Lens advice please for new convert coming from DSLR

swiftseven wrote:

Since my Sony has in-camera stabilization I never needed to consider whether the lens did. But I think that will be important for me. I shoot mostly outdoors, scenics, close-ups, patterns in nature and also birds (stationary and in flight). I have 2 grandkids and shoot some people but not that much.

Don't over estimate the usefulness of a built-in stabaliser. For landscape and macro I would prefer to be on a tripod, and for birds and grandkids I'd be shooting at a high enough speed that it doesn't matter. I do like it in longer lenses and it can be handy in a standard lens on occasion, but as you say you have OIS in the 18-55 and all of the longer zooms have it. I do like having OIS in certain lenses but don't feel the need for IBIS. I had it in my Olympus OMD but still sold all that gear in favour of Fuji.

So here is what I am thinking - The 18-55/2.8-4 will be the replacement for my Tamron 17-50. I like the OIS.

I am conflicted about whether to get the 55-200/3.5-4.8 OIS (I like the aperture range and only $100 more than this next one) or the 50-230/4.5-6.7 (lighter in weight is nice but not crucial).

I went for the lighter one and really like it considering how light it is for that much reach but it does have a slow max aperture and is not that fast to focus.

And I am in a quandary whether I should be considering the 18-135/3.5-5.6. It is OIS, and WR which really appeals to me. I just do not like the sound of the smaller apertures. I would be choosing this instead of the 18-55 (for now at least). How would people who use both compare the IQ and focus speed of these two?

I think the 18~55 is a better lens, smaller, faster, better IQ, but obviously less reach/range.

Long term I definitely want the 100-400/4.5-5.6. It is OIS and WR. I do shoot birds some and I know I am giving up that ability for now by switching because I currently use my Minolta 100-300 and my Sigma 70-200 for that.

I'm looking at one at the Photography show in a couple of weeks. It does look good from what I've read.

And does anyone use the Rokinon 300/6.3 Reflex lens? I realize it is manual focus but at prices as low as $219 I am tempted to try it.

Not keen on reflex lenses. It's cheap though.

If I get one prime for now, which shall it be? I love my Minolta 50/1.4 especially for people.

I like the Zeiss 32mm f1.8 as a standard lens; the Fuji 35mm f1.4 is also excellent. A bargain lens for close-up and portrait is the 60mm macro. That might be a good fit for you.

I know I won't get much for some of my lenses, especially the Minolta ones. Should I spend the money for an adapter so I can use some of them even though they will be mannual focus?

I did, but only for specific lenses. I don't mind MF; I find using an adapter is a pain compared to using 'made to measure' lenses. I mainly wanted it for macro since the Fuji is not 1:1, and I'm happy with MF for macro and portrait anyway.

One more item - I am going to Australia this fall and will need to consider weight and probably do not want to carry more than 2 lenses. So is that the 18-55 and one of these - 55-200 or 50-230? I do not travel a lot but I do hike and carry my camera.

Work out which of the two longer lenses suits you best. One is lighter and longer, the other has a faster max aperture and better build. Both deliver sharp images.

Or is the 18-135 an excellent travel and combine it with one of the longer ones instead of the 18-55 and a longer one?

Possibly, your call, but not for me.