Best travel lens option with a Sony A6700

What is the best walk around lens option for the A6700 for travel? Mainly shooting general street scenes, buildings etc. No low light interiors though, just in daylight, even if cloudy.

• Sony 16-55 f2.8 G
• Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC DN
• Tamron 17-70 f2.8

I've read a few reviews on these and some will recommend one and someone else a different one.

The Tamron has lens stabilisation and a longer range. The Sigma is really small and the Sony is slightly wider, bigger and more expensive than the other two. Is it worth the extra cost?

Which is the sharpest across the whole frame and also the most suitable for my use case and the best compromise in quality other than sharpness?

I'm still considering my new camera options but if I went with the A6700 I may pair one of the above lenses with a Sony 70-350 G OSS for my train photography, which I've read is a really good lens.

Thanks.

IainDA said:

What is the best walk around lens option for the A6700 for travel? Mainly shooting general street scenes, buildings etc. No low light interiors though, just in daylight, even if cloudy.

• Sony 16-55 f2.8 G
• Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC DN
• Tamron 17-70 f2.8

I've read a few reviews on these and some will recommend one and someone else a different one.

The Tamron has lens stabilisation and a longer range. The Sigma is really small and the Sony is slightly wider, bigger and more expensive than the other two. Is it worth the extra cost?

Which is the sharpest across the whole frame and also the most suitable for my use case and the best compromise in quality other than sharpness?

I'm still considering my new camera options but if I went with the A6700 I may pair one of the above lenses with a Sony 70-350 G OSS for my train photography, which I've read is a really good lens.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

The a6700 is my travel camera. The most versatile lens for outdoor is the Sony 18-135mm. The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is very good, so it depends if 50 or 135 is suitable for where you’re going. I have both lenses as they are light enough to take both. For indoor low light, I use Sony 15mm f/1.4. I also have the 70-350 you mentioned, which is great telezoom.

I went with the Sigma 18-50mm. Great lens, great price and form factor. Felt the Sony 16-55mm too large. Also bought the Sony 10-20 PZ, Sony 15mm and the 70-350. Overall, great kit if not using my FF gear.

IainDA said:

What is the best walk around lens option for the A6700 for travel? Mainly shooting general street scenes, buildings etc. No low light interiors though, just in daylight, even if cloudy.

• Sony 16-55 f2.8 G
• Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC DN
• Tamron 17-70 f2.8

Click to expand...

The daylight use suggests that a slower than f2.8 lens is rational. Of those the 16-55 has probably the best reputation

Member said:

The Tamron has lens stabilisation and a longer range. The Sigma is really small and the Sony is slightly wider, bigger and more expensive than the other two. Is it worth the extra cost?

Click to expand...

By reputation, yes. But you would need to decide the weight and size that works for you

Member said:

Which is the sharpest across the whole frame and also the most suitable for my use case and the best compromise in quality other than sharpness?

Click to expand...

I would think a longer range is better as an all around daylight travel lens. The 17-70 is the one of your choices I would lean towards For this reason.

Member said:

I'm still considering my new camera options but if I went with the A6700 I may pair one of the above lenses with a Sony 70-350 G OSS for my train photography, which I've read is a really good lens.

Click to expand...

The Tamron Full Frame 70-300 or 50-300 are also options to consider. The 70-300 lacks stabilization but the 6700 has ibis.

Member said:

What is the best walk around lens option for the A6700 for travel? Mainly shooting general street scenes, buildings etc. No low light interiors though, just in daylight, even if cloudy.

• Sony 16-55 f2.8 G
• Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC DN
• Tamron 17-70 f2.8

I've read a few reviews on these and some will recommend one and someone else a different one.

The Tamron has lens stabilisation and a longer range. The Sigma is really small and the Sony is slightly wider, bigger and more expensive than the other two. Is it worth the extra cost?

Which is the sharpest across the whole frame and also the most suitable for my use case and the best compromise in quality other than sharpness?

I'm still considering my new camera options but if I went with the A6700 I may pair one of the above lenses with a Sony 70-350 G OSS for my train photography, which I've read is a really good lens.

Click to expand...

IMO the fundamental travel-lens issue is the tradeoff between as small a size and weight as practicable and the most useful range of angles of view (by sensor size, focal lengths) for the type of 'travel' photos that you like to shoot. So for those three:

Sigma 18-50mm: 290 g, 75mm long;

Sony 16-55mm: 494 g, 100mm long; and

Tamron 17-70mm: 525 g, 119mm long; and then I'll add

Sony 18-135mm, 325 g, 88mm long (especially because "No low light interiors though, just in daylight").

So weight and size are a big win for the smaller Sigma. But then it has the most restrictive zoom range. Personally and if / when traveling by myself, I'd miss the 16-18mm range more than the 50-70mm range. The Sony 18-135mm's much greater long end could be nice though, especially if / when traveling with my family. What do you think?

Also, IMO because the A6700 has decently-useful IBIS, for a 'normal' zoom lens, lens-based stabilization is not important.

Last but not least, IMO for most 'travel' purposes, among lenses that are at least good, things like sharpest across the whole frame are far less important than having the focal length(s) you need / want / would use most, and then having a size that's comfortable for you to carry. But then for travel use I've mostly replaced any ILC with a little Sony RX100 IV, so you see my bias or at least preference.

You seem to be aware of the basic issues. Other than suggesting that you add to your consideration the Sony 18-135mm, I doubt any of us can do much to help you make a better choice for you.

Mostly a forgotten option for travel is the 18-200. There are three versions, the silver original version seems the best for photography. These are generally cheap these days today only available used. They are as heavy as the 17-70, but optically slower. The image quality is supposedly quite good.

Another forgotten lens is the Sony 16-70/4. It’s lighter than the others listed, wider than all of the ones other than the 16-55, and s as long as your longest option.

IainDA said:

What is the best walk around lens option for the A6700 for travel? Mainly shooting general street scenes, buildings etc. No low light interiors though, just in daylight, even if cloudy.

• Sony 16-55 f2.8 G
• Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC DN
• Tamron 17-70 f2.8

I've read a few reviews on these and some will recommend one and someone else a different one.

The Tamron has lens stabilisation and a longer range. The Sigma is really small and the Sony is slightly wider, bigger and more expensive than the other two. Is it worth the extra cost?

Which is the sharpest across the whole frame and also the most suitable for my use case and the best compromise in quality other than sharpness?

I'm still considering my new camera options but if I went with the A6700 I may pair one of the above lenses with a Sony 70-350 G OSS for my train photography, which I've read is a really good lens.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Sony 16-55 if you're getting a6700 that has IBIS, it will pair well with Sony 70-350.

Sigma 18-50 if size and weight is priority, which you never stated.

Tamron 17-70 if you're getting a body with no IBIS.

Sony 18-135 if you're planning on single lens travel with minimal to no low light needs you mentioned.

Thank you all for your input and suggestions. I’m going to a camera store next week to try out some of the options.

UncleVanya said:

Mostly a forgotten option for travel is the 18-200. There are three versions, the silver original version seems the best for photography. These are generally cheap these days today only available used. They are as heavy as the 17-70, but optically slower. The image quality is supposedly quite good.

Click to expand...

I haven't used any of the three (!) Sony E-mount 18-200s, but they've generally been found to have substantially worse optical performance than the Sony E-mount 18-135. DxO tested two of the three Sony E 18-200s, and they both performed poorly. The 18-200s are also, as you say, on the heavier end (460, 524, and 649 g), versus the 18-135 (325 g). IOW, I think there are good reasons why they're generally cheap these days.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Mostly a forgotten option for travel is the 18-200. There are three versions, the silver original version seems the best for photography. These are generally cheap these days today only available used. They are as heavy as the 17-70, but optically slower. The image quality is supposedly quite good.

Click to expand...

I haven't used any of the three (!) Sony E-mount 18-200s, but they've generally been found to have substantially worse optical performance than the Sony E-mount 18-135. DxO tested two of the three Sony E 18-200s, and they both performed poorly. The 18-200s are also, as you say, on the heavier end (460, 524, and 649 g), versus the 18-135 (325 g). IOW, I think there are good reasons why they're generally cheap these days.

Click to expand...

Given that the DXO team hasn’t tested the 18-135 it’s hard to compare. In fact there are only a handful of lenses tested with the worst being the 18-200 LE version and the best being the ZA 16-70/4. The 18-200 came in third. The spread is rather narrow on points with the 18-105 being second and if looking ONLY at sharpness then the 18-105 is first at 9mp. The 16-70 is next at 8mp. The 18-200 is next at 7mp. HOWEVER…. This source: https://sonyalpha.blog/2020/03/02/which-lenses-are-the-sharpest-for-a-a6xxx/amp/ suggests the 18-105 is merely good and the 16-70 is very good and the rankings are largely driven by sharpness! The 18-200 oss version (67mm filter) has an average rating while the LE version is in the BAD category. I would suggest that average isn’t too bad - but very good is much better. I’d probably go for the 16-70/4 personally and not the 18-135 or 16-55. The basic 18-55 is also listed as good which was a surprise

The other lenses on the initial op list are largely absent from both sources of rankings so inferred ratings will be needed based on comparison to other lenses.

My travel lens is the Tamron 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD. Heavier than the others, but if you were looking at the 70-350G, the Tamron may come close enough. It is quite sharp for a superzoom.

I certainly agree, I used to use my RX10 IV and RX100 VII extensively for travel. I recently replaced RX10 with the A6700 and I used the 18-300 lens exclusively on this body during a recent trip to the Western USA parks. They are almost the same weight 1095g vs 1155g. This APSC combo was so successful that I utilized this for close to 80% of my photos and even tried clear image zoom at 2x ( 900mm equivalent) with pretty good results when needed.
The 18-300 on the A6700 was consistently sharp at the wider angles especially at f5.6. If you use F8.0 at 300mm (450mm equivalent) it’s also pretty sharp. This combination weighs a little more than 1 kilo and can be easily carried.

If traveling ultralight is your goal, than this lens will be a bit much, but if your intention is to cover most travel subjects, then this lens is sufficient for cities, landscapes, wildlife, etc. For low light and very wide angle photography you may need an additional wide angle f2,8 or less lens lens such as the Sigma 10-18, the Tamron 11-20, the Sony E 11 f1.8, or even a real high end smartphone.

I think everyone here has added solid advice.

Really comes down to how much weight and size you're willing to carry. The all-in-one lens (18-200/ 18-300, etc) are great as no lens changing and always be able to adjust your focal length quickly at the cost of aperture speed. Then you have the f2.8 zooms like the 18-50, 16-55, and 17-70, each has their benefits. Have shot the 18-50 and 16-55 and both are excellent. Then there's a new crop of faster primes which give you a more subject separation and better low light light shooting ability.

We all agree the 70-350 is a quality staple lens for the longer end. I like zooms myself and keep small fast prime for evening, street. Lighter and smaller have become my priority more and more. So I would go 18-50 f2.8, 70-350 and 15mm f1.4.

As I save up for an a6700 myself, I'm in the same boat on choosing a standard zoom. It really seems to be a trio of tradeoffs.

Sigma:

Pros: Small, light, cheapest.

Cons: Fringing/chromatic aberration, smallest range, no IS

Tamron:

Pros: Longest range, VC/IS, not as expensive as Sony.

Cons: Biggest/heaviest, soft past ~50mm, more expensive than Sigma

Sony:

Pros: Sharpest overall, widest "wide" (24mm equiv closest to main cell phone cameras)

Cons: Nearly as heavy as Tamron, way heavier than Sigma, no IS, freaking expensive.

I'm personally leaning towards the Sony myself, despite the significant cost. I'm not worried about losing the extra 20mm (30mm equiv) on the long end that the Tamron offers if those extra mms are increasingly soft anyway, and since the a6700 has IBIS, the lack of IS on the Sony isn't a huge loss. I like that the 16mm is 24mm equivalent since that's in the range of most cell phones' main cameras (Samsung 23mm, iPhone 24mm, Pixel 25mm), and thus would be the most natural to convert from a phone to a proper camera.

The Tamron is still a possibility because I also plan on picking up an a5100 at some point as a secondary camera for certain situations, such as where I could keep a telephoto on the a6700 and a wider lens on the a5100, all so I wouldn't have to lens swap. The IS on the Tamron would be of use on the a5100 since it doesn't have IBIS, and I really don't need 2 different standard zooms.

The Sigma is still a possibility simply because it's so small/light and so much cheaper than the other 2, despite its other shortcomings. Since this will be my first "real" camera, I'm sure the small size would compliment my extremely amateur skills.

Like the OP, I'm very interest in what people have to say about the choice between these three lenses. I've got some months to figure it in the meantime.

Planterz said:

As I save up for an a6700 myself, I'm in the same boat on choosing a standard zoom. It really seems to be a trio of tradeoffs.

Tamron:
Pros: Longest range, VC/IS, not as expensive as Sony.
Cons: Biggest/heaviest, soft past ~50mm, more expensive than Sigma

I'm not worried about losing the extra 20mm (30mm equiv) on the long end that the Tamron offers if those extra mms are increasingly soft anyway,

Click to expand...

Could you please share which source describes the Tamron as you do here?
Asking as the review over at OpticalLimits says:

Planterz said:

Planterz said:

....the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD.... produces a very homogenous, high image quality across the zoom range and the relevant aperture range. The center quality is generally excellent between f/2.8 and f/5.6, and the outer image field is still very good, with just a little drop in quality at 70mm.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Source: https://opticallimits.com/sony/tamron-17-70mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-vc-rxd/

That review - in its conclusion - actually looks at the three lenses discussed in this thread here. A good read from a reliable reviewer (Klaus Schroiff, around since "Photozone.de"). He does point out the build of the Tammy as its main weak point.
Cheers,
Ralf

Personally I'd go with the tiny 18-50 if I'm pairing it with other lenses/primes, the Sigma 90/2.8 DN would be a nice pairing... If I wanted a single lens for working in good light I'd go with the 18-135, I gifted one to my partner and it's pretty nice IMO and covers a useful range in a handy size. If you're getting the 70-350 the 18-50 makes more sense tho, or if you'll be shooting in low light at times.

How much weight can you tolerate? I find that my 18-135 gets the most use when traveling, even though it's a bit clunky. My strap design keeps it from swinging around and beating me up.