.

Anyway, here's the original post with minor edits.

As I've written before my favourite lenses are zoom lenses. It's over thirty-five years since I last took fixed focal length lenses on a long walk. That was on the Pacific Crest Trail where my most used lenses were Pentax 28mm and 50mm ones (I did have a 75-150mm zoom but that took a dunking in a creek and never recovered before I was half way). Back then wide angle and mid range zooms were generally regarded as poor quality. I wanted one though and just three years later I had one, a Tamron 35-70mm zoom that was judged pretty good. I took it on the Continental Divide Trail along with another Pentax 75-150 zoom and was pleased with the results. I missed a wider option though and over the years changed to 28-70mm and then 24-70mm lenses. These were always by far my most used lenses, as is my current Sony 16-50mm, which is equivalent to 24-75mm in 35mm/full frame terms.

However for quite some time I've been thinking about fixed lenses after reading a piece by Alex Roddie in which he said he saw the world at the 35mm (53mm full-frame equivalent) focal length and his favourite lens was a 35mm one*. I tried to imagine going out with just one fixed length lens and couldn't. When I analysed the 3500+ images I took last year I found that only a few hundred were taken around 30-40mm (see this post) so I clearly don't see the world in that range. My most used focal length by far was 50mm (75mm full-frame equivalent), a short telephoto length, so maybe that was how I saw the world.

*Update: after reading this Alex Roddie commented on Twitter 'I've gravitated towards 23mm (35mm FF equivalent) in the hills, as 50mm equivalent can sometimes be too tight, but still prefer 50mm for most other subjects. I rarely carry more than one prime lens now.'

To find out I've taken just one lens on several local walks in the last week. This is the Sigma E 60mm f2.8, which is equivalent to 90mm on full-frame. It's a sharp lens but one that I hardly use. I took just 36 images with it last year. At a weight of 215 grams it's very light but I've only ever used it on walks from home. All the pictures accompanying this piece bar one were taken with this lens on the Sony a6000 camera.

Just using one fixed lens surprised me. I didn't find it as restrictive as I thought and after the first day I started to 'see' at its focal length, that is I saw compositions that suited it and there were fewer times when I couldn't take the picture I'd seen because I didn't have the right focal length. I could, I thought, manage with this lens alone if I had to.

So will I start carrying and using the Sigma 60mm regularly now? Maybe. For a while. What this exercise has really taught me though is that the 50mm end of my 16-50mm zoom isn't long enough. In the hills and on long walks I usually just take that lens and the Sony 10-18mm wide angle zoom. I do have a Sony E 55-210mm f4.5-6.3 zoom that I sometimes carry and which gives me a huge reach as it's equivalent to full-frame 82.5-315mm. Maybe I should carry it more often. I prefer to have just two lenses and two bodies though, especially on long walks. Both are in cases and accessible while I'm walking and never changing lenses protects the camera sensors from dust and dirt. So ideally I'd like a lens that goes from wide angle to longer than the 16-50mm. Sony has offered a couple of these for a few years but they are quite heavy and bulky. There is the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f4 lens that is lightweight and compact. It's very expensive though and reviews are mixed with most saying it's not worth the money.

 
This year though there's a new Sony E 18-135mm (27-202.5mm full-frame equivalent) that sounds like it might be ideal. It's quite compact and weighs just 325 grams. Reviews have been mostly positive. Maybe this is the lens to pair with the 10-18mm. It would certainly give me a much greater range than the 16-50mm at a penalty of 200 grams extra to carry and more bulk. In the meantime the Sigma 60 and the Sony 55-210 are likely to see more use. Otherwise I'll miss that extra reach.

Postscript. Sometimes blog posts bring up entertaining and valuable responses. This one led to interesting threads on social media. Amongst these was this fascinating and useful comment from photographer and writer David Kilpatrick on Facebook  "The 60mm Sigma is a superb lens. It's the one I picked for my article on macro - add extension tubes to it and it beats most macro lenses. I think it is a natural fit. After all, the 'Mountain Elmar' from Leica was 105mm, and the 'Lightweight Elmar' which inherited that title was a 90mm f/4 in a special skinny lightweight mount for alpinists - 90mm being considered the ideal field of view for peak-to-peak photography (the view from the ground always diminishing the apparent height of the mountain or hill - best to get half way up the height of the target). The 60mm is lightweight, and exactly that angle on the A6000." 

I never knew that about 90mm and mountain photography. I'll definitely be taking the Sigma 60mm on my next hill walk. I'd never thought about using extension tubes with it either. I've now ordered some. David's article on macro is on the PhotoclubAlpha site here. David has just started a blog too - so far the only post is a link to this article!