Sony AF DT 55-200mm F4-5.6 A-mount lens reviews
 faceless_el#11020 date: Apr-6-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 0 USD (kit lens) |
| positive: | -sharp when down at f8 -great starter telezoom |
| negative: | -plastic lens mount (but don't let this turn you off) -autofocus is slow at times but not a big issue for the price |
| comment: | -sharp wide open -great lens to start with and a good match to the 18-55mm kit lenses |
; 12MP| Geil_ande#10632 date: Oct-31-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300mm/ F4.5-5.6 new Minolta 100-300mm / F4.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-135mm/ F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 18-55mm/ F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony AF DT 50 F1.8 SAM |
| price paid: | 130 CHF (used) |
| positive: | - Sharpness - Light - Good range |
| negative: | - color tends to neutral - none for the price |
| comment: | Really have a good time with this lens. Price-performance ratio is very good IMO. The sharpness is even beter than Min 75-300mm or Min 100-300mm. The range suits me very well for a walk around telezoom lense. Don't really caree for its build quality as it always delivers good pictures. It's also light for travel, definetely a keeper. |
| teodesson#10398 date: Jul-20-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70mm kit lens 16-80mm CZ 75-300 |
| price paid: | 300 SGD (kit lens) |
| positive: | Value for money. Very sharp when step down. |
| negative: | slow focus |
| comment: | very affordable telephoto lens. I'm happy with the result of the result of this lens, especially when stepped down to f8-f10, very sharp and good contrast. |
| babya#10136 date: Apr-22-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-85mm F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 110 AUD |
| positive: | Sharp even at minimum F45 aperture, feels light but with a good weight. Even at maximum f4 aperture RAW and JPG photos captured w ith this lens are sharp and of good quality. Quick autofocusing especially in daylight. Hood is 55mm size -fits the DT 18-55 SAM F3.5-5.6, which is very nice to knw, Took a photo of a floating church out on the water at Main Beach, QLD Australia with this lens on my DSLR-A390-the 82.5-300mm zoom range was ideal. |
| negative: | Plastic lens mount |
| comment: | missing |
| iforget#9969 date: Feb-24-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 24-85 SAL50f1.8 SAL35f1.8 SAL1855 |
| price paid: | 199 CAD (new) |
| positive: | sharp even wide open at center great for portrait color |
| negative: | soft corners wide open f4 minimum focal distance plastic mount |
| comment: | Very sharp wide open (for center and a bit soft at the corners). My favorite lens for portraits during the day, sharp and great color. My sharpest portraits are taken from this lens. Sharper than 24-85 and 18-55 across all ranges. Comparable to the 50/f1.8 and 35f1.8 below 100mm. |
| HKWA444#8641 date: Feb-9-2011 | |
|---|---|
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 70-210F4 (sold because of this) |
| price paid: | 80CND (Used) |
| positive: | -Compact -light weight -good range -Sharp even on wide open -color & contrast (personal preference) |
| negative: | -slow focusing under dim lighting (seldom use indoor anyway) -plastic mount (I don't care) |
| comment: | A really great tele-lens. I am no professional photographer, gives all what I need. no complaint |
| derekw#8054 date: Oct-6-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | All Minolta 70-210s |
| price paid: | 125 GBP (mint) |
| positive: | Very sharp Lightweight but sturdy |
| negative: | All plastic, but still has a 'quality' feel about it |
| comment: | Very competent performer. |
| Robokeh#7261 date: Apr-7-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-300 APO Minolta 70-210 f4 (Beercan) |
| price paid: | € 120,- (new) |
| positive: | Sharp Light, easy to carry Smooth zoomring |
| negative: | Distortion muted colors Plastic mount |
| comment: | I own this lens since jan. 2009 when I bought it with the A300 and it still serves me well on my A700. * Sharpness is amazing for such a light lens and better than the lenses I compare it with (even the beercan!). * Colors are muted and being a matter of taste I however would have liked to see more sparkling, deeper colors. CA is sometimes present in high contrast pictures but never a real life problem (MUCH better than the beercan in this respect). * The build of this lens is good, despite being completely plastic. The zoom and focus rings are smooth (!), much much better than the Sigma 70-300, which is not smooth at all. Lens mount is also plastic. I prefer the Beercan build; indestructible but therefore also heavier. * The only thing that annoys me is the distortion that turns up in pictures taken above 135mm. No straight line is left straight and always needs post-processing to correct. (That's the reason I bought a Beercan but it broke after a week and I guess I am stuck with this lens again...) Conclusion: Give this lens a change; it deserves a place in your camera bag when you want to travel light. With post-processing on the colors and the distortion you can have quality pictures, looking as if they were made with a much more expensive lens. |
| profhankd#6911 date: Feb-14-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 kit lens Minolta Beercan, 75-300 D many others... |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | IQ is much better than the Sony 18-70 kit lens and many Minolta kit lenses |
| negative: | It is nothing special |
| comment: | I got this lens with my A350 new as part of the kit when the A350 was being discontinued... it cost me nothing and I expected nothing from it. I've rarely used it. However, I did test it. It feels cheap, but it is put together precisely and is fairly good optically. Overall, IQ is much better than the 18-70. It is more like the 75-300, but the 75-300 has longer reach, so why use this lens? My Beercan has still better IQ and is faster. This lens is smaller and lighter, but that's not really enough to impress me. In summary, it is a pretty good lens, but nothing special. It certainly is a good mate to the 18-55mm kit lens, but I don't have one of those. |
| Bob Socko#6686 date: Jan-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Minolta 70-210mm f/4 "Beercan" Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5 |
| price paid: | 120 USD (new) |
| positive: | Good color and image quality for an entry-level zoom. |
| negative: | MSRP is $229; for the price and performance, why not buy the Beercan? |
| comment: | For an entry-level telephoto zoom, this lens is good. It produces nice colors and, though a bit soft wide open, sharpens up appropriately when stopped down. The aperture is too small for fast action, but under bright conditions - say, a nice day at the zoo - this lens works well. The lens looks and feels cheap, though to Sony's credit, Canon's equivalent entry-level zoom is just as flimsy. That being said, it is hard for me to recommend someone buy this lens new. Sony holds its vendors to constant prices, meaning this lens will always cost $229 USD (unless you catch a Going Out of Business sale). Alternately, you can buy a Beercan for $200 or less on eBay, which provides: * a faster, constant aperture * all-metal construction * full-frame compatibility * no lens extension while zooming * equivalent or better image quality at any focal range / aperture The only drawback is that the Beercan is, obviously, much bigger and heavier. So, unless weight is a concern or you are unwilling/unable to buy lenses second-hand, skip this and buy the Beercan. |
| alphafreak#6494 date: Dec-1-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | beercan , minolta 75-300 |
| price paid: | 150 USD |
| positive: | Nice Range ,Lightweight , Good effective hood |
| negative: | Soft on the long end , tends to hunt |
| comment: | good starter lens , nothing spectacular , It'll work with the low budget I have. |
| kozmo#6474 date: Nov-27-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-85 KM 28-75 2.8 Sony 18-70 Sigma 17-70 Tamron 70-200 2.8 KM 50 1.7 KM 100-200 4.5 |
| price paid: | kit with a300 |
| positive: | sharp Light weight decent bokeh value |
| negative: | build kit stigma |
| comment: | Quite sharp with pleasent bokeh. A good value and light weight. Build is not great but hey it came with my a300 and most importantly I have taken some pretty decent pictures with it. I have sold some older KM lenses but I will keep this. If you need a zoom in this range and do not have a lot to spend look here. |
| megrim#6185 date: Oct-6-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 129 EURO |
| positive: | - Lightweight - Sharp - F4,5 over much of the mid range |
| negative: | - Yes slightly on the plasticy side - Front moves - Slight CA creeps in - Flare can become an issue to! |
| comment: | Being my first lens into the mid ranges it is surprisingly good. Who would expect a kit lens to be that good and neutral. Yes it feels cheaper, plasticly but the optics are great. It has that nasty quart-focus Sony uses. Meaning that it can be hard to get the right focus because of the limited "subtility" so to say. The pictures as this is where it matters are very neutral compared to the obviously warm colored Minolta objectives. Going to this more neutral is a step but well what is there to complain about. It has ED glass very nice on this price level. It does has some CA but usually fixable during raw conversion. Would be nice if it had less CA though. But for the money this is pretty decent a deal. |
| JeremyT#6184 date: Oct-6-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 Min 28-135mm F4-4.5 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | * Great range * Good sharpness * Great price * Relatively fast * Very portable * Minimal CA |
| negative: | * Rotating filter ring |
| comment: | I find this lens surprisingly sharp, even wide open. You can eek a little bit more detail out of it by stopping down, but I never feel the need to do so on my A200. Maybe not quite as sharp as the 28-135mm, but seemingly on a par with the SAL 75-300mm. This lens has CA well controlled, although purple fringing is present when shooting wide open in high contrast situations (more obvious on the long end). It's better in this regard than the 75-300 or the 28-135. This lens is faster than you might suspect. It only hits f5.6 at the extreme long end and it stays under f4.5 for a majority of its range. A very pleasant surprise considering how most cheap lenses only retain their max aperture at the extreme wide end. It focuses fairly close for its range, too, at 950mm, which is substantially better than the 1.5m MFD on the other lenses. For this reason it claims to be a "Macro" lens, and indeed you can get some macro type shots at 200mm. As for build, this may be the most 'plasticy' feeling lens I've ever seen, which I guess is why people give it poor marks. I don't think that's really fair, since it actually operates quite well: no creep, no rattling or shimmying, and the rings both move smoothly. My copy is used, but it shows no signs of wear and still functions flawlessly. All in all, if you're a value-conscious APS/C Alpha shooter looking to get to 200mm, this is perhaps your best bet. Unless you *really* need f/4 at 200mm, ignore the beer can and grab one of these little guys! You can spend the money you'll save on quite a few actual beer cans :) NOTE: If buying new, the optically identical Tamron version is cheaper, and features a longer warranty. However, on the secondary market, this thing goes for peanuts since it's 1) a kit lens and 2) discontinued in favor of the "SAM" version. I think there's really no way you can beat it at its used price point. |
| lyn#6024 date: Sep-10-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28-200mm Tamron 28-300mm |
| price paid: | 100 USD (new) |
| positive: | Light Weight Sharp Range Macro (close up images) |
| negative: | Nothing considering Cost |
| comment: | Excellent lightweight lens and very usable range. This was my long zoom on a hectic trip to Italy this spring. It did very well. I was able to get shots with it that I would have missed only packing the Sony 16-105mm which did incredibly well. I am also very impressed with what you could call Macro shots (you can't get close to your subject. Minimum focus is around 4 feet I think) with this little lens. It takes very sharp close ups with decent bokeh for the money. I wouldn't put it up against my 70-300mm G lens, but it's very impressive bang for the buck. When I pack two cameras for hiking up in the Rockies this goes on my KM7D, the 16-105mm on the a700 along with the 70-300mm G strapped on my lumbar pack . Nice to have a lightweight lens like this for quick captures that otherwise I might miss trying to pull up the 70-300mm. This lens produces much better images than the 'compared to' list above. I tried them for walk around/all-in-one lens for travel, but was very disappointed in them as they produced unusable soft images. I have not tried the 18-250, but doubt that I will considering cost, and I'm not willing to give up either the 16mm zoom or 300G lens and that would make the 18-250 a costly and redundant lens. The 55-200mm makes a nice back up or lightweight travel option if that's a major concern. If you're looking for nice quality images in an inexpensive/light weight package try this lens. |
| Mr_Canuck#6022 date: Sep-10-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan 135 2.8 50 1.7 200 2.8 100 2 CZ 16-80 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light (is it really on my camera?) Pretty sharp Cheap Zoom ring |
| negative: | Rotating front element |
| comment: | Got this one used on dyxum and it has fulfilled expectations – very decent for what it costs. A great, light, easy to carry travel or hiking lens. The 55mm wide end makes it very flexible. Colours and contrast are somewhat flat compared to CZ or Minolta primes but still respectable. It's so easy to carry around, well balanced with nice zoom ring. Biggest gripe is the rotating front element – I'd pay another 100 just for that; but what can you expect for so cheap? It was a good accompaniment to my CZ 16-80 on my vacation. This one is recommended for anyone on a budget or travelling light. Alas the slightly larger and much heavier 70-300G has elbowed it out. |
| pulsar#6017 date: Sep-9-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Own nothing in this range |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Weightlessness Decent range Cheapness Large hood Sharpness Compactness |
| negative: | Rotating filter thread Hard to find any metal |
| comment: | Don't let the low price of this lens fool you; it is actually sharp. If you are looking for a cheap telephoto lens for occasional use, this is it. It's so light, you wouldn't believe a telephoto lens is attached to your camera. :) Works on a film camera as well. Update: Had it for an half year now. Still satisfied with its performance. Can shoot at 300mm (eqv) without being noticed. :) |
| marathonianbull#5615 date: Jul-1-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony CZ 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Sony 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Minolta 70-210mm f/4 (Beercan) |
| price paid: | 270 CAD + TX (New) |
| positive: | + Sharp, even wide open + Relatively fast + Lightweight & compact + Short minimum focusing distance + ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass + Well-made (in spite of plastic...) |
| negative: | - "Sony's Best Kept Secret Yet!" - Some people won't trust built qualities - Nothing else really worth mentioning! |
| comment: | Sony's 55-200mm focuses quickly and accurately with my A700, even indoor. Resulting pictures are sharp at all apertures, colourful, with no flare, ghosting, or distortion. Due to its surprising IQ and low market price, I think that this lens offers a great alternative to the legendary Beercan; it also represents a tremendous gift from Sony to its demanding user base in terms of quality over price ratio!!! This lens can also give great results when used wide open, contrary to most other super zooms available that need to be stopped down at the long end in order to stay sharp. It remains at f/4 from 55mm to 100mm, quite serviceable given that my 16-105mm requires no less than f/5.6 in the same focal zone. Bokeh is good, semi-macro shots too! Needless to say, I really enjoy using this inexpensive, fearless, underrated gem during casual weekends or local excursions... |
| Shaggy8675#5563 date: Jun-20-2009 | |
|---|---|
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 DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Lens is pretty fast to focus Sharp, especcialy for a cheap kitlens Nice colors compact |
| negative: | Build is not terrible, but my lens does ha a little bit of play here and there. Plastic feeling MF-ring is to small lenshood tends to fall of once in a while due to not much clamping force of the thread. |
| comment: | I realy like this lens and use it a lot. Since it being a kitlens, i think you can get a lot worse lenses. It functions good, and reliable. Colors are good, lens is verry sharp. I like it a lot. |
| jmco#5558 date: Jun-19-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | lightweight, good image quality |
| negative: | hood is not much, non metal mount |
| comment: | Initially I resisted buying it because I have a tele zoom already and other lenses that are "better". But this lens turned out to fill a nice spot in the range I shoot in. |
| Shootist#5475 date: May-31-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan 70-210 Little Beercan 100-200 Big Beercan 75-300 75-300 “New” Sony 55-200 DT |
| price paid: | 211 |
| positive: | Pretty sharp Can't get in too much trouble with flare, fringe, CA's, or ghosting |
| negative: | Images are technically sound but alas boring - flare sometimes adds...well - flare! |
| comment: | I did a somewhat formal shootout of these 5 lenses; prices are with shipping/tax/all costs included: Beercan 70-210 paid $140 Little Beercan 100-200 paid $85 Big Beercan 75-300 Paid $180 75-300 “New” Paid $120 Sony 55-200 DT Bundle lens (The Tamron re-labeled) included with my A350 I went through a bit of trouble in doing this but am not sure there is really enough differences to report or if those differences are just due to my copies. That said, here are my results shooting on a tripod at f5.6 and 250 shutter on a new Alpha 350: 1. Big Beercan won for Bokeh and took 2nd place in sharpness 2. The “New” 75-300” surprised as noted around here a few times…1st in sharpness and 2nd in Bokeh. Nice and light, the sensible choice but…you got to admit the beercans have that beercan “thing” about them…Also – I paid $120 for this lens so…they’re not the big bargain they once were. 3. The Beercan came in 3rd in sharpness, but it must be said that the top 3 lenses were nearly identical in sharpness. This lens took best photo “feel” and color though – and strangely – it may be the one I keep, go figure. I know, not very scientific : ( This lens really does live up to its hype. Mine is all beat up and looks like hell but WOW – those dings did NOT touch the IQ! 4. Little Beer Can…after reading here I guess this lens is soft at f5.6 so….take what you want from this. Still, I did plenty of shooting and this lens marked the only consistent and true drop off from the pack. You could almost take your pick of the top 3 and maybe never know the difference. This is the only one I’m sure to sell. It’s small size doesn’t do me much good – if I’ve busted out the camera bag and the a350 then I’m committed to being encumbered – and I certainly, certainly wouldn’t pick THIS lens as my walk-around shooter…hah. 5. Well, the SONY DT is obviously outmatched here but…it’s sharp really. My main issue with this lens is how cold it’s photos are. Yeah modern lenses kill flare and fringe and tweak the light around but…unless you’re a soccer Mom (I’m a classically trained armature photographer) the best results from this lens are just ho-hum. That’s tantamount to preaching to the choir on a site like this, I know ; ) That’s it….take what you want from this and feel free to contact me. I’m selling off a few of these because it’s kind of expensive owning them all (and a bit greedy since they overlap) so I won’t be able to do this again probably. -Shootist |
| hg102#5450 date: May-25-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G Lens Minolta 100-300 xi Minolta 100-200mm |
| price paid: | 127 USD (used) |
| positive: | Light weight Fast focusing Works well with my 1.5x TC |
| negative: | Build quality but not a problem yet |
| comment: | I bought this lens for hiking and find it meeting my needs with my Alpha A700. To keep the weight down I pair it with a Minolta 24mm f2.8. This lens continues to give me very good immages under variable light conditions. It is a keeper at the price. |
| Strider25#5241 date: Apr-14-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Big Beercan |
| price paid: | $225 |
| positive: | -Very sharp -Nice neutral color tones -Lightweight |
| negative: | -Plastic Lens Mount -Almost too light weight :) |
| comment: | Very nice lens. This was my first telephoto and one of my favorites. Very sharp and completely underrated. Great telephoto for those on a budget. I very much recommend it Since it's so lightweight, it is easy to walk around with it. Not cumbersome at all |
| andrewlamwc#5170 date: Apr-5-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-200 F3.5-5.6 DC Sony AF 70-300 F4.5-5.6 G SSM |
| price paid: | Kit Lens |
| positive: | + Light weight, + Inexpensive, + Acceptable color and sharpness |
| negative: | - Plastic |
| comment: | Together with 18-70mm, it is great kit lens that extended the range coverage to 200mm. With APC-S format that equivalent to 27 - 300 mm to FF, it is very good enough for a starter to enjoy photography. The range 55-200 is very useful for portrait and flower shooting. I sold it just for upgrade to 70-300G. |
| russellsbags#5083 date: Mar-23-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 f4 (Beercan) Now sold |
| price paid: | 99 UKP |
| positive: | Lightweight Price IQ Circular Aperture |
| negative: | Slight CA at tele end (Very slight) |
| comment: | I love this lens. I badly broke my elbow a few years back and can't bend it to hold my lens when taking photos so all my freehand photography is done one handed. Sadly, this rules out heavy lenses like the beercan unless I'm using a tripod. That said I often choose this lens over the beercan anyway as I just love it. I have now sold the beercan as I'm more than happy with this. Anybody who passes up on this lens because it's cheap, plastic, a kit lens etc. is missing out. There are some outstanding cheap lenses to be had out there. There is nothing wrong with plastic, both in the body or elements of a lens. I have terrible eyesight and have been looking through plastic lenses for nearly 30 years and for so many reasons I would not use glass. Mainly for the weight. I would choose a modern plastic, lightweight lens over a 20 year old, heavy, metal lens any day. The technology now is far superior than it was even 5 years ago. Would you buy a VHS player or a Blu-Ray? |
| Alexramos#4919 date: Feb-27-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 110 USD (new) |
| positive: | Weight Size Sharpen Performance |
| negative: | Filter move No AF limiter Plastic mount |
| comment: | I brough this lens to sell my a200 with 2 lenses, but I like this lens and I keep it for my a700. Good price has CircuitCity with this lens... |
| olli#4892 date: Feb-22-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 Tamron 17-50 |
| price paid: | 230 USD |
| positive: | Lightweight and compact. Genuinely 4-4.5 for much of the zoom range. Great sharpness to 150-160 and still good out to 200. Good lens hood included. |
| negative: | Nothing |
| comment: | Fantastic lens for those of us with an occasional need for telephoto but who don't want the weight or size of other similar lenses. This lens goes into a ziploc bag and into my pocket regularly. Yes the lens is very light and has a plastic mount but that does not mean it is poorly built. Both Sony and Tamron versions carry exactly the same guarantee as their more expensive products. I've never used a beercan but having handled one in a camera store s/h department I can't see any reason to choose it over this. Even this more expensive Sony version is a bargain. |
| warpspasm#4789 date: Feb-2-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 Minolta 50 1.7 Minolta 35-70 Minolta 35-105 Tamron 24-135 Sigma 17-70 |
| price paid: | Part of A300 Kit |
| positive: | Quite sharp Light Nice colors Nice Bokeh Focal range Close focusing distance |
| negative: | Build not great, but not bad either. |
| comment: | This is another sleeper of a lens that, unfortunately, gets saddled with the "kit lens" stigma. I got it as part of a two lens kit with my A300. The other lens in the kit, a 18-70, is mediocre at best, but this lens was a very pleasant surprise. My shots are consistently sharp and many who ask me what lens I used are surprised when I tell them. It's a shame that people are so often turned off when they hear something is a kit lens and never give it a chance. This is a very good, underrated, lens that can be had for a steal. I used to look for a good deal on a Beercan, but not since I got this lens and see how well it performs. |
| condellm#4656 date: Jan-9-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-200 f4.5 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | light medium focus speed sharp close focus little ca |
| negative: | none at this price |
| comment: | firstly i was caught offguard with how sharp the pictures are form this cheap lens. secondly i waas also surprised at how close one can get i am wondering why it is not marketed as some kind of macro lens. finally love the weight the 100-200 will be staying home. |
| tpolakov#4623 date: Jan-4-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 kit lens Minolta 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | in A 300 kit |
| positive: | Light Sharp Nice color/contrast |
| negative: | Filter ring rotates, otherwise nothing for this price (600 EUR for the Alpha 300 double zoom kit) |
| comment: | This is a wonderful little lens - much better than the 18-70 kit lens with regards to sharpness/contrast. Focuses a tiny bit slower in low light, but it is to be expected. No zoom creep. Bokeh about average. All in all, for the price in the kit - I would say best value for money (maybe the Tamron 55-200 may beat it in this respect, if it has the same IQ as reviews suggest). |
rating summary
- total reviews: 35
- sharpness: 4.33
- color: 4.40
- build: 3.71
- distortion: 4.43
- flare control: 4.40
- overall: 4.25
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login