Worst thing happend a6000

[BrettMatthews]

I would try the 16-70 before you buy it. I had that lens for a few months and didn't really find that it gave me much better images then the 16-50 kit, so I ended up trading it for a 10-18 and I am enjoying that a lot more.

The 18-105 might be a good one for you to look at as well, seems like it would bridge the gap between the 16-70 and the 18-200.

I agree with that the sel10-18 is a exceptional lens, it's my first choice, it's very light and small, just love shooting with it.

The 16-50 i don't like it at all, it's very light and small and takes nice pictures, but in my opinion the electronic zooming just don't cut it for me, it's a experience i rather avoid. That being said, the 18-105 also zooms electronic and it's a bigger and i think a havier lens then the 18-200le.

I still think, but of course i wanne try it out before i'm even going to buy it, how the 16-70 handle's vs the havier 18-200le. It should be better, sharper, nicer contrast. I've tested the 16-50 vs the 18-200le and there was not much difference between them, the only thing I noticed was that the 16-50 the pictures from it was more greyest vs the 18-200le which had a nicer color production imo.

The 18-105 is actually 33g lighter than the 18-200le.

While I haven't actually used the 18-105, I just didn't find the 16-70 to be worth the cost and lots of people seem to like the 18-105. Personally currently I'm content with the 16-50 for now for that range.

 

[garypen]

The Tamron 18-200 is a great lens, but i prefer the Sony build and all around the sensor PDAF future. I will get the 35mm f1.8 for the perfect sharp shots unless..... Sony will come up with an 5 axis APSC camera body, my god, the 24mm zeis sounds so good...

Tamron makes the Sony 18-200LE. It's basically the same lens as the Tamron 18-200. Just look at the two, side-by-side.

Tamron also makes a few Sony-branded a-mount lenses. (And, Sony has a 10% share in Tamron Corp, as well.) I think this might be why so many a-mount users seem to prefer Tamron over Sigma, when it comes to 3rd-party lenses.

Even so, I, too, chose the Sony because I simply like the exterior look and finish. It looks a bit more higher-end than the Tamron, even if it's the same underneath.

I love it as a travel lens. I don't find it too large or heavy at all. (Those full-frame e-mount lenses everybody raves about are usually much bigger and more unbalanced with these small bodies. And, don't forget about the a-mount and other SLR lenses people use on e-mount bodies with big adapters. Crazy.)

 

[Euell]

I would try the 16-70 before you buy it. I had that lens for a few months and didn't really find that it gave me much better images then the 16-50 kit, so I ended up trading it for a 10-18 and I am enjoying that a lot more.

The 18-105 might be a good one for you to look at as well, seems like it would bridge the gap between the 16-70 and the 18-200.

I agree with that the sel10-18 is a exceptional lens, it's my first choice, it's very light and small, just love shooting with it.

The 16-50 i don't like it at all, it's very light and small and takes nice pictures, but in my opinion the electronic zooming just don't cut it for me, it's a experience i rather avoid. That being said, the 18-105 also zooms electronic and it's a bigger and i think a havier lens then the 18-200le.

I still think, but of course i wanne try it out before i'm even going to buy it, how the 16-70 handle's vs the havier 18-200le. It should be better, sharper, nicer contrast. I've tested the 16-50 vs the 18-200le and there was not much difference between them, the only thing I noticed was that the 16-50 the pictures from it was more greyest vs the 18-200le which had a nicer color production imo.

The 18-105 is actually 33g lighter than the 18-200le.

While I haven't actually used the 18-105, I just didn't find the 16-70 to be worth the cost and lots of people seem to like the 18-105. Personally currently I'm content with the 16-50 for now for that range.

Out of curiousity, how many pictures have you taken with the 16-70? Or, are you just commenting on the price based upon what some others similarly motivated may have said concerning their experience or non-experience withe the 16-70?

 

[AngelusHD]

The Tamron 18-200 is a great lens, but i prefer the Sony build and all around the sensor PDAF future. I will get the 35mm f1.8 for the perfect sharp shots unless..... Sony will come up with an 5 axis APSC camera body, my god, the 24mm zeis sounds so good...

Tamron makes the Sony 18-200LE. It's basically the same lens as the Tamron 18-200. Just look at the two, side-by-side.

Tamron also makes a few Sony-branded a-mount lenses. (And, Sony has a 10% share in Tamron Corp, as well.) I think this might be why so many a-mount users seem to prefer Tamron over Sigma, when it comes to 3rd-party lenses.

Even so, I, too, chose the Sony because I simply like the exterior look and finish. It looks a bit more higher-end than the Tamron, even if it's the same underneath.

I love it as a travel lens. I don't find it too large or heavy at all. (Those full-frame e-mount lenses everybody raves about are usually much bigger and more unbalanced with these small bodies. And, don't forget about the a-mount and other SLR lenses people use on e-mount bodies with big adapters. Crazy.)

I don't know if Tamron makes the Sony 18-200le version, they have indeed kinda similar layout, i think they are both nices lenses to travel with, and if u need the reach it's just perfect.

Like i said, the Fully PDAF function on the Sony, (the Tamron only haves PDAF in the middle, or only contrast) makes the biggest difference for me, and the overall build quality/look i prefer the Sony.

(don't forget about the a-mount and other SLR lenses people use on e-mount bodies with big adapters. Crazy.)

I know right? Even people here think my rig was too big or heavy and i can agree with them, but it is the smallest setup in APSC format i could find with that much reach. I see alot of people here that haves a A6000 with eh FE70200F4, now thats a big lens to bring allong with you.

I do understand why some people prefer it, it's a great F4 sharp lens, it gives u a nice shutter speed to play with at 200mm(300mm apsc)

 

[meanwhile]

You are asking the right questions, but to the wrong people.

Take a look at your past usage, which focal lengths get used, and ask your girlfriend what lens she wants to use (not suggesting you haven't or aren't).

If you have the 10-18, the extra width of the 16-70 over the 18-200 is maybe something you already have covered. If you take lots of shots (or have shots that are important to not miss) between 105-200, then you'll possibly end up disappointed with smaller reach of the 16-70 or 18-105. But your photos will show you that.

You sound like you know what you are doing, trust your knowledge and your experience, rather than others.

 

[BrettMatthews]

I would try the 16-70 before you buy it. I had that lens for a few months and didn't really find that it gave me much better images then the 16-50 kit, so I ended up trading it for a 10-18 and I am enjoying that a lot more.

The 18-105 might be a good one for you to look at as well, seems like it would bridge the gap between the 16-70 and the 18-200.

I agree with that the sel10-18 is a exceptional lens, it's my first choice, it's very light and small, just love shooting with it.

The 16-50 i don't like it at all, it's very light and small and takes nice pictures, but in my opinion the electronic zooming just don't cut it for me, it's a experience i rather avoid. That being said, the 18-105 also zooms electronic and it's a bigger and i think a havier lens then the 18-200le.

I still think, but of course i wanne try it out before i'm even going to buy it, how the 16-70 handle's vs the havier 18-200le. It should be better, sharper, nicer contrast. I've tested the 16-50 vs the 18-200le and there was not much difference between them, the only thing I noticed was that the 16-50 the pictures from it was more greyest vs the 18-200le which had a nicer color production imo.

The 18-105 is actually 33g lighter than the 18-200le.

While I haven't actually used the 18-105, I just didn't find the 16-70 to be worth the cost and lots of people seem to like the 18-105. Personally currently I'm content with the 16-50 for now for that range.

Out of curiousity, how many pictures have you taken with the 16-70? Or, are you just commenting on the price based upon what some others similarly motivated may have said concerning their experience or non-experience withe the 16-70?

I owned the 16-70 for 4 months and took over 1000 pictures with it. When comparing it with the kit lens I didn't find the difference was worth the extra cost. Just my opinion.

 

[garypen]

I don't know if Tamron makes the Sony 18-200le version, they have indeed kinda similar layout, i think they are both nices lenses to travel with, and if u need the reach it's just perfect.

Like i said, the Fully PDAF function on the Sony, (the Tamron only haves PDAF in the middle, or only contrast) makes the biggest difference for me, and the overall build quality/look i prefer the Sony.

Actually, even the Sony LE didn't take advantage of the a6000 full PDAF system, when first released. It required a FW update. But, unlike Sony-made lenses, the Sony 18-200LE required it to be sent in to receive the upgrade. (Newer purchases come with the new FW already.)

It's odd that Tamron never announced a FW update process for existing owners, and I wonder if the newer versions of the lens comes with updated FW? I had assumed so. But, it appears I might be wrong about that. Glad I chose the Sony-branded version!)

 

[AngelusHD]

I don't know if Tamron makes the Sony 18-200le version, they have indeed kinda similar layout, i think they are both nices lenses to travel with, and if u need the reach it's just perfect.

Like i said, the Fully PDAF function on the Sony, (the Tamron only haves PDAF in the middle, or only contrast) makes the biggest difference for me, and the overall build quality/look i prefer the Sony.

Actually, even the Sony LE didn't take advantage of the a6000 full PDAF system, when first released. It required a FW update. But, unlike Sony-made lenses, the Sony 18-200LE required it to be sent in to receive the upgrade. (Newer purchases come with the new FW already.)

It's odd that Tamron never announced a FW update process for existing owners, and I wonder if the newer versions of the lens comes with updated FW? I had assumed so. But, it appears I might be wrong about that. Glad I chose the Sony-branded version!)

I know , i have sended it to sony for a firmware update, it gave the 18-200le somthing i was missing from the very first time i used it. It became fast and got better reliable focus.

 

[SFuller123]

I don't know if Tamron makes the Sony 18-200le version, they have indeed kinda similar layout, i think they are both nices lenses to travel with, and if u need the reach it's just perfect.

Like i said, the Fully PDAF function on the Sony, (the Tamron only haves PDAF in the middle, or only contrast) makes the biggest difference for me, and the overall build quality/look i prefer the Sony.

Actually, even the Sony LE didn't take advantage of the a6000 full PDAF system, when first released. It required a FW update. But, unlike Sony-made lenses, the Sony 18-200LE required it to be sent in to receive the upgrade. (Newer purchases come with the new FW already.)

It's odd that Tamron never announced a FW update process for existing owners, and I wonder if the newer versions of the lens comes with updated FW? I had assumed so. But, it appears I might be wrong about that. Glad I chose the Sony-branded version!)

The SONY and Tamron are totally different lenses, anyone tells you its a rebadge, they are just regurgitating something they read on the internet to make it sound like they know what they are talking about

 

[oldtimes]

I would try the 16-70 before you buy it. I had that lens for a few months and didn't really find that it gave me much better images then the 16-50 kit, so I ended up trading it for a 10-18 and I am enjoying that a lot more.

The 18-105 might be a good one for you to look at as well, seems like it would bridge the gap between the 16-70 and the 18-200.

I agree with that the sel10-18 is a exceptional lens, it's my first choice, it's very light and small, just love shooting with it.

The 16-50 i don't like it at all, it's very light and small and takes nice pictures, but in my opinion the electronic zooming just don't cut it for me, it's a experience i rather avoid. That being said, the 18-105 also zooms electronic and it's a bigger and i think a havier lens then the 18-200le.

I still think, but of course i wanne try it out before i'm even going to buy it, how the 16-70 handle's vs the havier 18-200le. It should be better, sharper, nicer contrast. I've tested the 16-50 vs the 18-200le and there was not much difference between them, the only thing I noticed was that the 16-50 the pictures from it was more greyest vs the 18-200le which had a nicer color production imo.

The 18-105 is actually 33g lighter than the 18-200le.

While I haven't actually used the 18-105, I just didn't find the 16-70 to be worth the cost and lots of people seem to like the 18-105. Personally currently I'm content with the 16-50 for now for that range.

Out of curiousity, how many pictures have you taken with the 16-70? Or, are you just commenting on the price based upon what some others similarly motivated may have said concerning their experience or non-experience withe the 16-70?

I owned the 16-70 for 4 months and took over 1000 pictures with it. When comparing it with the kit lens I didn't find the difference was worth the extra cost. Just my opinion.

I agree, the 16-70 f4 sucks. I actually tried a couple and none of them performed as one would expect of a +1000 dollar zoom. I am getting much more uniform results with the 18-105 which is ever so slightly less sharp but on the other hand is much sharper in the corners. Takes excellent close shots too. 18-105 is a good buy for the price.

Excellent for video too since it can zoom both via ring or on-lens buttons. Totally silent operation during video.

To get the most, leave the hood off (just takes space) and avoid the extreme zoomranges (18-20) and (90-105)

 

[garypen]

The SONY and Tamron are totally different lenses, anyone tells you its a rebadge, they are just regurgitating something they read on the internet to make it sound like they know what they are talking about

Totally different? Hmmm.

Same weight.
Same width.
Same length.
Same # of elements.
Same # of groups.
Same filter size.
Same physical shape.
The only Sony-branded e-mount lens requiring physically sending to Sony for FW update vs in-camera.

Since Tamron also makes other Sony-branded lenses for a-mount, it's a reasonable assumption that this one is, as well, based on the above. Why are you so sure it is not?

 

[Euell]

I would try the 16-70 before you buy it. I had that lens for a few months and didn't really find that it gave me much better images then the 16-50 kit, so I ended up trading it for a 10-18 and I am enjoying that a lot more.

The 18-105 might be a good one for you to look at as well, seems like it would bridge the gap between the 16-70 and the 18-200.

I agree with that the sel10-18 is a exceptional lens, it's my first choice, it's very light and small, just love shooting with it.

The 16-50 i don't like it at all, it's very light and small and takes nice pictures, but in my opinion the electronic zooming just don't cut it for me, it's a experience i rather avoid. That being said, the 18-105 also zooms electronic and it's a bigger and i think a havier lens then the 18-200le.

I still think, but of course i wanne try it out before i'm even going to buy it, how the 16-70 handle's vs the havier 18-200le. It should be better, sharper, nicer contrast. I've tested the 16-50 vs the 18-200le and there was not much difference between them, the only thing I noticed was that the 16-50 the pictures from it was more greyest vs the 18-200le which had a nicer color production imo.

The 18-105 is actually 33g lighter than the 18-200le.

While I haven't actually used the 18-105, I just didn't find the 16-70 to be worth the cost and lots of people seem to like the 18-105. Personally currently I'm content with the 16-50 for now for that range.

Out of curiousity, how many pictures have you taken with the 16-70? Or, are you just commenting on the price based upon what some others similarly motivated may have said concerning their experience or non-experience withe the 16-70?

I owned the 16-70 for 4 months and took over 1000 pictures with it. When comparing it with the kit lens I didn't find the difference was worth the extra cost. Just my opinion.

You must have taken a big loss on it, since you held onto it for four months. Couldn't figure out it was a loser before that?

 

[Mordi]

1. Was the equipment stolen from your hotel room?

2. Did you report the crime to the police? Do you have or can you get the serial numbers of the cameras and most expensive lenses?

3. Have you monitored Florida Craig's List? There are three A6000s on there now - a surprise, we never see a single one up here in MA?

4. Have you checked to see if any of the gear being offered on eBay is in South Florida?

I believe Miami police circulate a list of stolen serial numbers to pawnshops and camera stores.

My father had Hasselblads stolen from his hotel room, and once from his car trunk. And so, from a young age, I never carried more gear on any trip than I could carry everywhere in a small shoulder bag. If you can't carry it to dinner, museums etc. it's inappropriate for travel.

I carried an NEX-6 with mounted 16-50PZ, 55-210, a 16mm with mounted UWA, and a Rokinon 8mm in a small Domke bag. Also 6 batteries, 2 polarizing filters, an IR remote, and a ThinkTank SD card case. Light, small, compact. It covers the range from 8mm to 210mm.

I think you ought to rethink your travel gear package.

 

[AngelusHD]

1. Was the equipment stolen from your hotel room?

2. Did you report the crime to the police? Do you have or can you get the serial numbers of the cameras and most expensive lenses?

3. Have you monitored Florida Craig's List? There are three A6000s on there now - a surprise, we never see a single one up here in MA?

4. Have you checked to see if any of the gear being offered on eBay is in South Florida?

I believe Miami police circulate a list of stolen serial numbers to pawnshops and camera stores.

My father had Hasselblads stolen from his hotel room, and once from his car trunk. And so, from a young age, I never carried more gear on any trip than I could carry everywhere in a small shoulder bag. If you can't carry it to dinner, museums etc. it's inappropriate for travel.

I carried an NEX-6 with mounted 16-50PZ, 55-210, a 16mm with mounted UWA, and a Rokinon 8mm in a small Domke bag. Also 6 batteries, 2 polarizing filters, an IR remote, and a ThinkTank SD card case. Light, small, compact. It covers the range from 8mm to 210mm.

I think you ought to rethink your travel gear package.

1. No, from our rental car

2. Yes we did, we needed it also for our insurance.

3. No, we are not aware of such a thing, do u have the direct link for us of that Florida Craig's List?

4. No, maybe we should do that, but we doubt it would change this situation.

We had a ona bowery bag, which is the size and style as your small domke bag, I don't believe your gear is smaller then mine travel package, it's 4 lenses vs 3 lenses and we allready got a prime in it for lowe light foto's. (10mm - 200mm) would be our range here.

Just to be clear about it, we do have the serial numbers of all the equipment.

Thank u for your reply