# Best all round (travel) Zoom (not just a mirrorless question)



## jamiebonline (Aug 1, 2015)

Hi all,

After using primes for a long time I find I really need a zoom for the versatility but I can't afford the Zeiss lenses. I do mostly portrait work. I like to be able to go wide to 35mm and zoom in to 100mm at least. Also there is no affordable AF prime of 85mm or more for Sony e mount. I don't care much about shooting very wide. I don't mind the widest aperture being more then 2.8 as long as the telephoto end goes over 100. I am thinking about bokeh. Some optical stabilization would be very useful. 

So I was looking at the Sony 18-105 and now I noticed a Tamron 18-200 for APSC for almost the same price. Do non-kit lens APSC lenses do better on crop cameras than a full frame one? I am using a Sony A6000. The Tamron is variable aperture but lets in a little more light. Any thoughts or other options? I know the sharpness will not be like my primes at all but I think I am ready to compromise. I am missing so many shots due to not having a zoom and I end up also cropping too much some of the shots taken with the primes which in itself means losing quality. 

Cheers!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 1, 2015)

TPF does not have a lot of Sony shooters, and there are a number of lenses on the market. I would suggest reading some on-line lens reviews of lenses you are considering. The problem on photo sites is the prevalence of measurebators, who will discount the idea of any lens that is not super-sharp, super-limited, and super-specialized; these are the guys (they are always guys) who will recommend a trael outfit that weighs 10 pounds or so, with say, a 10-22, a 24-70, and a 70-200, all with FAST lens speed,and then a macro lens, and a normal lens, and $1,299 to $2,499 price tags, per lens. If you want a convenience/super-zoom/travel lens/all-in-one-zoom, then check into the reviews, decide what you want, and ignore the people that insist every picture shot with such a lens will be crap. There are always trade-offs. My suggestion is get the convenience zoom that offers the best options for YOUR uses, and supplement it with accessory lenses, if needed, like a FAST-aperture, lightweight prime lens for low-light situations or night-time use off a tripod, or say, a lightweight Sony-native lens OR even an adapted lens for specialty use, like macro work, or long-telephoto shots.

There is a time to travel and enjoy life, while snapping some photos, and a time for "working the scene" with the heavy-duty gear, but many photo forum people cannot seem to accept the first type of need for a camera and lens...


----------



## jamiebonline (Aug 1, 2015)

Derrel said:


> There is a time to travel and enjoy life, while snapping some photos, and a time for "working the scene" with the heavy-duty gear, but many photo forum people cannot seem to accept the first type of need for a camera and lens...



I see. Well there might just be someone who sees this. It's an interesting situation to be in. The ideal zoom portrait lens is 70-200 but I also want a lens to go from about 35-50 and so, as you said, I need two lenses and the 2.8 (or 4 on sony mirrorless) would set me back more than 2000 which is impossible for me right now. So there is no other option. I am one of those who really believe an iphone can take a great picture. That a truly good picture can come from a lens that is not the ideal (compared to a cell phone, this 18-105 is obviously better) and as I said, I am missing shots.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 1, 2015)

I've made some very good pictures with the old iPhone 4, and also with Nikon's plastic-mount 28-80mm f/3.5~5.6 zoom lens, which I payed I think $59 for almost 14 years ago at a Nikon Days sales event, as a factory refurbished lens. The thing is this: at f/8 to f/11, where most zoom lenses have EQUAL corners and edges to the central area, diffraction has already limited ultimate resolving ability on today's 24 and 36 million pixel sensors; at wider f/stops, like say f/5.6, a great many zoom lenses have corners that suck, and edges that are somewhat sub-par, so, to get a sharp-across-the-frame image on MANY zoom lenses, one needs to be in the f/7.1 or f/8 aperture range. That is also where adequate near/far depth of field is achieved, which is needed for many travel/scenic/real-world scenes in order to be perceived as "sharp and in focus". Annnnnd.....in conclusion, at f/8 the difference in picture quality between a $59 28-80 and a $2,200 24-70mm f/2.8 manufacturer's lens is almost imperceptible, in many cases. This is why I think the "sharpness" thing is way overblown many times when it comes to zoom lenses. And that is why a truly good picture CAN come from a lens that is not the ideal.


----------



## jamiebonline (Aug 2, 2015)

Derrel said:


> I've made some very good pictures with the old iPhone 4, and also with Nikon's plastic-mount 28-80mm f/3.5~5.6 zoom lens, which I payed I think $59 for almost 14 years ago at a Nikon Days sales event, as a factory refurbished lens.



For the sake of interest to Derrel or anyone else interested in this thread. I didn't buy that 18-105 lens. I bought an old Minolta film camera and two 50mm lenses (1.7 and 1.4) plus an adaptor so they work on my Sony A6000 too. Next I am going to buy a 35 and 85 or 100mm from Minolta. All that for less than the price of the somewhat mediocre new Sony zoom lens. So an elegant solution to the issue, I think. Fun too.


----------

