Kit lenses or negotiate?

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,247Gear list
Like?
Re: 55-300 kills anything below "pro", period.
In reply to catchr, Apr 27, 2013

catchr wrote:

Awesome, thanks. I've locked it in   So would you add to that the 18-135 or 16-105. I'm not sure I'm going to need the 16mm but I'm interested what others think. Would you notice the difference in your kit if you had/didn't have it? Huge quality difference?

Cheers

I think the 18-135 is a kit lens on steroids. Very nice, but it does not quite enter the realms of the really good. Really good are lenses like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Sony 16-50 f2.8. The range might turn some off, but really, in real life, you don't need longer lengths in so many situations. You can go around doing all kinds of photography, like street, landscape, around the house, and you'll see that even if you *had* longer lengths, more often than not, you'll end up using much shorter lengths. I never thought this myself, but because of a fluke reason, I ended up with this Tamron 17-50 lens which I otherwise would probably not have ventured into, but I have to tell you, it's amazing! Razor, and I mean razor, sharp. And a fast lens - all kinds of indoor photos now without flash, that in the past I would have resorted to using popup flash for......

The 16-105 is a different league than the 18-135 as well. From what I've seen, the 16-105 is way sharper, and with much nicer contrast.

If you truly care about the absolute best results, as I do, you should not resort to anything superzoom or anything like half superzoom. You'll see people flaunting around their 18-250 or 18-270 lenses, and they're very happy with it, and that's great. But you can do better! You can get super duper tack sharp amazing vivid details, that you will simply not ever get on any genericish kind of lenses.

My ideal combo, right now anyway, is specifically the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 because it's *sharp* and cost effective (cheaper than Sony 16-50) and opens up indoor flashless possibilities, plus the Sony 55-300 because it's just that ludicrously sharp for a "tele kit" lens. Google around for "Sony 55-300" and you'll see every single review include elements of surprise!

Sony's weird sometimes. With the A57 they gave away too much goodness. The 55-300 they compete with their own G lenses for crying out loud!

So what's next... A58...pfff... such a DOWN scale....

End of day. A57 + Tam17-50 + Sony 55-300 and you'll run circles around the competition. Forget about the 18-55 kit lens - it's actually not bad (!), but it definitely is *kit*. Kit indoor -> popup flash -> yuck.

 123Mike's gear list:123Mike's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS A3000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow