Head Spinning...Sony Alpha lens upgrade???

J

jimmies

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello there - I have a Sony Alpha that I have been using with the kit lens (18-55) and a Minolta 80-200 xi Zoom....I have recently been looking into using it more a getting more out of it. From all accounts my lenses are pants and I bought a couple of cheap prime lenses (Helios 44m and a Exida 135mm) to play around with faster glass. Even with these old USSR pieces I was able to trump my other lenses in some areas....and they feel great to handle!

.....anyway - I'm looking to buy some 'better' lens(es) to replace my kit stuff that will hopefully last me for a while. I feel I have two options.

either I get a 18-200 single lens or something in the 18-70 range and 80-200 piece.

Firstly is the above sound in reasoning? and which is the best option.....I'm hearing that going the single lens route could lead to compromises in image quality. Is this right?

I had around £400 to spend on a lens(es) and any help would be greatly received

cheers
 
I don't know about a single lens but the tamron 17-50 f2.8 is much better than the kit lens. Combine this with a sigma 70-300 and you are probably within your budget secondhand.
 
In that range I think the Sony 18-135mm is the best option. Sharp from 18 to 135mm, not too far off the longer range you're looking at (200mm) and a great all in one lens. For some reason it's price has jumped from £200 to £350, so i'd keep an eye out incase they drop the price again.
 
not sure I have a requirement to go to 300mm....but that 17-50 looks interesting. I must say I'm really enjoying the manual nature of the old primes I have and I will probably find myself using manual focus whatever I end up with. Are modern lenses all auto with regards aperture?
 
Yes, auto aperture & focus although you can of course opt to set either manually.
1st, don't buy the Tamron or Sony 18-200 - theses were first generation superzooms & the later 18-250/270s despite having a wider focal range are better.
If you can get the Sony 18-135 for £199 as I did it's great vfm, at the current ~£300 less so. Don't know if they'll get stock but http://www.parkcameras.com/24792/Sony-DT-18-135mm-f-3-5-5-6-SAM--Unboxed-.html
Another option compared to the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is the Sony 16-50/2.8 SSM. It'll be quite a bit dearer but is better & especially if you decide to update your body is the more future-proof.

Also, the 55-200 has no right being as good as it is optically for what you can get it for https://outlet.sony.co.uk/shop/DSLR-&-SLT-Camera/DSLR-&-SLT-Accessories/SAL55200-2.AE.A

You need to think about what you are looking for in a lens e.g. do you not want to be swapping lenses or do you want a faster aperture (the 50/1.8 & 35/1.8 primes again are very good vfm) etc. etc.

btw the 18-55 isn't really that bad, it's perfectly usable but you can of course better it if you want to pay the entrance fee ;)
 
Last edited:
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a very common upgrade from the kit lens - if offer both good IQ and the option of the fast f/2.8 aperture across the range.

On the 'longer' range, the old favourite is the Minolta 70-210 f/4 aka 'The Beercan', heavy (IE Built solidly) and the AF is a bit slow, but good IQ. Obviously on available s/h, but easily within your budget.
 
Agree with much of what has been said already:

For a budget of £400 and buying new I would get the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 SP (£279 at Jessops/Wex/Park/SRS etc) - buying new and UK stock means you get the 5 year Tamron warranty although you could buy used or grey import new and save around £100. Usable at f2.8 and very sharp at f4. Great image quality for the price.

Plus the Sony 55-200 which is a much better lens than it's price tag suggests - £99 new here: http://www.devoncamera.co.uk/index....f4-5-6-ii-alpha-slr-zoom-lens-sal55200-2-5875

Total cost for 2 new lenses: £378

The Minolta 'beercan' (70-210 constant f4 version) is also an excellent lens - a good used copy is only around £80. Much bigger and heavier than the Sony 55-200 though and it can suffer from CA/purple fringing in certain conditions. Also the screw drive AF can be quite noisy especially on continuous AF. Up to 150mm at f5.6 mine is sharper than the Sony 55-200 at the same aperture (the Sony is best around f8, but is still fine wide open). The Minolta has nicer bokeh too - makes a great outdoor portrait lens.

Sony 18-135 and 55-300 both get good reviews - have not used either myself though. On a good day you can get them new for around £200 and £240 respectively. Tamron 70 -300 SP USD version (around £280 new, £200 used) is also a decent lens and AF is almost silent.
 
sounds like a plan Applemint....I'm finding the 17-50 for around £200 used and the 55-200 is a good buy at £99

the nagging question in my head is does the 17-50 offer better IQ over the Sony 18-135 in the 18-50 range???
 
jimmies said:
sounds like a plan Applemint....I'm finding the 17-50 for around £200 used and the 55-200 is a good buy at £99

the nagging question in my head is does the 17-50 offer better IQ over the Sony 18-135 in the 18-50 range???
Click to expand...

I spent an hour with the Tamron 17-50mm once I bought my 18-135mm, just to make sure I got the right lens for my camera. The were 100% equal in terms of image quality. The Tamron was slower to focus and a lot louder when focusing than the Sony, the Sony also felt better in my hand. The Tamron could focus a lot closer, as well as the obvious aperture advantages. I rarely shoot with my zoom in low light and much prefer the longer zoom range, so I stayed with the Sony 18-135mm.
 
Hmmm lots to think about

I can pick up a used 17-50 for £180...but I do like the idea of the 18-135..........

what to do
 
I paid £180 for my Tamron (used) and at the time the 18-135 was £200 (new) so similar in price, albeit new vs used. I went for the Tamron as I quite often want/need the 2.8 for handheld photos in low light. Plus I already had the 55-200, so already had the 50ish to 135mm focal range 'covered' as it were. I am also fortunate in having the luxury of 2 bodies (A37 and A57) due to some good refurb deals from Sony, so I often have the Tamron on one body and the 55-200 or 70-210 on the other so can avoid changing lenses.

If you don't need the f2.8 or seldom need it, then the 18-135 probably make more sense and along with the 55-200/ 70-210 or similar will mean less lens changing due to the greater range of the 18-135. You could always pick up a prime later on if you find you are needing something fast for low light - either the 50mm 1.8 (£85 new) or 35mm 1.8 (£125 new) mentioned in a post above are both cheap and decent lenses. I think the 18-135mm starts at f3.5 anyway (?) - not sure at what focal length that changes, but at least at the wide end it's not much different to the Tamron at f2.8.

Just a shame the 18-135 has shot up in price recently - might be a stock shortage or something, so if you are not in a rush and can wait a while, it may come back down again? (Then again that's just a guess - it might not, who knows). :)
 
Last edited:
They really have jumped in price haven't they??

I already have and old m42 50mm lens and are actually quite like it......I took this the other day and for a £5 lens and no ability I like this pic....the fly just happened to get in the way!!

DSC02020-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top