Considering the purchase of a zoom lens.

[anne_kerr]

<p>I have a 30mm macro and the kit lens for my a390 (18-55mm). I was thinking about purchasing a zoom next. Since I'm new, I didn't want to spend that much money until I'm comfortable and practice more.</p>

<p>Initially, I was going to buy this:<br>

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11035733</p>

<p>But then thought of buying this to save money:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-75-300mm-4-0-5-6-Minolta-Digital/dp/B00005V8S8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1363905657&sr=8-2&keywords=Tamron+75-300</p>

<p>Then I thought, hey, if Sony was $250 and Tamron was $160, then maybe the $500 Sony is $250ish for the Tamron/Sigma. I think I rather get the knockoff of the more expensive one than a knockoff of the cheaper one (since I was going to spend $250 for the Sony anyway, and I rather it work better in low light). Is my logic making sense, or should I just buy the Sony brand?</p>

<p>This is what I was ultimately thinking of purchasing:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-18-200mm-Aspherical-Minolta/dp/B0007WK8N0/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1363905899&sr=1-2&keywords=18-250mm<br>

OR<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Sony-Digital/dp/B001PGXEI8/ref=sr_1_10?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1363905944&sr=1-10&keywords=18-250mm</p>

<p> </p>

[jenniferk]

Hi Anne,

I can't be real helpful here because I do not have experience with either of these lenses. However neither of these lenses

will be very good in low light without a flash. You will most likely need to spend a bit more money or possibly shop used

for a lens with a wider aperture. Possibly look for 2.8 instead of 3.5-4.5 of the lenses that you provided links or.

 

Hope this helps a bit!

[jcuknz]

<p>I have a similar lens to the 18-200 for my MFT for convenience as a General Purpose lens but if you are after better IQ you pick a more moderate zoom of about a x3 range in focal lengths. So since I am not interested in ultimate IQ ,for which one uses a prime lens for anyway, but a general purpose lens I happily live with my x10 Lumix but it is not everybody's choice. I also have the idea that I have an interchangeable lens camera but that doesn't mean I need to be continually be changing lens as my background is from bridge cameras and not DSLR. I suspect such a lens as the 18-200/18-250 will be rather heavy whereas the Lumix 14-140 is just right for me ... a personal choice.<br>

A good point about the long zoom is that you do not need a macro lens as the simple addition of a moderate [ 4 dioptre ] close-up lens enables you to get a tight framing equal to 'macro' or 1:1 ... how I work since I started with bridge cameras for most, 99.9% of my tight framing needs. There are limitations to working this way and the macro lens gives you focusing from infinity to macro, a convenience you pay for in buying the lens, a CU lens should be considerably cheaper.<br>

I do not know either lens so I can only give you general advice of principles involved as I see them.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Deleted double post ... the time out gremlin :)</p>

[anne_kerr]

<p>Well, I suppose it doesn't <em>have</em> to be good in low light. I understand that 2.8's are quite expensive.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>It depends on what you aim to do with your photos, computer viewing or large print. For the former one can use higher ISO to compensate for the slower lens ... the Lumix is f/4-f/5.8 but since I normally work at 400 ISO now it is not a problem for me compared to using a bridge camera at 100 ISO. I also blur my backgrounds in editing so do not need the fast lens for this.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>To help answer your questions better, ...<br>

- what kinds of photography do you do now?<br>

- what kinds of photography do you anticipate doing in near future?</p>

<p>get the very best optical lens that you can afford, that is compatible with your model camera, and is compatible with the things you plan to shoot. The better the lens, the better the optic image that will be digitized by the sensor, and the better the resulting image.</p>

[anne_kerr]

<p>I was thinking of doing some night-photography. Shooting the moon, maybe. Mainly, I think I'll use it for nature and animals.</p>

[sgust]

<p>When I got my Sony a-55 I bought it body only with the Sony 18-250mm lens after doing a lot of review reading. I am very happy with the lens, which for having such a wide focal range has excellent image quality. But it is pricey, I believe it runs around $ 650. The zoom lens for Sony alpha mount that really interested me since reading about it is the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Cameras/dp/B004FN1W2S">Tamron 18-270</a>. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15">Here is a review</a> for it. Its zoom range is huge and it can focus down to 0.5m for a max magnification of x0.29, which enough for frame filling images of relatively small things (like butterflies & flowers). I love my 18-250 lens' zoom range. It's a perfect walk around lens when you can't or don't want to lug around a bunch of lenses. If you don't mind carrying around a second lens, I would suggest getting two faster lenses with smaller focal ranges, as they are likely to have better image quality. It's always a compromise, if you want the best in image quality these zoom lenses will disappoint. But if your happy with image quality that is better than almost any point and shoot with a zoom lens, then any of these lenses should be fine.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

I don't have personal experience of the Sonys, but any 10x superzoom is going to be optically

compromised compared with a lens that has a much smaller range. A lens like an 18-200 is a

convenient walk-around lens - the range means you don't need to change lenses for a wide range of

fields of view, and that's what you're paying for. If that's what you want, go for it; if you're prepared to

change between your kit lens and another one when you want to get more reach, you'll probably get

better quality that way.

 

That said, there are some older 75-300mm lenses with a fairly poor reputation. Some newer ones,

such as the 70-300 VC Tamron, have a good reputation on other systems; possibly the slightly pricier

non-VC (because the Sony has Steadyshot built in) 70-300 Tamron might be worth the premium over

a 75-300, but check reviews.

 

I suspect the Sigma superzoom costs so much more partly because it's stabilised (OS). If you decide

to go that route, you may find in-lens stabilisation worthwhile for a long lens.

 

Good luck with whatever you choose. I'm sure those with more Sony experience can say more.

[anne_kerr]

<p>Okay, so I think I'm going towards purchasing something with better picture quality and a smaller range. <br>

Should I invest in the Sony brand or a Tamron/Sigma? I was trying to find an example of something I would buy to make it easier for readers to choose between two, but I can't find anything I'm happy with. Either it's 2.8 but ends at 50mm or the millimeters are high at 300 or even 500 but it's f4.5...</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I think I'm going towards purchasing something with better picture quality and a smaller range</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wise choice.<br>

For what you described, look to add something like a 55-200 or 70-300 and keep the 18-55 as well; yes, those lenses will be f/5.6 at the long end, but in daylight that's not really a problem, and on a tripod neither (and shooting the moon without a tripod could be tricky). Getting lenses with a wider aperture and 200-300mm length is going to add very significant cost (a jump from ~500 to ~1200 US$ more or less), plus add a lot of weight too. I am a usershooter, so I do not know all Sony models, but it will be much the same. With Nikon, here's part of the choice available: 70-300 f/4.5-5.6: $550, 750 grams - next: 300mm f/4: $1200, 1,5kg (not a zoom!) or 70-200 f/2.8: $2200, 1,2kg. And then there is the 300 f/2.8, but I guess you get the picture: it's really expensive and really heavy ;-)<br>

Getting another 17/18-50 lens to replace the 18-55 instead, given what you describe you want this lens to do, does not make sense to me. Look for telelenses (so starting at 55mm or more).</p>

<p>As for choosing between Sony or Tamron/Sigma.... it's not easy to answer. Sony lenses will be generally more expensive, constructed well and good quality. Tamron and Sigma can save you a nice amount of $$ - but their cheaper lenses aren't built as good, and in all cases, you need to check reviews (for example photozone.de, slrgear.com) to found out more. Some Tamrons and Sigmas are great, some as ho-hum and better avoided. So, all in all, Sony might be a safer bet, but they'll make you pay for that.</p>

[anne_kerr]

<p>Okay, so I've been reading a lot and I've been trying to find a lens that would suit my budget and wouldn't turn out being disappointing. I have read that sometimes Sigmas are even better than Sony's, and in the case of the 75-300mm, supposedly the Sigma is better because it has built-in image stabilization and for some reason the Sony does not. Additionally, the Sony version does not have AF/MF on the barrel, and this, I read, becomes annoying after a while.<br>

<em>"The Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 OS is an attractive lens on paper, less so in the field, though. Sharpness is good to very good at the shorter end, but drops considerably twowards the longer focal lengths, especially at the borders and corners, which are outright poor at 300 mm."</em><br>

Since I'm more concerned with image quality, I was considering purchasing something that only went up to 200mm because I figure if the 300mm is crummy when it comes close to 300, what's the point in buying a 300mm? Am I wrong?<br>

Lastly, I found this: http://www.amazon.com/Konica-Minolta-75-300mm-4-5-5-6-Cameras/dp/B000063VY5/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top. <br>

Should I assume this is the same lens that Sony makes (same glass, same quality, etc)? It's cheaper than any other lens. While I am not necessarily going for cheap, I don't believe that the quality difference between a Sony/Minolta (If the same) and a Sigma/Tamron would justify the extra $100+ that the Sony/Tamron/Sigma would cost. <br>

<strong>Should I just post this is the Sony section? lol</strong></p>

[sgust]

<p>The Sony lens doesn't have image stabilization because Sony dSLRs have sensor shift image stabilization in the body. That's why buying lenses with built in IS is kind of a waste of money, your paying for it and don't need it. I used to think that the in-lens IS might be better, but after doing some reading, it seems that Sony's Steady Shot is just as good as in-lens IS.<br>

The lens not having AF/MF switch doesn't seem to be a problem, at least for me it wouldn't be. I know where the switch is on the body, so I can do it without taking my eye from the viewfinder. But that's more a matter of personal preference than anything.<br>

I'm not sure about that specific Minolta lens, but most Sony's are updated versions of Minolta lenses. The most important update being the coatings, but they also communicate more information the the camera. The Sony versions have less problems when your shooting into the light due to the coatings. I have a Minolta 100mm macro and couldn't be happier with it. The build quality on the Minoltas is generally better than the Sony equivalent. <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=55">Here</a> are some reviews of the Minolta lens.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>As JC says above, the quality of the lens you need really does depend on what you intend to do with your photographs. If you are going to post them on the web, or make small prints, save yourself some money and purchase the cheaper lens. If you intend to print larger, or display/exhibit your photos, it makes more sense to get the best quality lens you can afford.</p>

[hernan_enriquez1]

<p>The Sigma 55-200 is a very good lens, I do not like the Tamron 75-300! My DSLRs are Alpha A200 and A37. I also recommend the Sigma 18-200 and the Sony 18-135, the last two are more expensive than the 55-200 which is less than 200dls.</p>

[anne_kerr]

<p>Thanks for the advice, everyone. And sorry for the late reply. <br>

In the end, I decided to go on Ebay and bought a "new" lens off a seller with positive ratings. I got the Sony 55-200mm for $110. Honestly, after reading reviews, I kind of wish I would've gotten the 70-300 instead, but maybe I'll like this one. <br>

<strong>Siegfried</strong>, I actually thought that because it didn't have AF/MF on the lens that it had some mechanical difference to a lens that did have the switch. Considering the switch on the camera is about a centimeter next to the lens' switch, I thought this would be a logical assumption. Thank you for the clarification! </p>