Sony APS-C Zooms

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Joachim Wulfers
Joachim Wulfers Senior Member • Posts: 2,600
Sony APS-C Zooms
4

The sample photos of the newly announced Sony E 18-135 have created quite a stir. It seems that the majority of comments have been negative so far. Rather premature in my opinion but then, which Sony aps-c zoom has found the favour of the critics. I am convinced that the actual users are the silent majority, using their lenses to actually make photos.

I have the kit zoom (during my motor cycle trips it sits in my tank bag attached to my A6000). But the zoom I use the most is the E 18-200 OSS. However, I noticed that the vast majority of my photos are at a FL of 70mm and below. So, I am one of those anxiously awaiting the release of the new 18-135 zoom. Besides that a 16-70 would fit very well in my future travel trilogy, i.e. E 10-18 (which I have), E 16-70 and FE 70-300.

So far the 18-200 has served me well since 2013 when I purchased it to go on a sea kayak trip in the Fjord of the Saguenay.

Here are two recent shots taken when some smaller tall ships visited Hamilton, ON

But the E 18-135 could replace the 18-200  and be used instead of a 16-70 lens

-- hide signature --
 Joachim Wulfers's gear list:Joachim Wulfers's gear list
Fujifilm X100T Sony a6000 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS +9 more
Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Foto4x4 Senior Member • Posts: 2,101
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

Joachim Wulfers wrote:

The sample photos of the newly announced Sony E 18-135 have created quite a stir. It seems that the majority of comments have been negative so far. Rather premature in my opinion but then, which Sony aps-c zoom has found the favour of the critics. I am convinced that the actual users are the silent majority, using their lenses to actually make photos.

Apart from a handful of regulars, I actually think most comments are fairly positive if you cut through the noise. Totally agree that we need to wait and see when they are released and tested. Certainly the alternatives aren’t so hot. So worth holding off judgement as you say.

 Foto4x4's gear list:Foto4x4's gear list
Sony RX10 III Sony a6300 Olympus E-M5 II Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +11 more
PhotoFactor Senior Member • Posts: 1,743
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms
7

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

 PhotoFactor's gear list:PhotoFactor's gear list
Samyang 12mm F2 NCS CS Sony a6000 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN +5 more
neverendinglight Regular Member • Posts: 326
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

PhotoFactor wrote:

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

Sony would like you to buy one of their 16-35 full frame options to use on your A6XXX. Then when you're ready to go full frame, you're already on your way 😐

 neverendinglight's gear list:neverendinglight's gear list
Olympus E-M5 II Sony a9 Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II +9 more
Foto4x4 Senior Member • Posts: 2,101
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms
4

PhotoFactor wrote:

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

I agree with most of what you say and have posted elsewhere much the same thing.

However, the distortion is not unique to Sony and corrected in camera and in LR by default. This has become far more common and almost mandatory if we are to get smaller lenses.

As for the claim of vignetting... I didn’t see any to speak of in Gordon’s review here:

https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-e-18-135mm-f3-5-5-6-review/3/

Can you link where you saw that?

 Foto4x4's gear list:Foto4x4's gear list
Sony RX10 III Sony a6300 Olympus E-M5 II Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +11 more
Foto4x4 Senior Member • Posts: 2,101
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms
2

neverendinglight wrote:

Sony would like you to buy one of their 16-35 full frame options to use on your A6XXX. Then when you're ready to go full frame, you're already on your way 😐

If that were true, and I’m not saying it’s not, but it would show Sony being very out of touch with its customers. Many of us have downsized from FF or at least big DSLRs looking for smaller not bigger!

 Foto4x4's gear list:Foto4x4's gear list
Sony RX10 III Sony a6300 Olympus E-M5 II Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS +11 more
MrMillett9 Regular Member • Posts: 147
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

Foto4x4 wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

I agree with most of what you say and have posted elsewhere much the same thing.

However, the distortion is not unique to Sony and corrected in camera and in LR by default. This has become far more common and almost mandatory if we are to get smaller lenses.

As for the claim of vignetting... I didn’t see any to speak of in Gordon’s review here:

https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-e-18-135mm-f3-5-5-6-review/3/

Can you link where you saw that?

I assume fixing the distortion would mean adding more and/or better glass which would either drive up cost, size/weight or both.  Then the complaints would be too heavy and/or too expensive and why not just buy a FE lens.  They cant win.

Lens profiles and in camera correction is the future.  Can any camera fix raw in body as a user selected feature.

Never had any issue with LR and lens profiles with Sony lenses but sometimes LR thinks my Rok 12mm are from Batis 25mm.

Actually Sony wants you to buy 2-3 FE zooms and attach a APSC body to the lens not connected to the FF body,

 MrMillett9's gear list:MrMillett9's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +1 more
Dirk W Senior Member • Posts: 2,930
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

neverendinglight wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

Sony would like you to buy one of their 16-35 full frame options to use on your A6XXX. Then when you're ready to go full frame, you're already on your way 😐

Probably. But what they do instead, at least to me, is that I consider going Fuji.

 Dirk W's gear list:Dirk W's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS +9 more
Dirk W Senior Member • Posts: 2,930
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

Foto4x4 wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

I agree with most of what you say and have posted elsewhere much the same thing.

However, the distortion is not unique to Sony and corrected in camera and in LR by default. This has become far more common and almost mandatory if we are to get smaller lenses.

I don't think the Oly 12-100 and Fuji 18-135 need that amount or kind of correction. I tried them both and was very impressed by their RAW output. Also, my old SEL 18-200 doesn't have that much distortion and especially not vignetting at 18 mm. But, yes, these are all bigger lenses.

As for the claim of vignetting... I didn’t see any to speak of in Gordon’s review here:

https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-e-18-135mm-f3-5-5-6-review/3/

Can you link where you saw that?

 Dirk W's gear list:Dirk W's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS +9 more
Sympa Senior Member • Posts: 1,145
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

These days, sensors have more resolution than lenses. Especially not in the center. So distortion correction does not have to degrade image quality.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60613118

Axtra elements could degrade image quality by adding more chance to have flare - and would make the lens heavier. Doing it electronically is not a bad way at all.

Vignetting is a result of the lens being smaller than others with comparable specifications. Vignetting drives up the ISO at the sides and corners. But the result again is a smaller lens.

The 18-135 is a lot smaller than the CaNikon counterparts (which need low distortion only because they have an OVF which cannot correct distortion).

I think it is good to talk about distortion correction versus vignetting compensation. And in the end it is about the result we get - the image - and not how we get there.

 Sympa's gear list:Sympa's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a6000 Sony Alpha NEX-F3 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +6 more
AngelusHD Regular Member • Posts: 110
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms
1

Apart from the price tag, the 16-70 zoom is the best all around lens for the aps-c. The constant F4 and the size is it’s major selling point.

The 18-135 has more zoom bit i love the 2mm shorter in de wide area. The variable aperture does not suit me at al, i just dont like it. The 18-105 is bigger in storage size bit i prefer the contant F4.

Add 10-18 and 1 or maybe 2 primes to your kit and all 3 the zooms are great all around lenses.

Dirk W Senior Member • Posts: 2,930
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

Sympa wrote:

These days, sensors have more resolution than lenses. Especially not in the center. So distortion correction does not have to degrade image quality.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60613118

Axtra elements could degrade image quality by adding more chance to have flare - and would make the lens heavier. Doing it electronically is not a bad way at all.

Vignetting is a result of the lens being smaller than others with comparable specifications. Vignetting drives up the ISO at the sides and corners. But the result again is a smaller lens.

The 18-135 is a lot smaller than the CaNikon counterparts (which need low distortion only because they have an OVF which cannot correct distortion).

I think it is good to talk about distortion correction versus vignetting compensation. And in the end it is about the result we get - the image - and not how we get there.

I think the vignetting compensation is mainly done by cropping into the picture, and thus eliminating the dark corners, not?

 Dirk W's gear list:Dirk W's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS +9 more
brilly Senior Member • Posts: 1,278
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

Dirk W wrote:

Foto4x4 wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

I agree with most of what you say and have posted elsewhere much the same thing.

However, the distortion is not unique to Sony and corrected in camera and in LR by default. This has become far more common and almost mandatory if we are to get smaller lenses.

I don't think the Oly 12-100 and Fuji 18-135 need that amount or kind of correction. I tried them both and was very impressed by their RAW output. Also, my old SEL 18-200 doesn't have that much distortion and especially not vignetting at 18 mm. But, yes, these are all bigger lenses.

As for the claim of vignetting... I didn’t see any to speak of in Gordon’s review here:

https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-e-18-135mm-f3-5-5-6-review/3/

Can you link where you saw that?

what?

olympus lens is almost twice the price of the sony as well as much bigger on a smaller sensor camera

fuji lens you may have a point even though its 25% more both in size and price.. so probably not even then (is photozones scathing review a poor copy?)

Dirk W Senior Member • Posts: 2,930
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

brilly wrote:

Dirk W wrote:

Foto4x4 wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

I guess the thing I don't understand is - Fuji has APSC zooms that are really good optically. Even the Sony A mount 1650 is a lot better than the Sony E kit. Canon and Nikon have some pretty decent midrange zooms.

Micro 4/3 has a multitude of midrange focal length zooms and I don't believe any of them are nearly as bad as the E1650. And I don't even think any of them are worse than say the E18105.

So finally after years Sony is coming out with the new 18135. And while it appears upon early reviews to be better than most of the others, it still vignettes and super distorts at wide angle.

What is it with Sony? I wonder why they can't put out any decently priced and decent optical designs, starting at 16 or 18 mm and going up to the 70-150 range at the top, that are optically as good as all of their competitors? Their APSC bodies are quite excellent, but IMHO their system is let down by their zoom situation. The new 18135 *appears* to help this somewhat, but the high distortion and vignetting is reminiscent of the kit zoom. I would have hoped for better than that.

I agree with most of what you say and have posted elsewhere much the same thing.

However, the distortion is not unique to Sony and corrected in camera and in LR by default. This has become far more common and almost mandatory if we are to get smaller lenses.

I don't think the Oly 12-100 and Fuji 18-135 need that amount or kind of correction. I tried them both and was very impressed by their RAW output. Also, my old SEL 18-200 doesn't have that much distortion and especially not vignetting at 18 mm. But, yes, these are all bigger lenses.

As for the claim of vignetting... I didn’t see any to speak of in Gordon’s review here:

https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-e-18-135mm-f3-5-5-6-review/3/

Can you link where you saw that?

what?

olympus lens is almost twice the price of the sony as well as much bigger on a smaller sensor camera

fuji lens you may have a point even though its 25% more both in size and price.. so probably not even then (is photozones scathing review a poor copy?)

Exactly, that's what I wrote'about the size.

 Dirk W's gear list:Dirk W's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-3N Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS +9 more
The Ryantist Contributing Member • Posts: 684
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms
1

neverendinglight wrote:

Sony would like you to buy one of their 16-35 full frame options to use on your A6XXX. Then when you're ready to go full frame, you're already on your way 😐

I'm starting to think this really might be true.

 The Ryantist's gear list:The Ryantist's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a6300 Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +4 more
zackiedawg
zackiedawg Forum Pro • Posts: 29,677
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms
12

Agreed - though I go one further - I see no reason to separate or specify 'aps-c' zoom from 'e-mount zoom'.  If I shoot with an A6300/6500, then ALL e-mount lenses are made for my camera...if it's an e-mount lens, it's an A6300 lens.  And I have 42 AF lenses available from Sony plus another 16 from 3rd party manufacturers.  That's more than is available to any APS-C mirrorless system and second only to M4:3.  24 Sony zooms, and 18 primes.  They range from cheap to expensive, small to large, and average to excellent.

The only shooters who need to worry about whether an e-mount lens is a SEL or FE designation are full-frame shooters - because their cameras won't function completely normally or natively if an APS-C lens is attached.  Our APS-C cameras function 100% normally with ANY e-mount lens attached, and that's all I personally consider relevant.

No other system is tempting to me personally - I like the APS-C sensor size, I like the lens selection available to me, I like the size and ergonomics of the body, I like the performance, IQ, and speed of these cameras compared to competitors.  And I like the pace of development in both the bodies and the lens collection, which is expanding very quickly at 6-8 lenses per year.

The 18-135mm looks very promising to me and I would consider it a very good kit-lens replacement option...it's reasonably small, light, and has good mixed-use reach.  I'd likely buy it immediately if I weren't also coming up on time to consider my next body...and therefore better to wait to see what body comes next to see if this lens might be offered in a kit/bundle which would be more cost-effective for me.

-- hide signature --

Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

 zackiedawg's gear list:zackiedawg's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +22 more
The Ryantist Contributing Member • Posts: 684
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

Joachim I hope you're right. I just posted my lengthy comment in another thread, but overall I was more disappointed with the composition/lighting/processing than the lens quality itself (which looked just ok to me). BTW Your pics of those ships are nice in that regard, overall pleasing to look at. I'm waiting for another review before pulling the trigger on the 18-135.

 The Ryantist's gear list:The Ryantist's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a6300 Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +4 more
SeanTXK Regular Member • Posts: 321
It’s the internet
5

Technical reviews seem ok so far, although internet comments seem mixed as always.

Lenses succeed or fail based on sales, not on Internet forum enthusiasm. After all, only about 0.1% of users geek out on the technology enough to join a forum in the first place, and probably only 0.9% of other potential buyers are mildly geeky enough to even know forums exist. These folks are the most picky, most vocal, most passionate, and most fun to listen to. Sometimes, they’re even the most informed.

So as others have stated, I’m waiting on actual release-to-customer reviews to help me decide if it’s worth it to try out. A bit of profile-corrected vignetting and distortion doesn’t bother me at this price point, but I’m holding judgement either way until actual post-release reviews are out.

 SeanTXK's gear list:SeanTXK's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sigma 30mm F1.4 for Sony E +2 more
blue_skies
blue_skies Forum Pro • Posts: 11,473
Re: 24Mp ...
8

Sony was the first APS-C provider to go to 24Mp sensors WITHOUT software correction.

They received a lot of flak for this.

Next, Sony zoom lenses are 'comparable' to Canon and Nikon APS-C.

The loud noise always came from other mirrorless (competitors) users, namely Fuji and Oly/Pana, but their sensors were at only 16Mp for a long time.

Price is another factor, e.g. the more affordable M43 zoom lenses are actually worse than the Sony APS-C zoom lenses.

And if you compare the higher priced M43 zoom lenses, then you may as well consider the FE zoom lenses. They get a tad bulkier, but you can get that extra sharpness, or aperture.

If you pixel peep, then the FF sensors + lenses will satisfy you more. But if you look at images, the Sony APS-C zoom lenses 'do the job'.

Now, the other part is JPG output. Many so called 'better zoom' users are JPG based, and the 'default' JPG output from Sony camera was more 'true' than others, but as a result also more bland and unsharpened.

Things have improved steadily, and current offerings are pretty impressive: even older zoom lenses now produce better (sharper, brighter) images.

I still think that the auto-exposure algorithms could take more advantage of the OSS/IBIS than they currently do. This also helps.

In posts like these, when quality is being discussed, some images would be very helpful.

For the same price/value, most brands produce similar IQ, I am sure. If you want to spend more, than you can blame Sony for not producing more high-end IQ lenses (or not having updated existing lenses such as the E1670Z). Sony's answer is to use FE lenses, for now, as Sony's $1500+ APS-C zoom lens market is still too small.

The new E18135 lens is value based, or it would be a no-seller. For its price, it is actually a decent lens. And I think that Sony will hold on to this strategy, for APS-C.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

 blue_skies's gear list:blue_skies's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony Alpha a7 II Sony Alpha a7R II +36 more
kruezr Forum Member • Posts: 95
Re: Sony APS-C Zooms

Joachim Wulfers wrote:

The sample photos of the newly announced Sony E 18-135 have created quite a stir. It seems that the majority of comments have been negative so far. Rather premature in my opinion but then, which Sony aps-c zoom has found the favour of the critics. I am convinced that the actual users are the silent majority, using their lenses to actually make photos.

I have the kit zoom (during my motor cycle trips it sits in my tank bag attached to my A6000). But the zoom I use the most is the E 18-200 OSS. However, I noticed that the vast majority of my photos are at a FL of 70mm and below. So, I am one of those anxiously awaiting the release of the new 18-135 zoom. Besides that a 16-70 would fit very well in my future travel trilogy, i.e. E 10-18 (which I have), E 16-70 and FE 70-300.

So far the 18-200 has served me well since 2013 when I purchased it to go on a sea kayak trip in the Fjord of the Saguenay.

Here are two recent shots taken when some smaller tall ships visited Hamilton, ON

But the E 18-135 could replace the 18-200 and be used instead of a 16-70 lens

-- hide signature --

I'm also very interested in the new 18-135.  I bought the RX10M3 a few years ago.  It takes great pictures, but it's a beast to lug around all day long.  I'm currently re-evaluating my photo need versus my current equipment.

Like many, most of my photos are below  FL 100.  I'm not into birding and there are very few instances where I need a 600mm lens though it did come in hand ylast summer photographing the eclipse.

Today , I'm sriously considering going back to my a6300 as the novelty of the RX10 has worn off.  I have the 10-18, the 16-70, the 35, the 50 and the 18-200.  I was fortunate to get a good copy of the 16-70 and that's usually attached to the a6300.  The extra FL of the 18-135 intrigues me.  Taking the 10-18 and the 18-135 might be the set up that works best for me.  Combine that with my RX100M3, and I think I may be a very happy camper!

 kruezr's gear list:kruezr's gear list
Sony RX10 III Sony RX100 III Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX9V Sony a6000 +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads