# One Lens to Replace 3?



## dmanning11

Hi All,


Just wanted to get some opinions on replacing my stock zoom lens kit with a single lens with a large zoom range.

I currently have a 18-55mm (SAL-1855), a 55-200mm (SAL-55200), and a 75-300mm (SAL-75300)

Should I replace these lenses with a single 18-250mm (SAL-18250) 

Or should I go for a 16-105mm (SAL-16105) and a 70-300mm (SAL-70300G)?


I want to be able to cover the full zoom range while maintaining maximum sharpness. Barrel distortion and vignetting is not an issue as I shoot in raw and always adjust with a lens profile in Adobe for all my shots.
Currently my 18-55 is my main lens and gets the most use, but I hate having to swap to get the larger zoom, especially in dirty or windy environments. It always seems to happen that I'm out shooting landscapes and suddenly a huge impressive eagle will rock up and leave me fumbling in my bag to get the 300mm lens. Also my 300mm lens (SAL-75300) is pretty rubbish at 300mm hence my desire to move to the G lens. Ideally id like a 400mm lens but cant seem to find a decent one at an affordable price.

Please if anyone has and thoughts or experiences with any of these lenses please help me make this decision.


----------



## MLeeK

NO! When you buy an all in one lens the lens has to work across a very wide range. In order to do that it compromises on several things. One being aperture. They are generally 3.5-6.3. That is cutting down a LOT on that zoom end with natural light. The second major compromise being sharpness. You will need to stop the lens down in order to get the sharpest use out of it and stopping f/6.3 down two stops is putting you into a range that needs flash almost every situation AND it's still not the best for sharpness. If you think the 75-300 is rubbish you'll hate the all in one zoom.
 The combination that you have is the best option you've listed for sharpness and performance.


----------



## dmanning11

But the problem is that my current lenses aren't sharp accross the zoom range either, I usually shoot at f/6.3-9 to get the centre sweet spot. so I am use to it already.

Also my SAL-1855 is f/3.5-5.6, my SAL-55200 is f/4-5.6, and my SAL-75300 is f/4.5-5.6

So for the full range they are already f/3.5-5.6, and that is almost the same as the replacement super zoom lens.
I still have a fast 50mm f/1.8 prime lens and have just ordered a fast 100mm f/2.8 macro of eBay for a song.

Are there maybe non Sony options that would suit better? Sigma, tameron, ect...


----------



## dmanning11

Also the SAL-75300 is rubbish for 2 main reasons, massive amounts of chromatic aberrations at anything above 200mm, and at 300 mm there is literally no centre sharpness at all, all pics look like they are taken with a 4mp mobile phone through a window.


----------



## pixmedic

Get a 17-50 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 to cover your ranges.  IF you want you can also get a mid tele like a 28-75 or 24-70 f/2.8


----------



## dmanning11

pixmedic said:


> Get a 17-50 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8 to cover your ranges.  IF you want you can also get a mid tele like a 28-75 or 24-70 f/2.8




Can you name make and models I don't think Sony makes these?


----------



## dmanning11

Wow just found the 70200G, I can't afford that!
Well I can afford it, but I will never get to use it because I will be dead... After my wife bludgeons me in my sleep with it.


----------



## pixmedic

I am pretty sure both sigma and tamron make those for Sony dslr's.  I have another 15 hours at work before i get home to my computer.  Just check tamron and sigma zoom lenses.


----------



## MLeeK

Tamron makes a couple of very affordable lenses in the right range for Sony cameras. I believe the 70-200 is somewhere around $750 new and the 17-50 runs somewhere between $400 to $500 new
http://www.adorama.com/TM1750MAX.html
http://www.adorama.com/TM70200MAX.html


----------



## SCraig

I have no experience with a lens with the kind of zoom ratio a 18-250 has, but keep in mind that more magnification generally means "Slightly Less Sharp".  A 55-200 has a 3.63:1 zoom ratio.  A 75-300 has a 4:1 zoom ratio.  A 18-250 has a 13.89 zoom ratio.  A "Do It All" lens is one that is good at everything but most likely excellent at none.


----------



## dmanning11

Ok what about a SAL-1650 f/2.8 and a SAL-70300G f/4.5-5.6

I loose the 50-70mm range but get excellent quality everywhere else as an ok price.


----------



## DiskoJoe

dmanning11 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> Just wanted to get some opinions on replacing my stock zoom lens kit with a single lens with a large zoom range.
> 
> I currently have a 18-55mm (SAL-1855), a 55-200mm (SAL-55200), and a 75-300mm (SAL-75300)
> 
> Should I replace these lenses with a single 18-250mm (SAL-18250)
> 
> Or should I go for a 16-105mm (SAL-16105) and a 70-300mm (SAL-70300G)?



These are some pretty weak lenses all around.


----------



## Kolia

dmanning11 said:
			
		

> Ok what about a SAL-1650 f/2.8 and a SAL-70300G f/4.5-5.6
> 
> I loose the 50-70mm range but get excellent quality everywhere else as an ok price.



That might be a better idea. 

I have the Sigma 17-50mm, I use it all the time. Far sharper than the kit lens. 

You should research your lens selection and maybe rent some of them before committing.


----------



## DiskoJoe

dmanning11 said:


> Ok what about a SAL-1650 f/2.8 and a SAL-70300G f/4.5-5.6
> 
> I loose the 50-70mm range but get excellent quality everywhere else as an ok price.



You can manage without it. but sigma does make a 50-150 f2.8 and then a 150-500mm.


----------



## dmanning11

Ok i think i made my choice, after taking my camera into a camera store and trying on a number of lenses I'm going for the following to replace my 3 current lenses:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP AF


The first was incredibly sharp across the entire frame even at f/2.8, left my SAL-1855 for dead, and the second was cheap yet very impressive at 300mm when set to f/8. And great around the 100-150mm range at f/6.3


----------



## MLeeK

I wouldn't buy the Tamron 70-300 either. The 17-50 is a great lens.


----------



## DiskoJoe

MLeeK said:


> I wouldn't buy the Tamron 70-300 either. The 17-50 is a great lens.



Yeah, I would have saved and got the 70-200 but 70-300 is okay if youre not doing pro work.


----------



## dmanning11

I cant find a cheap Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 at the moment but I found a 70-300 for $85.00 (manufacturer refurbished) so at that price why not.


----------



## DiskoJoe

dmanning11 said:


> I cant find a cheap Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 at the moment but I found a 70-300 for $85.00 (manufacturer refurbished) so at that price why not.



$85 is a pretty hard price to beat. YOu really have to luck up on the cheap 70-200's. They go really quickly. If you check the sigma site periodically they post up refurbs 50-150 f2.8's every now and then for good prices.


----------



## dmanning11

Well my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Lens arrived today and oh my word it is beautiful by comparison.
It feels substantial, has full frame sharpness at f/5.6, and I have yet to see any CA or Vignetting... love it 

I'm finally starting to get an appreciation for what people refer to as good glass, and Tamron is only mid way in the good glass spectrum.

Now the issue is that I need to buy new filters 67mm instead of 55mm, oh and my reverse macro no longer fits either.

On top of that I think that I really want the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as well, but how can I justify $700.00 on a lens when my camera body is only worth $250.00


----------



## Dao

dmanning11 said:


> Well my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Lens arrived today and oh my word it is beautiful by comparison.
> It feels substantial, has full frame sharpness at f/5.6, and I have yet to see any CA or Vignetting... love it
> 
> I'm finally starting to get an appreciation for what people refer to as good glass, and Tamron is only mid way in the good glass spectrum.
> 
> Now the issue is that I need to buy new filters 67mm instead of 55mm, oh and my reverse macro no longer fits either.
> 
> On top of that I think that I really want the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as well, but how can I justify $700.00 on a lens when my camera body is only worth $250.00



I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8  non VC lens and that is my walk around lens.  With that lens, I feel very comfortable to shoot it at f/4 or wider.


Now, I believe you just found that if you put the same amount of money towards a new Sony camera body, you may not get the same level of image improvement.   

Also, keep in mind that how much you pay for your Sony camera and how much it worth right now.  Then take a look at how much those good quality high demand lens cost and how much it worth after few years later.   With that in mind, you should be able to justify the $700.

I bought my Tamron 17-50 used 3 - 4 years ago for $300, when I look at how much the lens worth in the used market now, it is still around $300 - $350.   So if you are able to locate a used great lens in good working condition at good price, chances are you do not lose too much value when you need to get rid of it provide that the lens is still in great shape.


----------



## DiskoJoe

dmanning11 said:


> Well my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Lens arrived today and oh my word it is beautiful by comparison.
> It feels substantial, has full frame sharpness at f/5.6, and I have yet to see any CA or Vignetting... love it
> 
> I'm finally starting to get an appreciation for what people refer to as good glass, and Tamron is only mid way in the good glass spectrum.
> 
> Now the issue is that I need to buy new filters 67mm instead of 55mm, oh and my reverse macro no longer fits either.
> 
> On top of that I think that I really want the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens as well, but how can I justify $700.00 on a lens when my camera body is only worth $250.00



Easy, the lens will work on other bodies when you upgrade. The lens is the more important part of the equation.


----------



## dmanning11

Well I got my 70-300mm lens and it's faulty, autofocus keeps hunting even outdoors. So I have sent it back and got a full refund.

So now I am stuck with two issues do I buy the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8? (have found a new one for $650.00)

And second it turns out the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 doesn't work with my extension tubes.
With a 28mm extension tube at 50mm the focus point is 1cm from the lens surface, at 35mm it's less than 3mm.  Completely useless!

By comparison the 18-50mm Sony lense at 50mm with the 28mm extension tube the focal point is 17cm from the surface of the lens.  Any ideas?


----------



## Kolia

Good exemple of "We get what we pay for!"


Why didn't you ask for a replacement 70-300 ?


----------



## jfrabat

It depends on what you want really; if you want to ONLY carry one lens, the SAL18250 will cover your basis, but, as stated, it is not the sharpest lens.  It does have chromatic aberration, pinsushion and barrel distrotion, but if you are using a SLT-A77 (which is what I use), the camera corrects this automatically 8most of it, anyway).  now, given what you WANT, I would recomend the SAL1680Z and the SAL70300G.  They are advertised at the Sony Store at 999.99 each (so BOTH are the same price as the SAL70200G already mentioned above).  You can probably find used versions a little cheaper than these prices even.  I own a bunch of lenses, including some of the ones you have (the complete list is like this: SAL1855, SAL55200, SAL1870, SAL75300, SAL1680Z, SAL70300G and SAL18250), and I only use 3: the SAL1680Z as an everyday lens, the SAL70300 as the Telefoto lens, and I give my wife (who does not like changing lenses) the SAL18250 for her to use on her DSLR-A380.

hope this helps!


----------



## dmanning11

Kolia said:


> Good exemple of "We get what we pay for!"
> 
> 
> Why didn't you ask for a replacement 70-300 ?



It was a refurbished item and they only had one, so money back was the only option.

Anyway I bought the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for $630.00, should be here next week. Hope its even half as good as the 17-50 f/2.8


----------



## dmanning11

So now i have the following lenses

Sony 50mm f/1.8 (For Portrait)
Sony 18-50mm f/4-5.6 reverse mounted on extension tubes (For Macro)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (Walk around lens and Landscapes)
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (For Telephoto, Wildlife and some far off Sporting Events)

I think that should do me for lenses, I will upgrade my camera body if Sony can ever work out how to build a sensor with High ISO but Low Noise.


----------



## Kolia

jfrabat said:


> ... if you are using a SLT-A77 (which is what I use), the camera corrects this automatically 8most of it, anyway).



FYI:  The vignetting, chromatic aberration and pincushion corrections only work when you shoot in JPEG.  If you shoot RAW, the only correction that is applied is the vignetting compensation.


----------



## jfrabat

dmanning11 said:


> So now i have the following lenses
> 
> Sony 50mm f/1.8 (For Portrait)
> Sony 18-50mm f/4-5.6 reverse mounted on extension tubes (For Macro)
> Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (Walk around lens and Landscapes)
> Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (For Telephoto, Wildlife and some far off Sporting Events)
> 
> I think that should do me for lenses, I will upgrade my camera body if Sony can ever work out how to build a sensor with High ISO but Low Noise.



I am happy with the SLT-A77 ISO noise level (as long as you keep it under 3,000, it's pretty decent), but I recently tried out the A99, and its freaking AMAZING!  Look at this shot taken with almost NO light at ISO 25,000 and 16,000 of a painting I have at home:


----------



## JusLookN

dmanning11, what body are you using?


----------



## dmanning11

I only have one of the base models SLT-a33


----------



## dmanning11

OMG OMG OMG!!
I just got the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens today and tried it outside, in the morning sun at f/2.8, ISO100, at full 200mm I can shoot at 1/4000 sec !!!
So at that speed there is 0 blur and I was able to take a photo of a van driving 60kph down the road at a distance of about 800m and I can read his licence plate easily (clear as a bell)

I also got a Crow in flight at a distance of about 100m and I can crop in and make out the definition in his feathers.

I love this lens!!! Well worth the money!
But this thing is simply huge compared to what I am use to.


----------



## brian_f2.8

Tough call, unfortunately there is nothing available with out compromising anything, otherwise we would all have it. If you are looking for a vacation lens then look at the 18-200. If you are doing work for a client NEVER NEVER EVER use something like this. Have the right lens for the job. A wide to tele is for vacation and every day fun.


----------



## JusLookN

Another good lens for vacation is the Tamron 18-270.  I have the Sony 18-250 for when I don't feel like changing lenses.


----------



## bunny99123

I have an A55, and I purchased a 70-210mm Minolta Maxxuim lens; it works great on my Sony.  Got it for an excellent price, and very happy with the sharpness of the lens for the price.  I have a friend that has a Canon, and she uses an all in one lens and is happy with it, but I have no experience with one. 

 I know how you feel, because it is a pain to trade out lens and miss a good shot.  I missed a beautiful picture of a sail boat this weekend from not switching quick enough.  If it was me, I would rent one and try it out before buying one.  I wish I could where I live, but no one rents lens. 


Practicing with Minolta lens


----------



## DiskoJoe

dmanning11 said:


> OMG OMG OMG!!
> I just got the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens today and tried it outside, in the morning sun at f/2.8, ISO100, at full 200mm I can shoot at 1/4000 sec !!!
> So at that speed there is 0 blur and I was able to take a photo of a van driving 60kph down the road at a distance of about 800m and I can read his licence plate easily (clear as a bell)
> 
> I also got a Crow in flight at a distance of about 100m and I can crop in and make out the definition in his feathers.
> 
> I love this lens!!! Well worth the money!
> But this thing is simply huge compared to what I am use to.



Its hard to beat a good 70-200 f2.8 once you get past the size of the behemoth. I love mine, I have a old sigma 70-210 f2.8.


----------

