I'm just beginning the transition from Canon to Sony, have had the a6000/16-50 combo for about a week after much deal hunting and stalking the Sony threads. After using it as a backup taking family pics for my wife's side of the family, I'm pretty impressed but need better glass. Prices have dropped so low on the A7r that I could almost sell my 6D and buy a used A7r straight up, if and when I choose to do so.
I shoot some of everything. Not enough sports to need a 7D series camera, but too much to only have an A7 series camera with adapting my glass. It is tempting to wait until the A7rii drops more in price, as some outlets are already selling it for about $2700 on eBay (eBay bucks will take another $100 off) for grey market models. Ideally, the A6000 will be used as my supplementary sports shooter mainly used in March for Spring Training baseball. Wait, will I be able to get into the gate with the 70-200G? I've been spoiled with my 135L/200 2.8L combo on that level.
It seems like swapping my 50A for the 55 1.8 will be a given when that transition happens. I shoot a lot wide-open with my lenses. Months back, I was just going to buy both Batis lenses and kinda be done with it until Sony released some kind of 200 2.8 glass. But for the money, the 55 1.8 seems really tough to beat.
The A6000 was bought as an upgrade to borrowing my wife's RX-100 and to use instead of lugging my 6D/50A with me when I have the kids out and about. On a lot of levels, it makes sense to buy a 16-70 for it. Whuband posted some remarkable results shooing concerts with it months back in the A6000 thread, and wow. But it is a bit of a rub that it can't be shared with the A7 series, as middling as the 24-70 seems for a $1k+ lens. So maybe I'm down to deciding between the 16-35 and the 16-70? Maybe I need to revisit snagging both Batis lenses, and forget how much I dig the size, price and performance of the 55 1.8? Or do I need to forget about AF for WA shots altogether, and just snag an adapter to shoot with some nice vintage glass? I know zebra makes it easier, or so you guys say, but toddlers will be the subject like 2/3 of the time.
I go back and forth on this. I have a feeling that if I were to buy the 16-70 it would be on my a6000 like 80% of the time. It would be replacing my 17-40L, my de facto event lens, and used much more. No, I won't really miss 17-23mm. Ideally, it would be nice to use my event lens on my best high ISO camera but I could probably make it work in most cases with the a6000. I don't shoot weddings for $$$, just the occasional banquet, luncheon or fundraiser. I hate to spend $1400ish on the Zeiss 35, as I would likely have to pair it with the 85 Batis instead of the 55 1.8--leading to more money.
A few possible scenarios:
--Zeiss 16-70 + 55 1.8 (cheapest solution)
--Zeiss 16-70 + Batis 85 (most range solution)
--Batis 25 + 55 1.8 (compromise share solution)
--Batis 25 + Batis 85 (original idea, but too expensive for what they are?)
--Zeiss 16-35 + Batis 85 (most versatile solution, expensive)
--Zeiss 35 + Batis 85 + vintage WA/adapter (most expensive solution, but highest IQ?)
What I shoot:
--My family, sometimes travelling sometimes not
--Events, most of the time paid
--Portrait, paid unless it is my kids.
--Sports, paid for HS and lower. Spring Training enthusiast!
--Very occasional landscape and street
I'm looking forward to opinions!
