16-50mm + 55-210mm or 18-200mm Tamron

[Matuto]

Hello, i want ask if we can help me choose better combo. I have 16-50 and i want buy 55-210mm for 320€ but i can sell for 250€ my 16-50mm and buy 18-200 mm tamron for 550..Thanks

 

[smallLebowski]

Honestly, for a non-professional (someone like me) either choice will be good and will look same in 99% of shots. So it's up to you what you consider more convenient to use small 16-50 and put another lens when you need longer reach (55-210) or just have one lens 18-200 but carry it all the time (a little bigger and heavier).

I would go for 55-210 and save money, plus I'll have an option to go compact when I need just 16-50 (which is most of time I suppose).

 

[TommieH]

Don't got the 18-200 or 55-210 but if i could choose i would definitely pick the 18-200 since the 16-50 just isn't that sharp. And with the 18-200 you wouldn't have to change lenses or feel limited.


However if you are planning to go lightweight and only bring one lens then the 16-50 might be a good choice even though i personally prefer the Sigma 30.

 

[Matuto]

I like to know if shots from 18-200 will be better at 18mm then shots from 16-50 at 18mm because i like to shoot landskapes.

 

[WoodWorks]

Matuto wrote:

I like to know if shots from 18-200 will be better at 18mm then shots from 16-50 at 18mm because i like to shoot landskapes.

If you like to shoot landscapes, then the 16-50 is the better choice, IMO. Those extra 2mm can make a significant difference.

David

 

[Matuto]

WoodWorks wrote:

Matuto wrote:

I like to know if shots from 18-200 will be better at 18mm then shots from 16-50 at 18mm because i like to shoot landskapes.

If you like to shoot landscapes, then the 16-50 is the better choice, IMO. Those extra 2mm can make a significant difference.

David

 

[WoodWorks]

Matuto wrote:

Yes, but at 16mm it has big distortion and when i correnct it in lr4 it destroy corners colour and sharpnes...

What gets removed during correction is outside of the normal 16mm frame. In other words, what you're seeing at the edges of the uncorrected image is actually a ~14mm frame. So you're not losing anything you'd normally get from a 16mm lens.

David

 

[Bart Hickman]

I opted for the 16-50/55-210 combo for a couple reasons. The 16-50 is very compact and in many situations it's the only lens I take with me and combined with my Raynox 250 diopter lens for macros, it's a versatile and small (and light) combination. Whenever I go for a bike ride, I sling it over my shoulder just because the weight and negligible.

But also 18mm just isn't wide enough IMO. 16mm is significantly wider than 18mm and I shoot at the 16mm setting quite often.

Bart

 

[mike geier]

in a word YES

the Tamron 18-200 has become my main lens on NEX 7 and I find it unbeatable in quality and resolution, at least in my eyes. I make prints as large as 30x40 and view on a 65" TV. No camera lens combo I have ever had is its equal

 

[bill hansen]

Ah sheesh - you guys - you had to go and mention the Tamron 18-200 didn't you? And I had to go and look over Kurt Munger's review of it: Langth E-mount - image stabilization - sharp in the center except toward the 200mm end, soft corners - but I'm pretty sure you've forced me to go out and buy a lens.

 

[Greg Hobson]

As a total amateur I have the Tamron 18-200 and it's the perfect out and about lens for me as I can just keep that lens on and always be able to get the shot I want without having the hassle of switching lens. I also have the 16mm lens though that I use occasionally when I know I will be shooting totally indoors like at a family gathering.