Sony AF DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM A-mount lens reviews
 der dickgg#46930 date: Feb-11-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony Zeiss 16-80mm Sony 18-70mm DT |
| price paid: | € 17,50 (!) |
| positive: | Sharp, lightweight and (in my case) very cheap. Silent and fairly quick AF. |
| negative: | Plastic build, rotating front element. Distortion at 18mm. |
| comment: | My cheapest lens, foundcin a thriftshop for € 17,50 inclusief Hama Skylight HTMC. No shade, no lenscap. But who cares for that money. Very suprised by it's IQ at 18mm-35mm even at it's widest diafragm. Bought this lens just for fun but I'm gonna use it! (for the same reason....) |
; 14MP| Milan33m#44244 date: Mar-14-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 28-70 F 2.8, MAF 28-135 F 4-4.5, SAL 16-50 F 2.8 SSM |
| price paid: | 80 EUR |
| positive: | Budget lens, quite light,cheap, often sold with camera on body. |
| negative: | A bit plastic, dark aperture, |
| comment: | A bit plastic, dark apertures, rather sharp, nice colours. Good for movies with SAM motor. Could be used as walkaround lens. Cheap. |
| pipeknight#44172 date: Nov-15-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm 1.7 Sony 18-135 |
| price paid: | I got it with camera |
| positive: | The cheapest "near wide angle" lens for A-mount Fast and quiet AF My copy is pretty well-built |
| negative: | If comparing to primes or better zooms (Sony 18-135), it's obviously, that sharpness is not good. But it's enough for everyday life |
| comment: | When I bought Sony 18-135, I understood, that I totally do not need this lens |
| wiewior#36816 date: Apr-4-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | s18-70, s16-50/2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | size, weight, image quality/price ratio |
| negative: | build, brightness, sharpness on opened shutter |
| comment: | good quality/price ratio, good sharpness on small focal length, slow and not accurate AF |
| transiently#34779 date: Feb-16-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70/4; Minolta 28-85, Minolta 28-80 D; many other mid-range zooms in other mounts. At the edges and corners, this is the worst one I have used, although it is better and more consistent in the centre than the plastic 28-80 D lens or, I think, the pre-IS version of the Canon 18-55 kit lens. At 55mm it is a bit more consistent across the frame than at the short end and middle, which is irritating as finding a lens that is good around 50mm is not exactly difficult. |
| price paid: | came with A37 |
| positive: | Small, light and affordable. Decent central sharpness at most focal lengths and apertures; in fact good sharpness across most of the frame, and generally high contrast. I'm almost certain that flare is much less of a problem than with most Minolta zooms. Quite good close-up performance at 55mm. Cameras from the A37 onwards will remove distortion and fringing from JPEGs. The zoom control on mine is reasonably smooth, certainly more so than that of my Minolta 28-80 D. |
| negative: | Mine gives inconsistent performance at the edges: one side is usually less unsharp than the other, and not necessarily the same side each time. Corner sharpness is poor at most focal lengths, even when stopped down several stops. I think that this is probably the very worst landscape lens I've ever used, which is a pity as landscape is my main potential use for it. Even poor lenses can usually be persuaded to give good sharpness across the frame at F11...not this baby! Native linear distortion at the wide end looks very high unless your A37/57 or later camera is set to correct it, and even with correction enabled, some remains. Am unsure whether this is linked to the unpredictable edge performance. Colour is a bit weak compared to a good Minolta lens. The SAM internal AF motor is a bit noisy and probably won't work as long as a properly designed and specified screw drive system (not the one in the 18-70!). |
| comment: | I really very much want to like this lens as I can't really afford/justify anything bigger, heavier and much more expensive, but I don't use it much, because on almost every occasion when I take this out instead of one of my Minoltas, I regret it due to its being unable to deliver consistent sharpness across the frame and into the corners, even when stopped down as far as F10. My lens seems to suffer from pretty much exactly the type of resolution problems reported with the older 18-70 lens, and which this design was supposed to improve. I'm assuming that these left the factory (actually factories) with very significant sample variation, as I know some people rate them quite highly and they aren't yet very old. There is always some sample variation, and this is a cheaply-made lens. Its sensor crop coverage may be make the effects of slight decentering more obvious than with full frame lenses. Mine came with an A37 and was made in Thailand. For uncritical use, it would be fine as it really is quite consistently sharp away from the edges and, particularly, corners. I'd be interested to try another example, perhaps of the Mark II, if I thought they'd tightened production up or made it a bit tougher, as I am always keen on small, light, sharp and cheap lenses even knowing their imperfections. Looking at other reviews, there are plenty of other complaints about corner sharpness, unfortunately, which is a shame as I know that APS-C kit lenses don't have to give soft corners. I look forward to trying one which I can rate more highly for sharpness. |
| Krzysztof_#27591 date: May-29-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MAF50 F1.7 MAF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | Bought with camera |
| positive: | Cheap (ca. 30 USD in Poland) |
| negative: | Sounds from SAM, Plastic Distortion |
| comment: | Horrible sounds from SAM, plastic built. In the center of the frame pretty sharp at F3.5-5.6, soft in corners. Cheap lens but usable. |
| QuietOC#23466 date: Jan-3-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM Sony E 16-50 F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony DT 16-80 F3.5-4.5 Vario-Sonnar Sony DT 16-105 F3.5-5.6 Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tamron SP 17-50 F2.8 Sony E 18-55 F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM II Sony DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-135 F3.5-5.6 SAM Canon EF 22-55 F4-5.6 USM Sony FE 28-70 OSS |
| price paid: | 28 USD (used) |
| positive: | Good image quality Best at the long end Good semi-macro |
| negative: | Zoom mechanism sticks at the long end Focus shift from slop in the zoom mechanism Problems on the wide end (18-22 mm): -Significant barrel distortion -Very soft corners -Heavy purple fringing -Focus shift when stopping down |
| comment: | My first copy of this lens came with a used Sony SLT-A65. The second copy was purchased used off of eBay. A third copy came with the second A65. "Made in Thailand" This lens is nearly identical in optical performance to the newer SAM II version. The extending lens barrel wobbles a little more, and the zoom mechanism is much more uneven especially past about 40 mm on the long end. I don't know if that is due to a construction change or just wear related. This version more closely resembles the Easy Choice primes while the II version resembles the 55-300. I like the size and weight of this lens. It is definitely larger than the Minolta kit lenses, but it also covers a broader range of focal lengths along with starting much wider. It performs quite well from 24-55 mm. It does perform poorly at the widest extreme, but not as badly as the longer 18-xxx lenses. It actually compares well with the 28/2.8, and 50/3.5 primes as far as image quality at the same apertures. Besides the SAM motor, the design operates similar to the older 18-70 and Minolta full-frame kits lenses. The SAM avoids the weak plastic gear teeth which often fail in the older kit lenses. The zoom and focus controls don't operate as smoothly as the newer SAM II version. There is a considerable amount of hysteresis in the zoom mechanism. The lens seems like it might be almost parfocal except for play in the zoom mechanism which results in a focus shift when changing zoom directions. If you move the zoom control in just one direction the focus seems fairly well maintained. Aberrations are best controlled at the long end of the zoom range. Corners are sharp at 55 mm with very little purple fringing. The 18-55 has substantial image quality improvements over the older 18-70 on the long end. It has a bit less raw distortion than the older 18-70 kit lens, and the distortion is well corrected by the in-camera compensation. It has very little distortion at 24 mm and above. Image quality seems to be optimized for the long end of its range which is good for macro or portraiture. The more expensive Sony DT 16-105 is a better choice for wide angle shots. The older 18-70 is mostly inferior though that lens does not suffer from focus shift at 18 mm when stopping down. The larger 18-135 SAM has more center sharpness but also a much more curved focus plane. Overall the 18-55 is a very good kit lens. The changes in the II version don't seem to be optical or SAM related though perhaps the zoom and focus mechanism were made smoother. |
| streets#16292 date: Jul-2-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24mm f2.8 Minolta 50mm Macro f3.5 |
| price paid: | Came with used A57 |
| positive: | Surprisingly nice. |
| negative: | No lens shade. |
| comment: | This lens, is a quality Japanese product. I.Q. is a hair away from the two lenses compared to. If you can spot any differences between these three on an 8x10 print, you have better vision than my 20/20 eyes provide. I believe that a 16x20 print comparison would be no different. Yes, I do like it that much. |
| michalm2#11991 date: Sep-24-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50/1.7 Minolta 24-105/3.5-4.5 Sigma 55-200/4-5.6 |
| price paid: | 40EUR (kit lens) |
| positive: | lightweight good optical quality cheap (as kit lens) |
| negative: | barrel distortion at 18mm kit lens sold without hood very plastic ... but what we want for the price |
| comment: | Plastic, but optically very good and useful. Biggest problem is barrel distortion at 18mm, but it disappears at 24mm. I used it for very long time, but finally replaced it with Minolta 24-105, because it wasn't long enough for me. But I kept this lens as backup. |
| macronut#11774 date: Apr-17-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 kit lens |
| price paid: | $50 |
| positive: | Cheap Better image quality than 18-70mm Sony kit lens. |
| negative: | Build quality sucks!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| comment: | Sony has updated this lens. My understanding is the second version is better built, and I would assume this solves the lousy zoom action. I bought this lens cheap on Ebay, in an attempted upgrade from the 18-70 that came with my camera. Decent photos for the money, but I couldn't tolerate the zoom so I returned it. Maybe mine was worse than most. I could see grooves worn inside the lens body, caused by moving zoom parts. There was significant tension, causing a very stiff zoom movement. The worst I have ever felt in a lens. Even if mine was a bad copy, I would never recommend this lens. The build quality of this mass produced plastic lens is not good. If you want a dirt cheap wide angle for your cropped body, go with the second version of this lens. It seems to get less complaints. |
| Margina#11748 date: Mar-30-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta AF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 - Konica Minolta DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 - Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM |
| price paid: | 75 USD (new) |
| positive: | - Good sharpness - Superb color accuracy and contrast - Almost natural bokeh - SAM drive for video AF - Smooth focus ring mechanism - Light weight with plastic mount - Hairline steel finishing on the front of zoom ring |
| negative: | - A little bit stiff on zoom ring machenism |
| comment: | It's not necessary to write this review since find out various of country of origin on this lens model. I bought this lens since initial release of DSLR-A500 and A550, it's a Japan made lens comes with clean condition. When I explore most of second hand shops today, they are selling Thailand made lenses in stock, they may comes with next generation of Alpha DSLRs / SLTs. It a good choice and highly recommended either. Some of the latest batch of this lens model might come from China. We should concern about the manufacturing quality of them, since some of A-mount users figured out the China made Sony 85mm f/2.8 SAM comes with glue traces on front element is quite difficult to swipe out. |
| zanoooda#11669 date: Feb-2-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 KIT Minolta 35-70/4 Helios 44M 58/2 made in USSR fix lens |
| price paid: | usd 30 |
| positive: | Low cost. Convenient zoom range. Good sharpness and colour. Smooth focus.Extra good macro feature. |
| negative: | Sharpness and colour are not as good as Minolta all known zoom lens. Zoom ring is hard to move from 35 to 55 mm. |
| comment: | All in all this lens is obviously better than previous kit Sony 18-70. I bought 18-55 to replace 18-70 because I could not tolerate 18-70's poor IQ. I wanted a cheap not bad lens for zoom 18- and could not find any. It's low cost is due to mass production. Otherwise it should cost more. The best of all inexpensive lens is Helios 44m fix. Stepped down to /4 it's sharpness and contrast are unbeatable. |
| m3krister#11477 date: Nov-12-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical |
| price paid: | came with camera ... |
| positive: | Good value for Money OK Picture quality |
| negative: | Not Sharp Plastic feel |
| comment: | Plastic feel lightweight lens, not as good after using it for a while as I thought when getting it originally. Unsharp pictures, not very usable at all indoors for me. |
| Pascalll#11216 date: Jun-29-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta - AF 35-70 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 70 EUR |
| positive: | -silent -nice feel and look -nice priced |
| negative: | -none |
| comment: | I had bought this lens for my Sony A330, after using my old Minolta lenses on that body for about 6 months. I didn't know what to expect, but I was certainly pleased with the results on my 10MP body. I found the price really sharp and I was delighted with the results of the pictures I made with this lens. |
| craig66#11173 date: Jun-2-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Pentax 50mm f1.4 SMC Takumar (M42) Sony DT 55-300mm |
| price paid: | Kit Lens |
| positive: | Cheap Decently Sharp Reasonable CA Control |
| negative: | Poor build quality Mediocre colour/contrast Rotating front element No lens hood |
| comment: | First the good part. Sharpness is decent and perhaps just behind the Tamron and 55-300 DT at it's short end. But sorry Tamron and Sony, the 40 year old Pentax lens beats the lot of ya at f2.8 and smaller apertures. CA and purple fringing is mild and easily corrected. Big barrel distortion at the short end, but this is typical of standard zooms. Ever since I bought my A65 with this lens, I felt that images were a bit dull and lacking any real "pop". Having just bought the Tamron 17-50 my feelings have been vindicated. The Tammy produces images of significantly better contrast and more saturation. I was a little surprised at the difference. My rating of 4 for colour for the 18-55 may be a bit kind. And so to build quality. I really don't care about metal vs plastic even for lens mounts. This lens is all plastic, but that doesn't concern me. I do care about usability and whether bits wobble around. The 18-55 is pretty poor. Movement of the zoom ring is far from smooth, the focus ring is tiny and horrible to use. There is wobble in the barrel when fully extended. It's all a bit too cheap and nasty for my liking. I suppose the 18-55 is quite decent for the price, but the extra cost of say the Tamron 17-50 or even the Sony 16-50 will, I think, be justified for most people in terms of better image quality, speed and usability. Not really recommended. |
| derekw#11148 date: May-31-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 18-70 Sigma 17-35s, 18-50s Tamron 17-50 Minolta 17-35 |
| price paid: | 45 GBP |
| positive: | Very sharp -all apertures, all focal lengths Lightweight Cheap Great IQ for the price |
| negative: | Build - plastic mount Distortion at wide end |
| comment: | Great little lens for the price - Worth shopping around for a good copy if you don't need a faster f2.8 This sample made in Japan |
| Feudalac#11114 date: May-15-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 SAM,Sony 18-70, Minolta 50 1.7, ... |
| price paid: | Kit lens |
| positive: | Sharp, sharp, sharp! |
| negative: | Not much. |
| comment: | This lens is a mass produced, because it is a kit lens. This is a reason why different samples can vary in quality. I was pretty lucky when I received one with a Sony a230 couple of years ago. Latter I bought a55 and received another 18-55 kit lens. My brother and one good friend of mine owns that lens too, but none of them is even close to this first sample. First sample is just unbeatable in any sense. It is razor sharp, very good flare control, no trace of CA... I really love it, and image quality can't be beaten even by some much more expensive lenses. So, when buying the camera or this lens separately, just pray for a good copy and you will be very happy. |
| M.Wells#11061 date: Apr-22-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | useful length range quiet light |
| negative: | time will tell plastic mount |
| comment: | I am more familiar with a couple Pentax and Nikon MF lenses. This being my first AF lens I am very pleased with the function and versatility. The plastic mount is slightly concerning, my MF lenses are older and all metal, but I plan on babying this lens and camera so it doesn't keep me up all night. I've attempted some quasi-macro shots with this lens and get a nice bokeh. I've seen slight distortion when shooting up close at 18mm, which I liked. All in all, I'll be holding on to this lens. I plan on picking up one other lens, somewhere in the 70-300 range or 70-210, so this nice kit lens will come in handy for family events. |
| MarsX#11059 date: Apr-21-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105/3.5-4.5 RS Tamron SP 28-75/2.8 |
| price paid: | <100 $ |
| positive: | compact, light weight very Sharp! fast focus speed inexpensive great focal range for most situations short focal distance, macro |
| negative: | plastic mount zoom ring moves not so fluent |
| comment: | Best kit lens, for this price. If stopped down, this lens is very, very sharp! If you want a cheap lens, with great IQ, reasonable fast focus speed and not to worry about break-it or lose, SAM 18-55 is your lens! |
| Bobrej#11057 date: Apr-20-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 50 F1.7 RS |
| price paid: | Kit lens (A55) |
| positive: | -Weight |
| negative: | -plastic mount -CA -rotating front element -no hood -Zoom ring scrubs. -Veiling haze at 55mm (must be stopped down to avoid this). -Soft corners at wide angle. |
| comment: | This lens came to me together with my A55 (Kit lens). I stopped to use this lens immediatelly after I bought an used Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5. I must rate sharpness only 3.5 because my copy has really soft borders at wide angle (must be stopped down to avoid this). I've also noticed CA that can be very disturbing under some light conditions. I didn't have any problems with flares like the other users. |
| faceless_el#11019 date: Apr-6-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 0 USD (kit lens) |
| positive: | -A good starter lens. Usually comes as part of a kit or can be had for cheap -great for videos as lens is silent when focusing |
| negative: | Plastic lens mount poor on low light situations |
| comment: | btw I had two of these as they came with the a230 and a37 kit. there was a slight difference in picture quality from the lens that came with the a37, i noticed the lens from the a37 was a bit sharper. |
| Smegenai3000#10947 date: Feb-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 25 usd used |
| positive: | Good lense for start |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Well its very good for the price,autofocus prety fast and quiet,much less noisy that 18-70 one.Very light. |
| zastavia#10788 date: Dec-16-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105 |
| price paid: | 0.0 |
| positive: | -Sharp, especially at 55 -Minolta colors -very good flare control -superb close-focus ability -compact & light-weight -fast, accurate focus in good light -cheap if you have to buy |
| negative: | -obvious distortion of vertical plane at wide end (mostly close objects such as lamp posts etc, but easily corrected in lightroom) -somewhat plasticky build |
| comment: | Had this lens come with my a33 and also my a57. My newer version has a smoother zoom barrel, while the older one was a bit sticky half way. Very plastic design and build, and rather loose focus ring at front. Aside from this, this is actually a very good kit lens, known to be greatly superior to its Canon counterpart. I have always liked this lens a lot, especially its beautiful colors, focus accuracy and very good level of sharpness. When shooting at 55mm, gives superb IQ, especially as a macro-lens. I use this for flowers and insects, and with a Raynox 250 on the front, it becomes a razor sharp microscope lens surpassing £600 macro lenses. I cant ever see myself buying a more expensive 18-55, because all other lenses do not have the fantastic close-up ability. |
| michalm2#10758 date: Dec-7-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL18-70 Minolta 28/2.8 Minolta 28-80 Minolta 28-100 Minolta 35-80 II Sigma 55-200 DC |
| price paid: | 40 EUR (new) |
| positive: | very sharp nice colours weight |
| negative: | little flare distortion on 18mm |
| comment: | This lens is very sharp wide open, razor sharp when stopped down. It has very low weight so it's good for longer walks and trips. It has visible barrel distortion at 18mm, but it can be repaired in editor. Distortion is very good between 24 and 55 mm. I really like this lens. |
| taztonio#10683 date: Nov-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony SAL-1855 Minolta 28-80 II 3.5-5.6 Sigma 28-80 3.5-5.6 Aspherical Minolta 50mm 1.7 |
| price paid: | 50 USD (kit) |
| positive: | light weight better than 18-70 kit lens fairly inexpensive (used) |
| negative: | build seems very cheap noisy slow only 3.5 |
| comment: | 1st of all I'm a newbie, I've only had my camera for less than a week and I'm trying out different lenses. I must admit after reading so many reviews of this lens I was a little disappointed. I received mine as part of a used kit, but estimate it added $50 onto the cost. I can't believe Sony was charging $200 for this. I would want my money back if I bought it at that price. The range of 18-55mm is a good, so I want to keep lens for its versatility but I think I'll grab something else as a everyday lens. Mine is used and seems have some trouble going out past 35mm on auto focus. If I put it on MF move it to 55mm and then switch back to AF it does fine. Maybe my lens is damaged maybe this is the design. I haven't seen anyone else complain about it so I'm thinking its just mine. Really I don't have much experience but if I was only going to carry two lenses (one in the bag and one on the camera) I would carry my Minolta 50mm prime and my Sigma 28-80mm and leave the SAL1855 at home. I only have one longer lens (sigma 70-210), and I'm not that excited about it. This lens isn't listed as a macro but does almost as well as the Minolta & Sigma 28-80mm "macro" lenses. I took some close up pictures of a $5 bill and it did very well, but its just lacking on the far side. I might just keep the SAL1855 for my wife, so nothing that I actually want gets messed up. I could love this lens if they took the build style of the Maxxum kit lenses added a macro switch and kept the 18-55 focus range with the same sharpness at a min 3.0 aperture. But, I guess that's a $400 lens that everyone would want to buy. |
| Vultite#10269 date: Jun-6-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | came with camera |
| positive: | Great images, especially stopped up. Lightweight. Cheap. Very good color rep. Pretty decent flare control |
| negative: | A little distortion, especially at 18mm (which can be fixed). |
| comment: | I wasn't expecting much out of the kit lens, but I sure was surprised. This lens does have a cheap feel to it, but it does what it's suppose to do. Pretty good colors, flare control and sharpness. But, there is some distortion...especially at 18mm which I use LR4 to fix. Other than that, this is a pretty good kit lens. |
| cleoo#10246 date: May-29-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70mm SAL1870 |
| price paid: | 80.00 |
| positive: | Compact, light Internal motor |
| negative: | Zoom ring is jerky and catches. |
| comment: | I used this with my Sony A55. It's okay, but not really as sharp as my Sony 18-70mm. The jerky zoom ring was a big turnoff. The SAL1870 was much better in that regard. It was smooth. |
| bulletroll#10218 date: May-16-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm 1.7 Sigma 70-300mm |
| price paid: | Around 150 USD |
| positive: | Zoom range Focus range Colors |
| negative: | Full of plastic Focus ring isn't the best |
| comment: | Really cool effects with a film camera. On a 35mm film this lens could be called an ultra wide, but 35mm Sony DSLR's have this thing that they crop the image with a APS-C size lens. But still a very good lens. |
| milav#10134 date: Apr-22-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-125 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | sharp color compact |
| negative: | plastic in set is not hood |
| comment: | For this price is very good lens |
| kije#10115 date: Apr-13-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap not heavy good range (even on APS-C) good beginner lens minimum focus distance sharp beautiful colors |
| negative: | distortions on high contrast plastic focus-ring has no grip, so its not very usable for manual focusing |
| comment: | I'm a beginner, and this is my first lens (was in the Sony alpha SLT-A35K kit). The lens is very good for beginners, it's cheap but sharp and makes good pictures. Positive is also the very small minimum focus distance. 0.25 m are very near for taking beautiful photos of flowers etc. The only thing I think is bad is that when you take photos from a high-contrast motive (for example a tree's branches in front of a very bright, cloudy sky), the edges are not really sharp. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 103
- sharpness: 4.20
- color: 4.30
- build: 3.40
- distortion: 3.88
- flare control: 4.14
- overall: 3.98
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login