yellowt2 wrote in post #18516197
Yes, in general native lenses are a better bet; no issues with the adapter tolerances and generally better autofocus performance. The good autofocus adapters (Metabones and Sigma) are also expensive; that money could be put towards a lens instead.
The main advantage to an adapter is it opens up more lens possibilities. The two big reasons to do this are if you already have lenses in another mount (like you have a full set of Canon EF lenses and want to try out a Sony camera before committing to buying native lenses) or the lenses you want aren't available in the Sony E Mount (like a Canon 17mm TS-E for example). If you're buying a new lens I would probably stick to E-mount. As Sony adds more E-mount lenses to the family the second reason is becoming less and less of an issue.
BTW I recently switched from an A7 to an A6500; if I was still using full-frame I'd have bought that Sony 12-24mm already. From the reviews I've seen it's a very good lens at a reasonable price. My favorite lens on my A7 was a Canon 16-35 f/4L on an adapter; I like wide angle
the 12-24 is cute and cuddly, and it's sharp too. Sunstars are poor, flare can sometimes be a problem, but if you can live with that, what a fantastic lens. If I were stuck shooting landscapes and only had that lens, I wouldnt even complain, wonderful lens.
Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC