Sony Mount Lens to replace Kit 18-70mm Kit

C

Clickawaymedia

Suspended / Banned
Messages
242
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking for a lens under £400 to replace the kit lens on my Sony Alpha...

I was looking at the Sony 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 ZA VS DT which was available at £399 from Jessops until a few days ago, but now I have the money together it has shot back up over £550...

Basically, I am looking for a lens in a similar focal range, which is slightly faster then the 3.5-5.6 kit lens with better IQ and AF...

Since the lens I had planned has shot up in price, I was looking for an alternative... I was looking at the tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di and the 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II and the Sigma equivalents, but obviously this doesnt cover the same range as the kit lens losing something at either end.

I do tend to use the entire range of the kit, so something that covers the full range would be ideal (hence the 16-80mm being ideal, despite it not being as fast...

Is there a lens out there for under £400 which solves my problems? I have searched and cant find anything, so asking for advice here...

Any other suitable alternative also considered!
 
mm_photographic said:
the 50-70mm range!
Click to expand...

....is tiny!

I've lived without 51-69mm for an age, and have never once missed it! There are plenty of photographers that use only prime lenses, and if not covering every single mm of focal range works for them.....:shrug:

I think you'd be a bit daft to sacrifice constant f2.8 for 51-69mm.....it's hardly anything at all!! ;)
 
Slimbert said:
....is tiny!

I've lived without 51-69mm for an age, and have never once missed it! There are plenty of photographers that use only prime lenses, and if not covering every single mm of focal range works for them.....:shrug:

I think you'd be a bit daft to sacrifice constant f2.8 for 51-69mm.....it's hardly anything at all!! ;)
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you're saying,thats kinda why I'm asking for advice... weighing up the options available!

I do tend to use my kit lens at the tele end a LOT, and not sure how well I would cope without it... what would really be the deciding factor for me is how good the IQ and AF are on both lenses!!

I have also considered the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 as I may notice losing a few MM at the wider end a bit less! Although I would have to buy used to get it within my budget I think... but if its a good lens, I'd consider it!

Just noticed it on Ebay for £375... is it any good?
 
Last edited:
Don't get it because it's a crappy lens unless you're on about the more expensive £750 24-70mm which is much better.

If I were you I would just get the Tamron 17-50mm because it's an absolutely awesome lens for the money and you will not regret it.
 
Ok, thanks...

I may well get the 17-50mm and just get a lens to cover the 51-69mm range if i need it later. What about the 18-250mm lenses (tamron and sony)... are they any good?

Any more alternatives would be appreciated ***... and... is the 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 actually any good? I'm still considering it!
 
Last edited:
mm_photographic said:
Ok, thanks...

I may well get the 17-50mm and just get a lens to cover the 51-69mm range if i need it later. What about the 18-250mm lenses (tamron and sony)... are they any good?

Any more alternatives would be appreciated ***... and... is the 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 actually any good? I'm still considering it!
Click to expand...

The 17-70mm is nearly as much as the 17-50mm so it's really not worth it. As for the 18-250mm super zooms they are OK quality but they are slow all round and suffer from distortion worse than any other lens.

What my plan is that I love primes and so I am planning on buying two really good variable aperture lenses possibly the 16-80mm and 70-300mm and then buy a 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f2.8 when they become available in October, I might also buy myself a 50mm f1.4 and sell off my old 50mm f1.7.

As you can see from my plan that it's all about what you want to shoot, I use primes for serious work and variable aperture when I don't need to be as picky.
 
I'd personally get the Tamron 17-50 then perhaps get the Tamron 55-200 to cover the other ranges, the 55-200 is a pretty cheap lens, I got mine for £60, but they only sell for around £100 new and the quality is a lot better than the price suggests.
 
Luke have you had the sigma ?
mine is perfect although it's heavy, but so are all lenses with good built quality.
 
oh ! I thought you meant the 24-70mm f2.8 . anyway, as I've swapped it for a 18-50 f2.8 I'll see how it goes. I will probably sell it to get the 35mm f1.8

was sony making a better version of the 16-80mm zeiss ? it would be cool to get that and for low ligth - some primes.
 
Starastin said:
was sony making a better version of the 16-80mm zeiss ? it would be cool to get that and for low ligth - some primes.
Click to expand...

There's an article over at Sony alpha rumours mentioning possible release of 16-50mm f2.8 SAM (this will be a DT lens most likely and hopefully cheaper than Tamron and Sigma lens offerings) also a 10-20mm G which replaces the 11-18mm and this is most likely a DT lens as well and if not then Sony are pulling a stunt to have that lens on FF.
 
I had tha same situation a couple of months back, I am saving for the Tamron 17-50mm, but I got an old Minolta to use in the mean time.
I got a 35-105mm (old style with macro) Yes I know its not that wide, but I dont think I have taken if off my camera since I got it.
other ones to try, Sony 16-105mm, minolta/sony 24-105mm Minolta 28-135mm.
 
Tamron 28-75 2.8?
 
mastertrinity said:
There's an article over at Sony alpha rumours mentioning possible release of 16-50mm f2.8 SAM (this will be a DT lens most likely and hopefully cheaper than Tamron and Sigma lens offerings) also a 10-20mm G which replaces the 11-18mm and this is most likely a DT lens as well and if not then Sony are pulling a stunt to have that lens on FF.
Click to expand...


yeah ! saw your link in sony call . the 16-50mm f2.8 sam might be cheaper then sigmas hsm, but i would doubt that it's going to be cheaper than the nonhsm.
 
John Lewis in Bristol had the Sony 16-105 on special / clearance for £339 when I was last in there a week or so back and someone reported seeing one in a London store at that price last month.

This one : http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sony-AF-DT-16-105mm-F3.5-5.6_lens417.html

Not tried one but might be worth considering, it seems well thought of for an APS-C only lens.
 
Starastin said:
yeah ! saw your link in sony call . the 16-50mm f2.8 sam might be cheaper then sigmas hsm, but i would doubt that it's going to be cheaper than the nonhsm.
Click to expand...

I do prefer OEM glass but if the sigma will be better than the 16-50mm then I am not going to bother. I'm a bit cheesed off because I would love it to be CZ like the 16-80mm, even if it does cost more.
 
recently I have started to care only about aperture blades etc, as in - are they rounded, how does the bokeh look like. does the lens have beautiful colours etc.
since nikon 50mm f1.8 was rubbish in that. pointless wide open, ugly bokeh etc.
 
hey i am thinking the same thing now actually. I was thinking mayby the tammy 17-50 2.8 and a teleconverter? what do people think??
 
It won't work on a 17-50mm I strongly believe. although I have put a 2x on my 58mm , but poth of them are manual.
 
Why would you put a TC on such a short lens? You said in post 7 that you would miss the wide end less that the tele end so why not buy a 24-70 or 28-75?
 
75x2 150mm wide open 5.6 the lens starting to be sharp - f11 , not that bad , it certainly would be better than using 75-300 or something like that . although a beercan would be the best option I think.
 
oh ok, i thought that if you needed a bit more reach whack the tc on it and for most normal shooting leave it off.

nvm

jonny
 
I don't think you can really compare the sharpness at a native focal length with sharpness with a TC on. Unless you buy the best TCs I've not read particularly good things about any 2xTC.
 
no, if you need a reach get a lens for it , there is no cheap way of getting that bird sharp with rich colours if you don't brake your bank, or rob one. TC's are for people who have 300mm f2.8 etc .

says me selling helios 2x for 10quid ! :lol:
 
To the OP....

I'm still not convinced that your need for 51-69mm could be so great, that you need to think about sacrificing having constant f2.8.....if you don't have enough reach at 50mm then take a step forward, if 70mm isn't wide enough then take a step back!! :thumbs: If you're in a situation where you can't move forwards or backwards, shoot wider and crop in PP.....simples!! ;)
 
Slimbert said:
To the OP....

I'm still not convinced that your need for 51-69mm could be so great, that you need to think about sacrificing having constant f2.8.....if you don't have enough reach at 50mm then take a step forward, if 70mm isn't wide enough then take a step back!! :thumbs: If you're in a situation where you can't move forwards or backwards, shoot wider and crop in PP.....simples!! ;)
Click to expand...


70-200 minimum focussing distance was around meter I think , 24-70mm closer. when I needed to shoot products I needed to use 70mm as in that way I was able to trigger the flash, if I moved closer the chances dropped.
 
Starastin said:
70-200 minimum focussing distance was around meter I think , 24-70mm closer. when I needed to shoot products I needed to use 70mm as in that way I was able to trigger the flash, if I moved closer the chances dropped.
Click to expand...

Why did the chance of the flash triggering drop if you moved closer? :thinking:

Shooting at 50mm and cropping a little afterwards would have given you the same results, albeit you'd lose a few pixels off the image size which wouldn't matter at all....:shrug:
 
oh yeah ! forgot to mention the soft box ! :) I already need to crop shooting at 70mm but not a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top