Yes, Joachim, yours is clearly superior, and you are fortunate to have it. But I also think yours is not the LE version, is that correct? And that lens is the currently available new model apart from the PZ model. The LE is commonly soft and mine had very poor AF performance at 200mm (as above showed). Also, it's like the 16-70 that has its devotees and detractors. The trouble seems to be that the lens has copy variation and how do you know what you're going to get if you buy on-line or second hand? It's a lottery. Given the great bodies Sony is producing, they should put some effort into both the 16-70 and 18-200LE to remove the flaws and copy variation. It's the single biggest reason that I leave my A6300 at home most of the time. Why bother when for 95% of my shooting I'm going to get a better photo with my RX10III? Okay, prime fans wouldn't accept what I do, but when travelling, I am over carrying a bag full of lenses and two bodies. These days I take the RX10III and a RX100IV as backup and when a discrete camera is needed.
My point in an earlier post was that if you're going to carry a superzoom on an A6#00 body, you should consider the RX10III. The lens is stellar! Goes from 24mm to 600mm with excellent IQ throughout and seems to give up little to APS-C except for the bokeh fans. Its ISO performance is good to 1600, even 3200 and given the f2.4-4.0 aperture, you get a stop or two advantage over f3.5-6.3, especially at longer focal lengths. The AF is better than some would have you believe. I haven't found a single situation where the AF has let me down except when I've been careless with handling. That's rare now since I am aware of how to avoid bad shots.
In other words, a superzoom has its place, but none at the moment that I would care to carry and use on my A6300 will give me a better, cleaner photo that my RX10III.
--
Cheers,
John
You are correct John. Mine is the 18-200 OSS, not the LE. But that lens is still available new. It is the lens I use most of the time on my trips everywhere, even in the tank bag of my motorcycle. I read Ken Rockwell's review of the RX10III and his photos look great. Personally I am not interested in such a camera since I like using my manual legacy lenses from Voigtländer and Zeiss C-G
--
Joachim
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jowul/
That makes sense then, e.g. see DxOmark:
the E18200LE consistently tests worse than the original (silver) E18200, even though the E18200LE tests significantly better than e.g. the DT18200.
You can add the E55210, which also trails the E18200LE at the long end, but matches mid range. The original E18200 betters both.
Add in the extra range of OSS compensation, and the E18200 remains impressive.
When it came out, lens correction profiles were not applied to the in camera JPG. Since then, this lens (as has the original kit lens) improved especially for OOC-JPG.
For good measure, I'l add the E18105G and E1670Z lenses which perform rather similarly to the E18200, despite what many people claim:
The myth that the E18200, or even the kit lenses, are substandard s simply not true.
If you want much better, consider a prime lens, and perhaps upgrade to a non-AA sensor in the A7 series cameras:
Please note that these are mid range comparisons at mid aperture.
Again, when using a superzoom, I use it at its strongest points, not weakest points. Daytime, low ISO, mid aperture, the (super)zooms don't render all that bad. Add low light (high ISO bcs. slow aperture), widest aperture, max/min range, and you'll find the (super)zooms degrade more than a comparable FL-prime, while the primes have a faster aperture.
Also, you should compare post-edit. E.g. from RAW, you may have to add more sharpening and clarity to the superzoom than with a prime lens, but otherwise these lenses do fine.
I have found them to be bulky for travel, and not a good choice for low light situations.
But for sunny daytime events, they do just fine!
--
Cheers,
Henry
