Just Purchased the A55 - Now The Lens

I am going to sell the kit lens and get either:

A) Sony 16-105

B) Tamron 17-50

C) Sony 18-250

I won't do any studio shooting and except for a few candid shots indoors - most will be as a travel lens or around the house and neighborhhood.

Which lens will go with the A55 better - and based upon my intended use - which would you recommend?

Thanks

palermo22 said:

I am going to sell the kit lens and get either:

A) Sony 16-105

B) Tamron 17-50

C) Sony 18-250

I won't do any studio shooting and except for a few candid shots indoors - most will be as a travel lens or around the house and neighborhhood.

Which lens will go with the A55 better - and based upon my intended use - which would you recommend?

Thanks

Click to expand...

If you travel a lot the 18-250 seems to be the best choice.
--
SLT, the way to go !

D) Sigma 18-250 OS HSM

Jack-of-all-trades, fills in lens gaps, and great for video.

I take similar pics to you and since buying the A55, the 18-250mm Sony lens is almost a permanent fixture on the camera.

They work exceptionally well together and give outstanding results.
You will not be disappointed.
--
ozgoldman

Either the SAL or, if you don't mind more size and weight, the Sigma OS HSM. I have the Sony and like it. Down the road you may find that you want the low light capabilities of something like the Tamron you mentioned.
--
Gary

ConfuciusTse said:

D) Sigma 18-250 OS HSM

Jack-of-all-trades, fills in lens gaps, and great for video.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I chose the Sigma over the Sony for that reason (lens stabilisation allows more time for video before overheating) and also because from the reviews the optical quality seems a bit better.

Ciao

The 16-80CZ seems to be more popular among a55 owners than any of the ones you have listed. I chose it for my a700 three years ago and have been very happy with it. It beats the others on image quality by a small amount which was important to me.
--
yakkosmurf
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yakkosmurf/
a850, a700, R1
24-70CZ, 16-80CZ, 70-300G, Sig 24 1.8 & 10-20 4.5
F58AM flash

All the lenses mentioned are , I think, half frame lenses which is fine if you never intend to adopt FF but it should be a conscious decision.
--
Keith-C

i got the 16-105 to go with my a55.

i went back and forth about getting that or the 18-250. but at the end of the day because of the pictures i take the extra 2mm up front is worth not having the extra zoom for me. i take a lot of wide shots so it was the better choice for me.

Between the 16-105 lens and the 18-250 lens (I would probably choose Sony if I went in that direction over the Sigma because of the extra weight) -- is there a big difference in photo/video quality? With the 16-105: if there is better quality - is it worth the difference in giving up 145mm?

I went with the Sony 16-105 (although I do have a Tamron 18-200). I used ExposurePlot to analyze my shots and found I used the wider end much more frequently than the long end. Even in my travel shots where I assumed I would use the longer end of the 18-200 more frequently, I realized that was not the case.

For me, the 16-105 was a better fit. I plan on selling the the 18-200 in the near future.

Review of the Sigma 18-250 http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2009/08/09/sigma-18-250mm-f3-5-6-3-dc-os-hsm

Comparisons among the Sony 18-250, Sony 16-105, and the CZ 16-80.
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/07/24/which-sony-alpha-kit-lens

I've owned all three of these lenses, as well as the now discontinued version of the Sigma 17-70 and the CZ 16-80.

The Tamron 17-50 was just too short for me as a walkaround. It was bitingly sharp and if you can live without the tele, this is worth consideration. Check out Tamron's length tool to compare what 50mm looks like compared to 80 or 105mm.

Sigma's 17-70mm was big time fun because of the close-focus capability and aperture but I wanted something longer than 70mm.

I was never blown away by the CZ compared to the 16-105mm. It was easy enough for me to sell it when I thinned the herd.

I've had both the Tamron and Sony versions of the 18-250mm. It looks like the Tamron version may be gone in the sony mount which is disappointing because it tended to be a fair bit less expensive with a better warranty and otherwise equivalent performance. I kept the Tamron version because it had a better warranty, a subjectively better exterior while allowing me to recover more money by selling its cousin.

I still own the 16-105mm and the Tamron 18-250mm. Both are great lenses that I can heartily recommend. Picking can be tough as evidenced by the fact that I still own both of them. Here's how I'd break it down (my opinions or observations of course):

16-105mm. Much faster focusing. Noticeably sharper in most cases. Heavier. Wide end difference of 2mm is more than you might think.

18-250mm. Slow focusing. Awesome range. Somewhat prone to CF on the tele end. Lightweight fits the a33 well. Somewhat better close focus ability

Try the tamron focal length tool on their website if you're not 100% sure that you understand how much bigger an object gets from 105mm to 250mm. I'm always surprised that its not as much as I thought.

I don't think either of those two is a bad choice as a single lens solution. They won't be perfect for all situations but they sure do well for a lot of things.

If you're considering the Tamron 17-50, you might also consider the new Sigma 17-50mm. Slower aperture than the Tamron but very affordable. I'm tempted to try it for video if nothing else but I expect I won't be able to stand the 50mm tele for my normal uses.

Easy choice as far as I am concerned... the 17-50mm f2.8

But I am not a great believer in single "jack of all trades" lens solutions.

this might help as the poster said it's all shot with an SAL 18250

Another vote for the Sigma 18-250 OS HSM... makes the A55 into a powerhouse do-it-all camera.

--
Sony A55, A580, HDR-SR12, T100

Lenses: SAL70400G, Sigma18-250 OS HSM, Sigma 18-50 OS HSM, Maxxum 50mm 1.7, Lensbaby Composer

palermo22 said:

Which lens will go with the A55 better - and based upon my intended use - which would you recommend?

Click to expand...

For travel it's no contest, the 18-250. Of course that depends on your choice of what to photograph. But I'm also mostly a outdoors, wildlife, landscape and macro shooter and the 18-250 is in my large set of lenses for my travel/one lens solution. I do switch to a variety that are not on your list if going more than one lens on a foray.

Remember lenses are long term things, camera bodies? Well the a55 will be a has been shortly. Choose lenses for the longer term.

Walt

palermo22 said:

which would you recommend?

Click to expand...

Here's a vote for the 18-250mm lens, and I'd try for a used Tamron if I were doing it all again. It's a seriously cool all purpose travel / vacation / all purpose lens.

After you've had it for a while you'll start to feel the need for something different, but you don't yet know what that will be. There's nothing wrong with having more than one lens to cover a given focal length.

--
Tacoma, Washington, USA

You will likely get more lenses in future but any way you look at, a 18-250 lens is very handy to have. I chose Sigma 18-250 over Sony for its better Optical quality and in-lens OS. You might be surprised by the image quality from this so-called travel zoom.

i'd definitely go for the 18 250. much better suited as a travel lens. just use the flash when indoors. when you need better quality and aperture, get the 35mm 1.8.

I had in my hands and tried the following -

CZ 16-80 3.5-4.5 - too dark, it's 4.5 already at 35mm, good lens, but not great, WAY too expensive for such a dark and just good one... Had it for 2 weeks, decided not to buy.

Tamron 17-50 2.8 - Not sharp at [email protected]. Really sharp from like 6.3 at 17mm, really good sharpness at 35-50mm even wide open. Unpleasant picture (hard to explain)... Had it for like a month, sold it.

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM - Quite sharp from wide open, silent AF, very pleasant picture, good bokeh, good macro capabilities. I liked it very much, and I've kept it.

Sigma 17-50/2.8 HSМ - Tried it while buying 17-70. It's more expansive, but IQ is the same or even a bit less then 17-70 gave me... And no macro capabilities... Only tried it at the shop...

Tamron 18-250 (Sony 18-250 is the same lens). Acceptable IQ, you have to stop it down to get good sharpness, but hey, it's a superzoom! It's range is just great, one lens to shoot EVERYTHING is very comfortable. I bought a used one just to test it and decided to keep it.

--



My photo albums http://public.fotki.com/snowcat8/