Sony 18-135 or 18-200
Jun 18, 2018 06:44:42 #
Wingpilot wrote:
Looking for input. I'm wrestling with the idea of... (show quote)
I have a Sony A6000 a Tamron 18-200mm lens. It's my go-to lens. I compared image quality with the Sony 55-210mm, and I couldn't see any difference.
Jun 18, 2018 07:50:12 #
olemikey
Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
I have several of the Tamron models (Sony A-mount), 2 @ 28-200 and one 28-300 and I find they do a pretty decent job, when the right "bargain" comes along I will add an 18-300 in (Sony A-mount) and I want to pick one up for my Nikon too. If you want to try one out w/o spending the "new" price, look at one of the re-sellers or E-bay, I see them all the time (several years old - late model) for low/reasonable prices, and if you don't like it, you can easily get back most/all of what you paid. E-mount may not be quite as plentiful, but I think you'll find one without a lot of effort.
As to performance - keeping in mind the "do-it-all" nature of the lens, I've got many "keepers" even in snapshot mode.....they are very versatile, and a little practice with them (as long as its a good copy) will give you good sharp photos. You will find soft spots at some settings, but stopping down usually makes any of that manageable. OR, as many have said on here, rent one and give it a go.
have fun, mike
As to performance - keeping in mind the "do-it-all" nature of the lens, I've got many "keepers" even in snapshot mode.....they are very versatile, and a little practice with them (as long as its a good copy) will give you good sharp photos. You will find soft spots at some settings, but stopping down usually makes any of that manageable. OR, as many have said on here, rent one and give it a go.
have fun, mike
Jun 18, 2018 08:53:42 #
Wingpilot wrote:
Looking for input. I'm wrestling with the idea of... (show quote)
You have my vote for Sony 18-200 mm. Sharp, convenient, great for every day, always-ready lens. And, with Sony's Clear Image Zoom (you get great 2X zoom without any real noticeable impact to image quality) see http://eriknaso.com/2015/12/21/sony-clear-image-zoom-gets-2x-zoom-with-no-image-quality-loss/
I would not sell the 16-50. Nice, small, convenient lens for many uses.
Bob
Jun 18, 2018 10:00:47 #
Some of the Sony cameras, a6000 series and others, have “Clear Image Zoom, which allows for up to 2x magnification, with very little loss of image quality. It is like having a 2x converter built in. So, your 137 becomes 270 and your 200 becomes 400.
Jun 18, 2018 10:07:14 #
Bob Locher
Loc: Southwest Oregon
I have the recent Sony 18-135 OSS APS-C lens for my Sony A-6000 and am delighted with it. I have always been a big believer in prime lenses but in some circumstances that really limits me, so I bought the zoom. I have not regretted it at all.
I recently did a small boat cruise in Alaska and that was the lens I took. It was a great choice. There were a couple times a longer lens would have been a real plus, but the additional size and weight of a longer lens would have been counterproductive.
I find the lens a bit soft at the edges at 18 mm, but by 24 mm if is excellent, as it is at all longer focal lengths.
The lens is not very fast. I set my ISO at 1000, set the camera for aperture priority at f/8 and clicked away - that worked very well for me.
What really surprised me was how well the optical "Steady Shot" feature worked. Beyond doubt it added one or more stops to my unsteady hands.
The lens is relatively inexpensive, and a fine performer. Had I to do it again, I would not hesitate to make the same choice.
The adventure continues!
I recently did a small boat cruise in Alaska and that was the lens I took. It was a great choice. There were a couple times a longer lens would have been a real plus, but the additional size and weight of a longer lens would have been counterproductive.
I find the lens a bit soft at the edges at 18 mm, but by 24 mm if is excellent, as it is at all longer focal lengths.
The lens is not very fast. I set my ISO at 1000, set the camera for aperture priority at f/8 and clicked away - that worked very well for me.
What really surprised me was how well the optical "Steady Shot" feature worked. Beyond doubt it added one or more stops to my unsteady hands.
The lens is relatively inexpensive, and a fine performer. Had I to do it again, I would not hesitate to make the same choice.
The adventure continues!
Jun 18, 2018 10:53:51 #
Bob Locher wrote:
I have the recent Sony 18-135 OSS APS-C lens for ... (show quote)
Thank you. This is the kind of info I'm looking for. It seems that either lens is a good choice, so it's a matter of which focal length I want. In keeping with the idea of less bulk and weight, I'm guessing that the 18-135 is much smaller and lighter than the 18-200.
Jun 18, 2018 12:16:36 #
azted
Loc: Las Vegas, NV.
Wingpilot wrote:
Looking for input. I'm wrestling with the idea of... (show quote)
You have not mentioned the 18-105 PZ "G" lens. This is the overall favorite for Sony APS-C users who also do video. It is sharp as a tack in all settings. I also had the 18-200 from Tamron and had trouble with the lens in slightly inclement weather. After sending it back to Tamron, it still had problems communicating with the body. The 55-200 is not a sharp lens at all. If that is the reach you want then go up to the 24-105 FE "G" lens, and your effective reach will be 36-157.5. That lens is a beast!
Jun 18, 2018 12:22:46 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I have a Sony A6000 a Tamron 18-200mm lens. It's my go-to lens. I compared image quality with the Sony 55-210mm, and I couldn't see any difference.
For me, this is a very useful post, Jerry. Thank you.
Jun 18, 2018 12:32:27 #
Wingpilot wrote:
Thank you. This is the kind of info I'm looking for. It seems that either lens is a good choice, so it's a matter of which focal length I want. In keeping with the idea of less bulk and weight, I'm guessing that the 18-135 is much smaller and lighter than the 18-200.
Which 18-200mm are you considering, Greg? Isn't there more than 1 Sony model?
Jun 18, 2018 13:22:40 #
Jun 18, 2018 13:25:09 #
[quote=Wingpilot]
It's the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 compact. With clear image zoom it would give me zoom to 300mm, 35mm eq.
It's the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 compact. With clear image zoom it would give me zoom to 300mm, 35mm eq.
Jun 18, 2018 13:27:37 #
When you use a 1.4 or a 2x converter you will lose 2 to 3 f stops on your lens and possibly lose some focal quality of the lens. For the money research the lenses and find the lens that has the lowest f stop and go with that lens. Your photos will show the difference.
Jun 18, 2018 13:30:45 #
bnsf wrote:
When you use a 1.4 or a 2x converter you will lose 2 to 3 f stops on your lens and possibly lose some focal quality of the lens. For the money research the lenses and find the lens that has the lowest f stop and go with that lens. Your photos will show the difference.
That is correct. Despite the obvious weight imbalance, if I ever want serious long distance ability, I'll just save up and purchase one of the 150-600 zooms with Sony E-mount. Right now, 200 is about the longest I would use anyway.
Jun 18, 2018 15:45:19 #
Jun 18, 2018 15:53:56 #
Wingpilot wrote:
Looking for input. I'm wrestling with the idea of... (show quote)
If you're considering the SEL18200LE, I can certainly see why it might be attractive:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#535.334,535.702,535.90,ha,t
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.