Sony 18250

[Wishace]

I have both tamron 28-200 & sony 16-105mm (sold off not too long ago).

IMHO, 16-105mm image quality is definitely better than 28-200 or 18-70. It wide angle at 16mm is nice to have in tight situation too. Having said that, though its quality is better than the kit lens or the multi-purpose zoom lens...it is still just a "high end kit lens" which I seldom use after purchasing tamron 17-50mm f2.8.

In the end, after much deliberation...when I travel I'll bring 17-50mm f2.8 (wide enough & ok for low light) & 28-200mm for its zoom capabilities (may upgrade to 18-250 or 18-270 tamron when available).

Hence, I sold off my 16-105 in the end due to its limitations (not fast compared to f2.8 & long as compared to 18-200) though I have no complaints on its overall performance.

just my 2c...

 

[mmice]

Tapping on this thread for advise on the 16-105.

My walkabout lens is the 18-250 and its a great all round lens, but am not too happy with the IQ. I'm considering getting the 16-105 to compliment it for the IQ and more as a portrait lens. I've tried the 16-105 and am pretty happy with the IQ. My only concern is that its not a fast lens.

I'm not considering the 17-50 F2.8 tamron yet. Should I be looking at this too ?

Any one who has both can comment ?

 

[doomslayerz]

if sharpness is what you're after, don't forget to try the cz16-80 f/3.5-4.5 as well.
lots of ppl have the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 too~

 

[Viper16]

I have the following lenses which I use on my A700:

Sony 16-105
Tamron 18-200
Tamron 17-50

I personally find that I am sticking with the 16-105 as a walkabout lens. I really do appreciate the additional 2mm on the short end, and do not find the long end restrictive for most of my pictures.

I have recently returned from a trip to Egypt, and had a go at both the 16-105 and 18-200. The IQ of the former is definitely a lot better, and I was quite impressed with the low light capability, coupled with SSS of course.

The 17-50 is fantastic indoors, but I find it a problem as a general walkabout lens. I dont know about the Sony 18-200m, but have heard that the IQ is similar to the Tamron. I havent used the 18-250 either, but reports are that it is much better than the 18-200.

Would like to hear from those with this experience.

 

[asthio88]

Anyone knows the latest price of the tamron / Sony 18-250 lens.

I see the used sony 18-250 goes for around 600$ in the forum.

Last price for new lens i knew was 675$, for the sony version (after 10% discount).

hi senthiljams, care to share where do you get the $675 for the sony 18-250? tks...

 

[Wishace]

I have the following lenses which I use on my A700:

Sony 16-105
Tamron 18-200
Tamron 17-50

I personally find that I am sticking with the 16-105 as a walkabout lens. I really do appreciate the additional 2mm on the short end, and do not find the long end restrictive for most of my pictures.

I have recently returned from a trip to Egypt, and had a go at both the 16-105 and 18-200. The IQ of the former is definitely a lot better, and I was quite impressed with the low light capability, coupled with SSS of course.

The 17-50 is fantastic indoors, but I find it a problem as a general walkabout lens. I dont know about the Sony 18-200m, but have heard that the IQ is similar to the Tamron. I havent used the 18-250 either, but reports are that it is much better than the 18-200.

Would like to hear from those with this experience.

Bro, yr setup is similar to mine (b4 I sold 16-105) except i have 28-200 instead of 18-200.

But given the choice to bring just 2 lens for travel, I pick 17-50 & 28-200 rather than 16-105 & 28-200 as they r too similar & doesn't gimme the options if i need to shoot indoor (museum etc) or need a for faster speed.

 

[exofo]

using 18250,
I just notice that there is a slight curve at both side of photo.It is pretty sharp at both side? maybe there is no center scene. Is this a norm? Pardon me for my ignorance...:sweat:
F5.6, 18mm ,25 sec, ISO100

 

[doomslayerz]

yep barrel distortion at the wide end...
just zoom in a lil bit and itll be gone~

 

[TME]

hi guys,

im too stuck between the sony lenses mentioned and with somewhat similar reason for lens change, and too, needs some real advice. Currently im using the trusty kit len(18-70), which i will continue to use it (lens change not an inconvience to me), and is getting another telephoto one to compliment it, hopefully another fast lens. i also spend the rest of my free time taking some close-up shots.

I frequent Sarawak/Sabah.

Currently staring:what: at the following:
-18-250
-75-300 (being told abt super low image quality)
-500mm reflex (cheap super telephoto compared to G lenses... have good reviews on IQ)
-16-105 maybe for those sudden needs for speed (wide angle shots i mean)

and for some shots in a room.....
-SAL28
-SAL50

budget is tight so can only buy only one of them -.-..... somemore thinking of getting GPS(SGD299)

oh ya.. another aspect which i feels impt to me ish.... IQ ... hehe(i think that refers to image quality right)... and im confused about why DT lenses are not advised to be used on Full-frame SLR?... how abt non-DT on APS?

please help this newbie in need..... Thanks!!!!!

You haven't stated what you like to shoot... but since you're beginning on the system or photography, then I expect you want a generalist telephoto zoom lens... if you're sticking to the 18-70 lens, then a complementary telephoto should start from about 70mm...

Since budget is tight, I would suggest that you go for the Minolta 70-210 f4 otherwise also know as the 'beercan'. It's relatively affordable and it's got good image quality... it's not fast, does not focus in a snap (speed similar to your 18-70) but it's good... It's small and light.

The 18-250 and 16-105 are good travel lenses, they actually replace your 18-70mm... so you're duplicating part of your range without getting the maximum telephoto coverage with your budget... unless you only want to use one lens and then the 18-250 would be the best option...

You don't really want to use a 50mm indoors cos that would mean about 75mm field of view... too narrow... the 18mm end of your current lens is good enough... you might instead want to invest in a flash the 42 is good enough...

Finally you need to distinguish between full frame and APS-C cameras... what you're using now uses an APS-C-sized sensor which is not the full 35mm format size. So there is a 1.5x crop factor what you need to multiply to your focal lengths to get the true field of view equivalent... you do need to read up a bit more... this is only a primer... so DT lenses are made for APS-C sensor cameras as the way the lens is constructed is such that the image through the lens covers the area of an APS-C sensor only. These lenses will physically mount on a full frame SONY like the A900 but the image that comes through the lens only covers a part of the large full-fram sensor so that you see black borders around the circular image in the picture you take... Sulhan has a nice illustration on the forum somewhere... can someone link...?? Thanks!

 

[TME]

I have the following lenses which I use on my A700:

Sony 16-105
Tamron 18-200
Tamron 17-50

I personally find that I am sticking with the 16-105 as a walkabout lens. I really do appreciate the additional 2mm on the short end, and do not find the long end restrictive for most of my pictures.

I have recently returned from a trip to Egypt, and had a go at both the 16-105 and 18-200. The IQ of the former is definitely a lot better, and I was quite impressed with the low light capability, coupled with SSS of course.

The 17-50 is fantastic indoors, but I find it a problem as a general walkabout lens. I dont know about the Sony 18-200m, but have heard that the IQ is similar to the Tamron. I havent used the 18-250 either, but reports are that it is much better than the 18-200.

Would like to hear from those with this experience.

You've got a triplicate of lenses... they all serve the same function... so you can actually sell off 2 and keep the Tamron 17-50 since it's much much better than the other two... and then use it to get a 70-300G... about $1K only... pretty affordable for an excellent lens...

 

[AlphaLuver]

woah.. thanks for the infos TME... i thought my post is going dead.. haha..

i realised that the 18-200 and 16-105 is actually replacing my 18-70 back while i was looking at them... but what's bothering me is the overall performance compared to the 18-70 which IQ im happy with, that's what making me thinking of swapping lens...

Question left in mind: Will 16-105 be better than my 18-70? How abt the 75-300 and 500 reflex(and how much zoom this thing actually gives)?

if i wanna catch a glimpse of the minolta you recommended me, can i just mention 'beercan' to the sales?

Last, Happy Lunar moooo Year and thanks for all the help =D

 

[TME]

woah.. thanks for the infos TME... i thought my post is going dead.. haha..

i realised that the 18-200 and 16-105 is actually replacing my 18-70 back while i was looking at them... but what's bothering me is the overall performance compared to the 18-70 which IQ im happy with, that's what making me thinking of swapping lens...

Question left in mind: Will 16-105 be better than my 18-70? How abt the 75-300 and 500 reflex(and how much zoom this thing actually gives)?

if i wanna catch a glimpse of the minolta you recommended me, can i just mention 'beercan' to the sales?

Last, Happy Lunar moooo Year and thanks for all the help =D

The 16-105mm has the best image quality... so it's the best and I think the most expensive lens...

The 75-300 isn't very good... you won't want the 500 reflex... it's a very specialist kind of lens... it's a very long focal length, very compact in size but really, it's not something you will use... also it's a mirror lens so the AF is very slow... it's fixed focal length as well... unless you do birding, you don't need the 500.

Hahaha... the 'beercan' can only be bought 2nd hand... it's a Minolta lens (Minolta was bought over by SONY)... so you can only buy this lens on the Clubsnap Buy & Sell forum... you can't get it new anymore...