Sony AF DT 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 A-mount lens reviews
 sailchessi#47067 date: Mar-7-2025 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-50, Sony 18-55, Sony 18-135 |
| price paid: | Kit lens with a300 |
| positive: | Nice look and feel for a cheap old lens Narrow and lightweight Good performance vs price especially on 20mp a58 |
| negative: | Performance declines as zoom increases Holds its own at 18-24-35 but less good at 50-70 Performance seems worse on the a300 it came with at 10mp, odd. Issues with macro (closer) focus at short zoom |
| comment: | I honestly think this lens has been unfairly trashed here. By being a kit lens there are a large number of reviews which usually trends downward. But the comments are cruel. I was disappointed in early testing and comparisons on my a300 but another test on my a58 against all the other lenses I have, it did much better with good linearity, very little distortion compared to the 16-50 and 18-55 at shorter zoom levels. It is crushed by the 16-50 and should be and the 18-135 is much better and and over 50mm as it should be but it is a great backup lens and has a wider range than many short zooms |
; 12MP| Dotsch#44290 date: May-17-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony SAL 16-50 Minolta 35-70 Minolta 50 1,4 / 1,7 |
| price paid: | don't know |
| positive: | Cheap lens |
| negative: | - Not sharp - disortions - build qualtiy |
| comment: | Cheap kit lens. OK for starters. Not OK for higher quality shots |
| icameisaw#44159 date: Nov-5-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Its kit brethren: Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 SAM II Minolta 28-80mm f4-5.6 Minolta 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 .. and better lenses. |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | The ONLY good thing I can say about this is that you can get more for your old camera if you sell it with the kit lens. If necessary, you could buy a s/h one of these for much less than the increase in value it will bring.. and may god have mercy on your soul for passing it onto someone else. |
| negative: | This lens is a complete piece of crap. Even on a 10MP camera, you can see that it simply cannot focus sharply, unless closed down very tightly. This makes anything outside daylight / flash photography hard and manual focusing is made harder by how little movement there is in the focusing ring. Should you actually get a vaguely in focus shot, it will probably suffer from colour fringing. |
| comment: | It is so bad that after a couple of months of having this as my only lens, I stopped using the camera for almost two years - I was getting much better results with a (not particularly great) compact. Why on earth did Sony have it as their kit lens for so long?? |
| transiently#44097 date: Jul-9-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | This is vastly inferior to my 24-85, 28-85 and both 35-105 lenses. It is worse than the lightweight 28-80 I used to have for corner sharpness at wide angle and fringes less than that lens. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | I like the zoom range and form factor. It focuses close. The colours are good. Mine seems decently sharp around 35-70mm and feels slightly better made than the 18-55 MkI that came with my camera, with a smoother zoom action. Fringing does not seem as bad as indicated in some reviews. |
| negative: | Corners are not sharp at wide angles of view. Centre sharpness is not very high at wide angle either. I have a hard time getting mine to focus accurately at short distances (SLT - hardly ever a problem with most other lenses). |
| comment: | Still good enough to be a useful lens. I only bought it recently. To be extremely realistic, for once the negative reviews of its resolution are fair enough, since I still see soft corners at 18mm even shooting at F9 and F10. I guess it's a lot more useful if you are shooting low megapixels. Having read the review at photozone and looked closely at 1:1, I believe the high levels of CA are masking resoultion. I do wish there was an updated version of this lens as I love the focal length range and form factor. |
| wiewior#36815 date: Apr-4-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | sam18-55 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | maly, lekki, stosunek jakosc/cena |
| negative: | ostrosc, budowa, swiatlo |
| comment: | wystarczajacy do nauki fotografii |
| CKL#20376 date: Oct-17-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - 18-55 - 24-85 |
| price paid: | 0 euro |
| positive: | - It's part of the A300 Kit |
| negative: | - It's very soft |
| comment: | It's very soft in the corners. It's also has an enormous front focus problem. There are people who claims they have a good copy, mine is ridiculously bad.... |
| QuietOC#17338 date: Aug-18-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM Sony CZ 16-80 Sony DT 16-105 Sony DT 18-55 SAM I/II Sony DT 18-135 SAM Sony DT 18-200 Tamron 18-250 Minolta AF 25-50 F4 Minolta AF 24-85 Minolta AF 28-80 D Minolta AF 28-100 D Minolta AF 28-105 Minolta AF 28-135 |
| price paid: | 32 USD (used) |
| positive: | Light Wide zoom grip Slightly less distortion at 18 mm than other zooms Less vignetting than the other DT zooms |
| negative: | Quite long when zoomed to 70 mm. Soft corners Noisy zoom action Noisy AF screw drive Very short focus throw Long MFD compared to 18-55 Not as wide as other 18-x zooms No lens compensation No sealing |
| comment: | This lens is a spitting image of the slightly older Minolta 28-100 D kit lens. Originally branded by Konica-Minolta as the kit zoom for the Alpha 5D. "CHINA" Image quality is similar to the 18-55 SAM lenses. Both kit lenses are rather poor in the widest 18-20 mm range. The 18-70 has heavy blue/red CA like most cheap older lenses, while the 18-55 has quite good CA control at the long end but heavy purple fringing at the short end. The build is practically identical to the older 28-100 D. It is slightly worse but similar to the 16-105 though made with lighter materials. The plastic zoom ring was cracked near the front on my first copy. There are some metallic sounds while operating the zoom mechanism. It is quite noisy and cheap feeling compared to the smooth operating 18-55 SAM II. The front barrel wobbles a half millimeter or so even when fully retracted. The entire front barrel including the filter threads and hood rotates while focusing but not when zooming. All of the kit lenses need to be manually focused for any accuracy at close distances which is difficult with their poor manual focus control. The 18-70 has barely any focus throw. The narrow focus ring is just a hard textured plastic ridge on the end of the barrel that is effectively blocked when the plastic lens hood is installed. Once carefully focused by hand the center is sharp wide-open at the shorter focal lengths. Both copies were quire soft wide-open at 70 mm. This lens actually covers full-frame over much of its focal range. The full-frame corners are not as good as the 18-55. There is a lot of sample variation with all the kit lenses, but there is no reason to choose this lens over the newer 18-55. The Sony DT 18-135 F3.5-5.6 SAM is a much better performing alternative. |
| therealfb#14231 date: Apr-25-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Magnicon 28-80mm f3.5 Soligor 28-70mm F3.5 Minolta Beercan 70-210mm and 75-300mm Big Beercan Minolta 50mm f1.7 Tamron 16-300mm Sony 18-250mm Various kit lenses from film era cameras. |
| price paid: | $ 50.00 cnd |
| positive: | Super fast focus Unbeatable for flash photography |
| negative: | Feels a little flimsy |
| comment: | I get none of the CA reported with this lens and purple color fringing is almost non existent. I had the DT18-55mm and this lens is way more versatile and the performance is as good plus the extra 15mm is bonus. I wish this lens was a little sturdier but it's not given me any grief yet. I shoot a lot of landscape and macro style shots as well as portraits and I have a tendency to work in the F8-F11 range so the softness that people are complaining about in the 55-70mm range is a non issue. I get superb edge to edge sharpness. The only thing lacking is contrast, maybe this is what people are griping about? I use a A77 and I shoot mostly superfine JPEG mode and I use the standard mode and set contrast at +3, saturation +2 and sharpness +3 and the DRO at LV2 to calm things down a bit. With these setting I rarely have to go into PP to do anything and my IQ is like post cards. I tried the CZ 16-80 and it has a tad more sharpness when pixel peeping to the extreme I could not see any difference in detail in side by side comparison in IQ on a 13X19 enlargement. It's important to note that you need to take the time to micro adjust this lens to the camera. This lens has the greatest "keeper" ratio for I.Q of all my lenses. I nearly forgot to mention, when I use macro mode on this lens I often use the smart zoom feature built into the camera so I can get in pretty tight on flowers and such. In the end it's your IQ that counts and you can't argue the results. Are there higher quality lenses out there?, of course there are but for me this gets the job done in spades. |
| macronut#11737 date: Mar-19-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Any lens. |
| price paid: | Kit lens. |
| positive: | Cheap |
| negative: | Everything else. |
| comment: | If you are considering buying this lens, it had better be dirt cheap. Like $40 and free shipping with a smile cheap. I personally wouldn't bother, when you can get the original 18-55mm kit lens for similar money. And for that matter, I would buy the newer version of the 18-55mm. I had the original for a short time and hated the uneven, rough feeling to the zoom movement. I refuse to buy any lens with a plastic mount. This thing is so lame. But I suppose it fits into some peoples budget nicely and does offer modern coatings and ADI. (The hood is so pathetic that you will rely on those coatings!) I try to give thorough reviews. Not this time. What can I add to what has already been said? If you can afford better, do not buy this. If you can't spend more, go with the 18-55mm or consider a vintage Minolta 28-85mm. |
| zanoooda#11670 date: Feb-2-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 KIT Minolta 35-70/4 Helios 44m 58/4 |
| price paid: | For free. |
| positive: | Cheap. Sometimes for free. Lightweight. Nothing more. |
| negative: | I guess this lens makes my cry. |
| comment: | I got it with my Alpha-A300 and used to think that my DSLR pictures are as bad as my phone shots. When I bought Minolta I realised that I was wrong. So I am happy to return 18-70 into its white box and forget about it forever. The 18-55 KIT is obviously better. Use it instead. |
| Stantheman#11338 date: Sep-13-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105 and various other Minolta, Tamron and Sigma lenses. |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | overall image quality - lightweight and cheap! |
| negative: | hood, CA, build. |
| comment: | Read through lots of user reviews about this kit lens and I've got to agree with those guys who say it's very much a hit n' miss as to whether you get a decent performer or not. Fortunately for me, I appear to have a pretty good one which even managed to hold it's own against the Sony 16-105 in a recent test. Only when pixel peeping did I notice some slight differences between these two lenses, especially with CA control - not that the massively more expensive 16-105 didn't have any, it just controlled it slightly better. Colours, sharpness and distortions were surprisingly very similar in both lenses but the dearer lens was perhaps a touch more consistent. Interestingly, vignetting is a real problem with the 16-105 whereas the cheapo 18-70 showed no signs of this at all. Overall, I'd say the 18-70 is a decent allrounder despite it's crappy build and slight inconsistency but when it performs well, it really does produce some surprisingly pleasing images. |
| Gradus#10952 date: Feb-28-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron AF 28-200 F3.8-5.6 Aspherical; Minolta AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 APO 2631-110;Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM |
| price paid: | 0 (came with A350) |
| positive: | Colors not bad at all. Overall performance more then acceptable. Weight |
| negative: | Build, feels cheap |
| comment: | This lens came with my A350 and I have used it as my standard lens for 3 years now. Considered that it is a kit-lens I am content about it's performance. I like the colors (more then the Tamron)and it's reasonable sharpness. Negative is the cheap appearance due the 'plastic look'of it's exterior. Now that I have the Sigma, I keep this lens as reserve. |
| Smegenai3000#10945 date: Feb-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC |
| price paid: | 100 usd (used) |
| positive: | Not bad colors |
| negative: | not that sharp,not good build quality |
| comment: | Total crap, because of the build quality. it broke after 2 month of use (broke autofocus, like in most of these lenses),Other things is alright. |
| ithinkso#10827 date: Jan-10-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-85 (of "beercan" era) Min 35-70 f4 Tokina 20 - 35 (with film) |
| price paid: | £20.00 approx (new) |
| positive: | weight colour Sharpness - for the price! |
| negative: | For the price I paid - non at all. Barrel distortion at 18mm easily corrected in Photoshop Elements. |
| comment: | Judging from earlier reviews there is a huge variation in the quality of this lens. I must have had one of the good ones. It came with my A100. I had fully intended to use my above mentioned Minolta and Tokina lenses with the A100, but when I purchased it in 2007 the kit lens added about £20.00 to the price of the body only - which the retailer did not have in stock, so I went for it. So impressed was was I with it that I don't think I ever tried the 20 - 35 Tokina, Which is a bit of a lump to carry around, on the A100. In fact it was the other way round - I ran the 18-70 on my Dynax 7 to get those circular "fish eye" images! Colour and sharpness not as good as the Minolta 35-70 f4 but not that far behind given the cost. a UK retailer has on of these for sale used currently for around £40.00GBP. I think they're having what Londoners call a bubble bath. It's good, but not that good. Edit. Since writing this review it struck me that the A100, unlike the A77, had no option for tailoring the lens correction in JPEG mode. The majority of the images I made with the A100 were JPEGS (though not all) and post processing isn't really my thing. Perhaps it might be fair to say that the 18-70 was a good match for the A100 sensor and lens correction processing in camera, and i might not have formed the same opinion of it had I had the opportunity to try it out on the A77. |
| Feudalac#10511 date: Sep-12-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 2 flare control: 3 overall: 2.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony AF DT 18-55 SAL 3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | Kit lens |
| positive: | Zoom range |
| negative: | Everything else |
| comment: | Probably the worst lens I have. Poorly built, bad distorsion, terible CA, lack of sharpness. I can make more clear and sharper photos with smartphone! |
| Tiago Costa#10167 date: May-2-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 2 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70 f/4-5.6 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 Sony 16-50 f/2.8 |
| price paid: | 0 (included in A200) |
| positive: | Cheap lens Good start for any newcomer |
| negative: | "Blueish" images Slow and noisy AF Weak build quality Useless lens hood |
| comment: | This lens was included in the A200 kit i bought. Being a kit lens, there is nothing excepcionally good with it. Images photographed with this lens always have a "blueish" look, with any great sharpness. Slow and noisy AF doesn´t do any favor to it. Cheap build quality, doesn´t allow the use of polarizer filter due to its rotating front element. Its lens hood is useless, to say the least... Not recommended. |
| Ago#10078 date: Apr-2-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony AF DT 55-200 F4-5.6 Sony AF DT 55-200 F4-5.6 Sony AF DT 50 F1.8 Minolta AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | Sharp Light |
| negative: | Zoom creep Plastic |
| comment: | missing |
| KeithW#10053 date: Mar-23-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 and 28-80 |
| price paid: | Kit lens |
| positive: | It is one of the better kit lensesIMHO |
| negative: | Built down to a price |
| comment: | OK it's a kit lens, they are all relatively cheap. This is one of the better ones I believe. It isn't perfect but does a reasonable job. You would hardly expect a Lamborghini for the price of a Mini! Its performance is quite satisfactory providing you remember it's a cheap lens. The lens hood is useless! |
| derekw#9966 date: Feb-23-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18--50 f3.5-5.6 Minolta 18-70 f3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 25 GBP used |
| positive: | Sharpness stopped down Colour Range Weight |
| negative: | Sharpness wide open. |
| comment: | Didn't compare this against glass costing 5 times as much. Stopped down by 1 2/3rds my copy is very sharp, but in the UK lighting conditions don't often permit this unless you push up the ISO. Sony cameras aren't the best for this. No problems with the colour rendition on my copy. Build OK considering its weight. Distortion typical for a lens of this range and price (!) Useful vacation lens in climes where stopping down a lot isn't a problem. |
| boyzone#9807 date: Jan-18-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL 16105 SAL 18250 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Kit lens for my A100 |
| negative: | - need to step down to F8 for good sharpness |
| comment: | My first kit lens from A100. Trade it after bring in the SAL18250 |
| Andy81#9466 date: Oct-2-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50 1.7 Tamron 55-200 Beercan |
| price paid: | Kit with A200 |
| positive: | Cheap Good range for a kit lens |
| negative: | Vignetting Soft CA |
| comment: | Good starter lens, but suffers from CA on cloudy days, and can be a bit soft. Worth upgrading to a better lens. |
| Skoropada#9421 date: Sep-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigam 18-250 |
| price paid: | Kit lens |
| positive: | - Cheap - Came with the camera - Zoom range |
| negative: | - Build quality - Sharpness (or lack of) - Luminosity |
| comment: | missing |
| ChipZ#9368 date: Aug-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | Sharp Light |
| negative: | Plastic Bad manual focus ring Aparture up to 5.6 almost directly |
| comment: | Pretty good zoom range for family happenings and sharp enough. Fast enough autofocus. To plastic. |
| Tudor#9269 date: Jul-27-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | in A200 kit (new) |
| positive: | Good distortion handling |
| negative: | Sharpness |
| comment: | Very good lens for the price. Slightly sofer than the new kit lens, but compensates with better colors and far less distortion at 18mm. |
| GustavoEduardo#9228 date: Jul-11-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 2 build: 1 distortion: 2 flare control: 2 overall: 1.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 28-85 f3,5-f4,5 Minolta AF 50mm f1,4 Minolta AF 50mm f1,7 |
| price paid: | Kit |
| positive: | a cheap lens |
| negative: | Plastic Noisy soft the colours are no way near Minolta Lenses. |
| comment: | Is a good beginner lenses but tend to fail on AF. and suffers heavily of autofocus noise. The colours are soft lack of sharpness. the focus range is good for a APS-C sensor. |
| Blitzkri3g#9155 date: Jun-19-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Konica Minolta 75-300mm (New) Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Tamron 55-200mm AF F4-5.6 |
| price paid: | Kit Lens (Sony a100) |
| positive: | Well built despite the plastic materials.Easy to operate.Decent all around kit lens.Cheap! |
| negative: | Not so sharp at least with the Sony a100.All around plastic. Worse than the new Sony kit lens. |
| comment: | Well,there s a lot of info about this kit lens already,so I wont have to say much apart from the fact that I cannot stress enough how much sharper is the new 18-55mm kit lens. Anyhow,this lens served me as an all around lens with my old Sony a100 but I sold it along with the camera a month ago! Its plastic but if you take care of it it ll last years. Its cheap and I recommend it if you cant find a DT 18-55 SAM. N. |
| Eml#9144 date: Jun-16-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Kit with A700 |
| positive: | cheap |
| negative: | platic loud AF sharpness CAs |
| comment: | missing |
| PowerUp#9075 date: Jun-2-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | - Build (compared to other kit lenses) - Lack of flare - Range (compared to other kit lenses) |
| negative: | - Soft in the corners - Massive CA - Zoom creep |
| comment: | Compared to other kit lenses the build quality is okay, it feels more solid than the others. The range is also nice, giving a bit of extra tele. As far as I know I've never encountered flare with this lens, it does a great job when the sun is in the frame. That's where the positive part ends though. The corners won't get really sharp despite stopping down. Also the lens is prone to zoom creep. The biggest minus is the CA, especially on cloudy days it's hard to avoid. I've used it a couple of months, and it can take great pictures, but if you are looking for a cheap lens I'd take the 18-55 SAM instead. |
| Keber#8927 date: Apr-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-250 Sony 50 f/1.8 Sony 75-300 Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X pro |
| price paid: | Kit lens |
| positive: | -Great range for a kit lens -Light |
| negative: | -Poor build -Soft -Slow AF -Sloppy AF |
| comment: | Good lens for an entry level bundle,the results are not realy good enough (too soft)for mid to high end bodies. The 18-70 + 75-300 provide a better combination than the new SAM kit lenses despite the SAMs having better sharpness |
| Effstop#8925 date: Apr-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | CZ 16-80mm DT 18-55 SAM |
| price paid: | 0 (kit lens) |
| positive: | Lightweight Compact Sharp low CA |
| negative: | plastic mount s-l-o-w at 70mm (f5.6 - gimme a break!) Build quality doesn't inspire lens hood is just for looks |
| comment: | This one came with my recently acquired second-hand a700. Based on reviews here I wasn't expecting much but when I did a side-by-side with my CZ16-80, the results were surprisingly good. Bottom line, compared to the CZ this lens: A. isn't quite as sharp at f8 across it's zoom range B. the contrast isn't quite as good C. the colours aren't quite as vivid D. there is slightly more CA apparent in high-contrast areas E. build quality is nothing like the CZ Considering what this lens cost/s, it's a bit of a bargain for a knock-around/walk-around entry-level medium zoom. It doesn't match the CZ anywhere, but it's IQ isn't as far away from the CZ as you might expect considering the price difference. It's the sort of lens you'd be happy to take to the beach - if it got a bit of sand or salt in it and died, well, it wouldn't break your heart! Compared to it's successor, the 18-55mm SAM, it has all around better IQ (at least with my example), a more useful range and equivalent build quality. I don't consider the lack of in-built focusing motor (SAM) on the 18-70 to be a disadvantage. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 223
- sharpness: 3.57
- color: 3.70
- build: 2.99
- distortion: 3.47
- flare control: 3.63
- overall: 3.47
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login