Advice on Wide Angle Lens for Sony A6600

There's nothing wrong with a maximumn aperture of f/4. Yes there are pros and cons bjt it's interesting and annoying when people bring their prejudices and personal preference to say this or that is better. For them it may be what they want and they think that's the de facto for everyone. So it comes down to you. Do you shoot much if anything wider than f/4? Or do you intend to? If not, f/4 lenses will be fine. They are lighter and less expensive, both important considerations which maynbe more or less important to you. You on't e able to use differential focussing as effectively at f/4 than at f/2.8 but given the huge depth of field at such short focal lenghts there won't be much in it. If you shoot in low light then f/4 may, to some, sound limiting. If you don't, it's not an issue. Given good high ISO performace these days, even on some older models, and with image stabilisation f/4 isn't a hindrance. And wide angles can be safely hand held at quie low shutter speeds anyway. As for fixed focal lenghts compared to aooms, fixed lenses are supposed to ive sharper results and less distortion, but it depends on your working style. Software can correct for things like barrel distortion, so there's no issue there. The biggest 'problems' are keeping horizons level and avoiding som crazy verticals. A fixed lens means you have to moe you feet to adjust composition but tha's good as it makes you hink about your composition. And many use their wideangle zooms at the widest or longest settings anyway. Zooms do offer fine tuning but you can always crop. Once you start to use a fixed lens you'll very soon learn to 'see' what you'll get from it and posiion yourself instinctively o get your compositionwhereas zooms offer flexibility but throw in some indecisiveness. I hope that's helped. There's no decisive answer as to which to go for as it all depends om your working method and photographic style. You may weight some aspects more important or relevant for you so I won't suggest any one over the other..

There's nothing wrong with a maximumn aperture of f/4. Yes there are pros and cons bjt it's interesting and annoying when people bring their prejudices and personal preference to say this or that is better. For them it may be what they want and they think that's the de facto for everyone.

So it comes down to you. Do you shoot much if anything wider than f/4? Or do you intend to? If not, f/4 lenses will be fine. They are lighter and less expensive, both important considerations which maynbe more or less important to you.
You on't e able to use differential focussing as effectively at f/4 than at f/2.8 but given the huge depth of field at such short focal lenghts there won't be much in it.
If you shoot in low light then f/4 may, to some, sound limiting. If you don't, it's not an issue. Given good high ISO performace these days, even on some older models, and with image stabilisation f/4 isn't a hindrance. And wide angles can be safely hand held at quie low shutter speeds anyway.

As for fixed focal lenghts compared to aooms, fixed lenses are supposed to ive sharper results and less distortion, but it depends on your working style. Software can correct for things like barrel distortion, so there's no issue there. The biggest 'problems' are keeping horizons level and avoiding som crazy verticals. A fixed lens means you have to moe you feet to adjust composition but tha's good as it makes you hink about your composition. And many use their wideangle zooms at the widest or longest settings anyway. Zooms do offer fine tuning but you can always crop.
Once you start to use a fixed lens you'll very soon learn to 'see' what you'll get from it and posiion yourself instinctively o get your compositionwhereas zooms offer flexibility but throw in some indecisiveness.

I hope that's helped. There's no decisive answer as to which to go for as it all depends om your working method and photographic style. You may weight some aspects more important or relevant for you so I won't suggest any one over the other..