sony 16-105 v Tamron 18-200 V Tamron 18-250 to replace 18-70 kit lens

From an earlier thread and general comment I received and due to budget constraints I am consideribg the above lenses. I will have to get a second hand one. What do you feel is the better lens. I like sharp images with good colour.

What are the pros and cons of these lenses. I suppose I am after a good general purpose lens that takes good images. I have 18-70 and 70-300 kit lens and a Tamron SP 90 macro. Will the above lenses give me a tangible improvement over what I have. I am soon to travel overseas and a larger zoom may be useful if I don't need to carry the 70-300.

I have reviewed Dyxum and the 16-105 is generally well commented but for poor f rating.

thanks for your pros and cons and advice/recommndations

regards

Tel

I travel a lot and the Tamron 18-250 is my workhorse. While my requirements are not very sophisticated towards IQ, that lens did never disappoint me. Does a wonderful job, considering the huge zoom range. Fast accurate focus, good colours, good sharpness.

One item is annoying: when you extend the lens rapidly to full extension, a vacuum is created inside, sucking in dust. The dust accumulation is just of cosmetic importance, will not influence the IQ. Changing the zoom range slowly will reduce the problem. Other members of the forum may be able to tell if that problem exists on the Sony brand of the same lens.

Chimere

I replaced my 18-70 with the 16-105. It's an excellent lens, but I would look at the price difference between it and the 16-80 T*. I will say that 16 is a lot wider than you'd think; I'd rather have 16 wide than 200/250 long.

Once again I see a thread that leaves off Sigma. I'm very happy with my Quantaray (rebadged Sigma) 18-200. Sure, several Sigmas have well-documented gear failures, but I haven't seen this lens among those reports. These have been sold for $200 or less in Quantaray label, and Ritz gives a 5-year warranty too. Check slrgear.com for Tamron 18-250 review and read the comparison section at the bottom, where each of the 18-200s get a paragraph.

My 'true' kit lens replacement is another Sigma, the 17-70. Faster than the 16-105 at matching focal lengths, good specs and absurdly close focusing throughout the range. A really fun and versatile lens.

--
Jim R, A200 & K100d

teldoh said:

I am soon to travel overseas and a larger zoom may be useful if I don't need to carry the 70-300.

Click to expand...

If overseas means Europe or Asia, the longer zoom won't be as useful as you think it will be. Mostly, you can't get far enough away from what you want to shoot and you'll be wishing you had a wider lens, not a longer one.

A lot depends on how light you want to travel and how much time you want to screw around with your equipment, but if it were me I'd take a camera and the Sony 16-105 and leave everything else at home.

--
Dispensing Wisdom One Post At A Time,
from Tacoma, Washington, USA

thank nyou all for your advicxe Maybe the sony 16-105 is the way to go for a good quality lens and use my 70-300 kit lens when I need longer lens.

I have noticed some USA stores have Quataray 18-200 lens for about $250 Australian. It has been suggested that these are rebadged Sigmas. Are they a good lens and wirth considering at the price??

regards and many thanks

Lens description ; 18-200 mm DC 3.5-6.3 Lens

Product Specifications
Product Name Quantaray 251666129 Camera Lens
Camera Format Digital SLR
Lens Type Zoom Lens
Focal Length 18-200 mm
Lens Maximum Aperture f/3.5-f/6.3
Minimum Aperture f/22
Mount Sony/Minolta
Closest Focusing Distance 17.7 inches
Diaphragm Blades 7 Blades
Picture Angle 69.3-7.1 deg
Attachment/Filter Size 62 mm
Groups/Elements 15 Elements in 13 Groups
Designed for Digital Camera Yes
Dimensions 2.8 x 3.1 inches (Diameter x Length
Weight 14.4 oz

I replaced my kit 18-70 with the Sigma 17-70 and is very pleased with the results though of course a bit mor tele range would be useful at times. As a standard zoom the Sigma is very good value and the close up range is incredible, at 70mm you can focus on objects touching the front lens

Here is a forum post comparing Sony 18-70 and Sigma 17-70 which together with the Dyxum reviews made me buy the Sigma:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&message=19382772&q=sony+1870+sigma+1770&qf=m

To solve my need for better range while travel light I've lately added the Sony 18-250 to my equipment list, a very nice lens too, especially for the price of RM 1650 in Kuala Lumpur, that's a few hundreds more than the "sister lens" Tamron 18-250 in Malaysia and it's about half the price for the Sony back home in Sweden.

I've done quite serious comparisons with my Sigma 17-70, Sony 18-250, Sigma 70-300 and Sigma 70-200/2,8 at various focal ranges and different f-stops and here is my short findings:

Sigma 17-70: Quite soft wide open for the whole range, good sharpness though from f/5,6 and up. Extremely sharp at all ranges at f/8, very useful lens both for widescreen shots and portraits I think, better bokeh than expected at 70mm and f/6,3 for example.

Sigma 70-300: Better than the 17-70 at 70mm and pretty good at 200mm too, it's a tie with the Sony 18-250 which eventually makes it my "lens for sale" now. I don't really need it anymore.

Sigma 70-200/2,8: What can I say, it's a prime lens and it's extremely sharp and useful all the way from 70 through 200mm, at least from f/4 and up. I suspect that my lens might have some focus issues as it is very soft wide open though.

Sony 18-250: More CA and not as sharp as the Sigma at wide angle. It shapes up considerably at 70mm where it shines compared to the Sigma 17-70 at f/4,5. At 200mm and above it's comparable to the Sigma 70-300 regarding sharpness but I like the colors from the Sony better though it has a tendency to under expose. Of course not as sharp as the Sigma 70-200 but as a travel lens I think it's a really nice piece of glass.

Hope this doesn't make you more confused....

teldoh said:

From an earlier thread and general comment I received and due to budget constraints I am considering the above lenses. I will have to get a second hand one. What do you feel is the better lens. I like sharp images with good color.

Click to expand...

With the 18-250 you could go with just the 90mm macro and it for your trip. I use the 18-250 Sony for walkabout/travel use and have found the IQ quite acceptable to excellent. Sharp images are easy to obtain, particularly at f8-f11 that I so often use. I generally keep it on one of my a700s for "grab a camera and run" situations.

The 18-200 is a older design that was replaced by the 18-250. There is some expectation that the 18-270 will be out sometime next year in SSM or SAM form though that's strictly speculation. I'm hoping SSM and that the build quality is not degraded otherwise.

Walt

Chimere said:

I travel a lot and the Tamron 18-250 is my workhorse. While my requirements are not very sophisticated towards IQ, that lens did never disappoint me. Does a wonderful job, considering the huge zoom range. Fast accurate focus, good colours, good sharpness.

One item is annoying: when you extend the lens rapidly to full extension, a vacuum is created inside, sucking in dust. The dust accumulation is just of cosmetic importance, will not influence the IQ. Changing the zoom range slowly will reduce the problem. Other members of the forum may be able to tell if that problem exists on the Sony brand of the same lens.

Click to expand...

I've never noticed that problem with my Sony 18-250, though I'm pretty sure it's no better sealed and would have to get air in too. And my 18-250 has seen extensive use outside in all kinds of conditions. Maybe I just don't get so wild with the zoom to have it.

Walt

Thank you all for your posts. I have bitten the bullett and purchased a second hand Sony 16-105. The reviews in Dyxum appeared to be very positive. It will cover the very great majority (90%+) of my shooting needs based on my oast experience. This together with my Tamron 90mm macro and 75-300 kit lens will have to do me for quite a while.

regards to you all and thanks for your help.

Tel

For quality - get the 16-105mm
For travel - get the 18-250mm
For low cost - get the 18-200mm

Long ago I posted my (unbiased and honest) opinion about the 16-105mm
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=33745201

--
Never bite the Apple...

Ronni

http://www.pbase.com/ronnihansen

Hello,

I was also looking for an all around lens. After so many research of lens reviews, I bought the Sony 16-105 at B&H on sale (still on sale to this date). I considered the Sony or Sigma 18-250 and Sony 16-80CZ.
I am very satisfied with the Sony 16-105 lens.

Emmanuel