Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM A-mount lens reviews
 AVLB#46993 date: Mar-29-2024 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Nothing is the same range in APSC format. Tamron 18-250 (that I still have) |
| price paid: | £435(new) |
| positive: | Light Good focal range Perfect for travel |
| negative: | It is too cheap for what you get. |
| comment: | I bought this in 2018 and still own it. Took it on a holiday and every shot was sweet. Wide enough and long enough, this is the perfect APSC travel lens. I used to think my Tamron was really good, but the SAM makes a huge difference to noise, compared to the Tamron. The speed of focussing is so much better than the Tamron. It is for me the perfect travel lens and I wish there was a FF equivalent at the same weight, optical quality and range. Cannot compare this to likes of Sony 16-50 or Sigma 17-70, as they are totally different lenses. |
; 24MP| addy landzaat#34776 date: Feb-5-2017 | |
|---|---|
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 24-85, Minolta 100-300 APO (D) (Other lenses like primes, G-lenses and several Canons indirectly) |
| price paid: | €149 used like new |
| positive: | Sharp enough in most situations. Convenient zoom range. Fast autofocus. |
| negative: | Could be sharper. Autofocus could be quieter. |
| comment: | I did compare this lens to my 24-85 and the 24-85 is clearly better in the border of the APS-C frame, its range is however shorter. Same goes for the 100-300 APO (D). Both Minoltas have faster f/numbers too. I guess the 18-135 is a compromise. For the price I paid, the 18-135 is a no brainer, but it usually is more expensive. I guess it is convenience against quality. The Minoltas are what I call good enough, the 18-135 almost good enough. But be aware, I normally use Minolta/Sony G-lenses and Canon L-lenses - the 18-135 is a really nice lens for day-to-day use and you can get great pictures out of it. Some report jittery autofocus on this lens, so I did some tests, and yes it does sometimes stutter (for lack of a better word) when it does the last bit of the focus sequence. In most situations it seems the lens gets into focus quickly with maybe a slight stutter that is not noticeable in normal use. In some situations however it is quite noticeable - in my test this was on the black tiled roof across the street and the crown of a tree - in both instances there wasn't much for the PDAF system to lock on to. It feels like the focusmotor moves in increments to find focus that give this stutter feeling. AF still is fast and the camera gets focus. In most lenses you don't notice these steps, it just slows down and moves a bit around the point of focus before finding it. I don't mind this behaviour, but others do. |
| araudan#29638 date: Jul-23-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55 DT SAM II |
| price paid: | $550 CDN new |
| positive: | Covers all focal lengths I commonly use. Balancesc well on my camera. Love the color and sharpness. |
| negative: | Distortion can be significant at the wide end. |
| comment: | Distortion easily corrected in post processing. |
| jacksprat#26580 date: May-9-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | I have nothing to compare this to I own: SAL1650 , Tamron 90 (272), Tamron A005(70-300) |
| price paid: | $300 ( in 2014) |
| positive: | Size, weight, range, price |
| negative: | Nothing else to add that others have not mentioned |
| comment: | I'm writing this review based solely on the suitability for my enjoyment and NOT the technical merits( or faults) of this lens.. Having had this lens for 2 years, it is on the camera more than any other lens because I JUST LIKE IT... It really is all I need and I am satisfied ,and, in reality, that is all that matters, isn't it ? This is NOT a 5 star lens however. These are going cheap on fleabay right now, so not everyone thinks as highly of this lens as the dyxum score would suggest.... With that in mind, I think many reviewers get too picky about pixel related characteristics of a lens and forget to just have fun. We should enjoy taking photos and move beyond stars , ratings and uber critical mindsets.. |
| streets#26559 date: Apr-21-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-300 APO G |
| price paid: | $220.00 |
| positive: | Light weight Color and sharpness Zoom range Smooth controls |
| negative: | Still looking. Will edit accordingly. |
| comment: | This lens will spend most of its time glued to my A57 unless I need to go over 135mm. Zoom and focus rings located same as my G. The focus ring is absolutely smooth and even better than the G. Focusing is fast and spot-on. The absence of C.A. is Zeiss-like. If you need a great walk around lens, you cannot do better. The macro abilities of this lens are also a pleasant surprize. After using this lens for many varying situations I feel even more strongly that this is the finest walkaround lens that I have ever used. It is excellent at all focal lengths and F stops. Get one. |
| QuietOC#25496 date: Feb-19-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM Sony CZ 16-80 F3.5-4.5 DT Sony DT 16-105 F3.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM I/II Sony DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-200 F3.5-6.3 Minolta AF 24-50 F4 Minolta AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5/RS Minolta AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D Minolta AF 28-85 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5/RS Minolta AF 28-135 F4-4.5 Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5/New Sigma AF 28-105 F2.8-4 Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5 Tamron SP 17-50 F2.8 |
| price paid: | 91 USD (used) |
| positive: | Fairly light 7.5x zoom range Center sharpness and contrast Internal focus Slow but accurate AF Petal hood Image quality near 43 mm |
| negative: | Noticeable focus shifting with any zoom action Very mushy corners at 24 mm Squeaky SAM Rear focus control Clutch vagueness in MF control Somewhat heavy and inconsistent zoom action CA at long end Decentered, mushy bottom left corner Imperfect Lens Compensation |
| comment: | This is currently the cheapest APS-C normal kit lens after the 18-55 SAM II, though it has mostly been slightly more than the older, screw-drive Sony DT 16-105 on the used market. It is the same basic size as the 16-105, 28-105, and 35-105 but even lighter than the 16-80. It shares some a similar reach and uncommon rear focus with the 1985 Minolta AF 28-135 f/4-4.5. This is the only focus motor lens I have which responds to the AF/MF switch on the camera body, but it also has a redundant AF/MF switch on the lens. Both switches have to be switched to AF for AF to function. The AF switch on the barrel is also a different shape and operates in a perpendicular direction to the ones on other SAM lenses. The manual focus control ring is at the back of the lens like the Minolta AF 28-135 f/4-4.5. Also like that lens the focus grip is pretty narrow. The full-time manual focus control uses clutches somewhat like the 16-80, 16-105, 24-105 and Tamron 60 F2 Macro and has a similar vagueness and play as those lenses. There is slightly more feedback than the Tamron, but precise adjustments are nearly impossible. The SAM AF noises are high pitched and annoying in a quiet room. The SAM is nowhere near as quiet as the motor in the Tamron 60 F2, but in a typically noisy environment the squeaks aren't very noticeable. Image quality varies over the zoom range. It is weakest at short normal focal lengths. For example the corners at 30 mm are worse than the corners at 135 mm. A good portion of the frame is soft at 24mm, but edge-to-edge sharpness is very good from around 35 to 50 mm with the best performance midway between those focal lengths. The focus plane at 18 mm is also quite flat, but there is a large amount of barrel distortion at that focal length. The image quality remains good past 50 mm, but some moderate lateral CA becomes visible. This copy seems to be somewhat decentered with the bottom left corner mushy while the opposite corner is very good. Even on the low resolution A58 rear display the lens defocuses noticeably with any movement of the zoom control. The focus also shifts consistently in one direction with zoom. Both of these focus shifting traits make the lens a poor choice for video recording. The focal length also decreases significantly at close focus. The somewhat long 450 mm minimum focal distance is a drawback compared to the standard 18-55 kit lenses (250 mm). Contrary to the review below, the older 16-105 lens focuses closer (400 mm) as does the 16-80CZ (350 mm). Overall it is a nice kit lens with good reach and very good image quality in the middle of its range. Test chart comparison with Carl Zeiss 16-80 and Sony DT 18-135 SAM. |
| Collingsandheal#24475 date: Jan-24-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony Sal 16-50 f2.8. Sony 16-105. |
| price paid: | £300.00 |
| positive: | Super sharp. Super colours. Super fast *. Low distortion. |
| negative: | * Not so fast at 135mm but usable. |
| comment: | As sharp, may even be a tad sharper than the SAL1650 f2.8. Best walk around lens that Sony makes for the A77/A77Mk2/A65. Focuses closer and zooms more than the 16-105 equaling it everywhere and beating it for outright detail. |
| Mr.Mekulic#20393 date: Oct-19-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-50 2.8 SSM Minolta 80-200 2.8 APO |
| price paid: | bundled with A65 |
| positive: | Very useful range, very sharp stopped down half a stop from max aperture. Focus quiet and fast. |
| negative: | Nothing significant for the price. |
| comment: | My copy fell into the river while changing lenses :( Bought 16-50 2.8 for upgrade/replacement, was surprised how good 18-135 has been. |
| fakon#18351 date: Sep-17-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony - AF DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM II Sony - AF DT 16-50 F2.8 |
| price paid: | 380 € |
| positive: | - walk-around-range (cities eg) - very good look and build - lightweighted - good sharpeness |
| negative: | - af from 100 is very slow - sharpeness <50, >90 is only good - 16mm would be better than 18 |
| comment: | It's a good lens. Should be replacing the SAL1855 on all APS-C. The SAL1650 its much better in color, speed and sharpeness. But 50mm on APS_C isn't much to walk around. It's a good companion to my Sigma 150-500 Lens. Had both lenses on my Africa Safari, didn't need more. |
| Atom Ant#18345 date: Sep-5-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony - AF DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM II Tamron SP AF 90mm F2.8 Di Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D |
| price paid: | $275USD (used) |
| positive: | Sharp Sensible zoom range & weight Great value for money Fast, accurate focus |
| negative: | f3.5-5.6 |
| comment: | I love this lens. In fact I fell in love with it as soon as I put it on my body & looked through the viewfinder! A great walk-around lens - sharp + really useful zoom range. By sharp, I mean it is the equal of my Tamron 90 macro (apart from the long end of the zoom range which is good but not as excellent). There's some distortion at the short end but it corrects out perfectly in camera or post so it's practically irrelevant. For me, the only limitation is that I'd prefer a decent aperture. It's a great step up from the 18-55 kit lens. Better resolution & much higher contrast. |
| michalm2#16312 date: Jul-16-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony SAL1855 Minolta 24-105mm/3.5-4.5 Sigma 30mm/1.4 Sigma 55-200 DC |
| price paid: | 3 250 000 IDR (new) |
| positive: | range sharpness even wide open colors bokeh it is quiet nonrotating front element |
| negative: | distortion and vignetting at 18mm AF speed sometimes at 135mm no focus distance scale but it's reasonable for price paid |
| comment: | I bought it for a good price just to try it, but I was so surprised by it so I keep it. I was using Minolta 24-105 for last more than two years. It was very good lens, but this Sony has better image quality wide open, wider focal range and nicer bokeh. So it's now my new walkaround lens. |
| davic130#12127 date: Feb-11-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-50 f2.8 HSM OS Sigma 50-200 4-5.6 HSM OS Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan |
| price paid: | 290 Used |
| positive: | Great walk around zoom range. Light weight. Surprisingly sharp at most apertures and focal lengths. Great color and contrast. Fairly quiet focus. |
| negative: | A bit of focus chatter or static when focusing when zoomed beyond 100mm, though no issues with achieving accurate focus. Not a fan of Sony's rubber zoom and focus rings. |
| comment: | Had considered Sony Zeiss 16-80 for walk around, though new price seemed steep for fairly dated design. Used copies tend to be well worn. Sony 18-135 has proven a great all around lens at a great price and touch more reach. While it does not excel at any one thing, it has not failed me in providing clear, crisp pics of landscapes, cityscapes, and casual family snaps. Nicely balanced with A77Mii and grip. In camera adjustments take care of any serious optical flaws like distortion. Highly recommended. |
| artinoah#12126 date: Feb-10-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta - AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D |
| price paid: | about 400 € (new) |
| positive: | Very good sharpness at all apertures with very good quality for that zoom range. Fast and silent Focus. |
| negative: | Not suitable for full frame |
| comment: | First i was surprised that the lens is nearly at the same Level in sharpness in the middle and the edges at middle aperture (8.0)than the Minolta - AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D. Opened up to F3.5 it overtakes the Minolta + it has the wider zoom range. (o.k. the Minolta fits for full frame) |
| ratboy#12033 date: Nov-15-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 DC OS HSM Tamron 17-50 |
| price paid: | 235 GBP new |
| positive: | Fast and silent focus Very handy range of focal lengths DMF is fun |
| negative: | Heavy distortion Quite strong vignetting particularly at 35mm Focus and zoom rings in the wrong order |
| comment: | I bought this lens as a convenient walk around when I don't want to carry a bag full of lenses and convenience is what it offers. However, this is at the expense of sharpness and I find this lens a little mushy wide open. It sharpens up nicely one or two stops above wide open but the extreme edges never really sharpen up until about f8 at longer focal lengths > 100mm. Haven't noticed any micro chattering on my A77 II though. Distortion is heavy but in camera distortion correction takes care of it quite nicely (if you are jpg shooter) and the lens profile in Lightroom does a good job too. Having said all that it's a great lens for the price. I would say Kurt Munger's review gives an accurate description of this lens. |
| Georgeifi#12001 date: Oct-11-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105 Sony 18-250 Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Tamron 17-50/2.8 |
| price paid: | 270€ used |
| positive: | The focus is amazing 99% correct. Very sharp. |
| negative: | the zoom ring stuck in rotation, sometimes |
| comment: | is better than the 17-70 and 16-105 |
| toddd240#11946 date: Aug-12-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-55mm |
| price paid: | 399 US |
| positive: | Solid sharpness for a higher end kit lens. Great range and great for walking around. Really good color. |
| negative: | Solid build but still plastic. Flares a bit. Gets a bit dark around the corners. |
| comment: | As good as it gets for a current kit lens. |
| craig66#11824 date: May-13-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Sony DT 55-300mm |
| price paid: | $365 AUD (new) |
| positive: | mostly sharp quiet and quick AF light and compact |
| negative: | AF at longer focal lengths distortion at 18mm soft corners at 24mm |
| comment: | I checked my copy for de-centering using the simple Photozone technique and found no problem, so I assume my sample is representative. The lens has good centre sharpness at all focal lengths with the least good results at 135mm. Corner sharpness is mostly decent, except at 24mm where it is quite poor and must be stopped down to f8 for acceptable results. I marked sharpness down to 4 because of this. Overall the best IQ is probably in the range 30-70mm where it is comparable to the two lenses listed above. In this range there is mild pin cushion distortion, little CA and sharpness is good. CA is not much of an issue in general and is worst at 135mm where correction is beneficial. There is considerable complex "moustache" type barrel distortion at 18mm that will need a lens profile with suitable software to correct RAW images. By 24mm distortion is pin cushion and stays that way for the rest of the fl range where it is mild to moderate. Other users have reported some AF "chattering" or micro hunting at longer focal lengths, I also observed this. I tested AF accuracy and consistency using MTF Mapper and found it quite good at the shorter focal lengths but not so good at the long end where it was a bit inconsistent. I marked build down to 4 because of this. Overall this is quite a decent lens for the focal length range and may be the best option for an APS-C travel zoom if you can live without the extra focal length of 18-2xx type lenses. |
| pfless#11780 date: Apr-19-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 18-200 |
| price paid: | Part of a57 kit |
| positive: | -Range -Great for video -AF fast and quiet |
| negative: | -Plastic build |
| comment: | Great kit lens. AF is very fast and quiet which makes this lens great for video. Not the greatest lens in the world, but definitely a major step up from the 18-55 kit. |
| robberly12#11601 date: Jan-12-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-250/f3.5-6.3 HSM Tamron 28-75/f2.8 |
| price paid: | $0 (kit lens) |
| positive: | Small & Light Good IQ (Sharp) Quiet, generally accurate focus Full-time MF Price was right! |
| negative: | No distance scale Jittery focus at longer FLs |
| comment: | This was a great "throw-in" kit lens when I bought a new A77 in Sept. 2013. It duplicated the focal range of my Sigma 18-250 HSM, but I still wanted it because my Sigma was not certified to work the A77 (A33 & A55, only). As a bonus, it is much smaller and lighter than my 18-250 HSM (which turned out to work fine with the A77), and my experience is that it is generally sharper and has less CA than the Sigma. The focus is generally quick and quiet with one big exception. At longer focal (>100 mm) lengths, the autofocus becomes very jittery. Before it will lock focus, it does an annoying series of small incremental adjustments. It occurs even in good light, and is particularly apparent when going from close focus to long focus. I'm virtually certain it's not a defect with my copy because it's been noted by two reviewers here (Huge & Peter1982) as well as in this thread on DPReview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3276025#forum-post-50002531 I thought about returning it, but subsequently determined it was a general issue. Because of this, I lowered the lens's build rating to 3. For landscape and short focal length use, the lens is a joy to use and has good image quality at a great price. For telephoto use, I would look elsewhere. |
| SiSweeney#11478 date: Nov-12-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 50 F1.8 Sony 18-70 F4.5-5.6 Tokina AT-X 840 AF-II 80-400 F4.5 - 5.6 |
| price paid: | bundled with A65 |
| positive: | Range Sharpness Size & Weight |
| negative: | Vignetting wide open Zoom a bit stiff at the extremities Lower Aperture would be better |
| comment: | Great lens, great all-rounder. I don't use my prime lens as much now because this little beauty is so versatile with brilliant results. I would of given build, distortion and flare all 4.5 (if I could) because there is room for improvement, but for the price what this lens goes for it is quite hard not to score it high. Build quality could be better as the zoom sticks a little and I believe it isn't weather proof like the 16-50m version. The SAM is brilliant, very smooth and pretty quite. Vignetting appears wide open and the lens gets super sharp around 50mm. Flare pops in now and again, but nothing that a better hood couldn't fix and I was shooting in' very bright, low sunlight' with no filters on. Overall brilliant lens, brilliant results, light, well built and I'm glad I got the extra zoom compared to the 16-50m. Check out the landscape photo (loch Skeen) and the fire in the sample part of this review to judge the quality yourself. I would paid £250-£300 quite happily for this lens but got it in a bundle. |
| TheEmrys#11442 date: Nov-7-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105mm Sony 18-55mm Minolta 35-105mm Minolta 28-135mm Tamron 28-70/2.8 |
| price paid: | $275 (used) |
| positive: | Excellent range Light Weight At its worst, it is still pretty good |
| negative: | Loses sharpness from 18-24mm Starts to lose contrast at ~100mm |
| comment: | Excellent lens. It has a hair less sharpness than the 16-105mm, but more than makes up for it with a phenominal auto-focus. While Sony calls it SAM, it is vastly superior to other SAM's like the 18-55mm and the 35/1.8. It is much closer to the SSM on my 70-400G. It is fast and silent. For anyone looking for a perfect video lens with very good still performance and range beyond 50mm, this is THE lens to get. |
| Arnav#11390 date: Oct-14-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-135mm Secret Handshake. SAL 75-300 |
| price paid: | with A77 |
| positive: | Size - Compact lens with good range. Sharp Value for money Versatile Travel Lens Fast AF , Less Noisy Good Focus Range. |
| negative: | The grip (attracts dust ) |
| comment: | This lens IS THE MODERN SECRET HANDSHAKE without the cons of the older lens, which include MFD , and weight. This is a great general purpose lens . I got it with Sony A77, and now is a standard in my Kit.I found it to have somewhat same colors as minolta 28-135mm lens. At 18mm it is quite compact and balances very well with A77 at all focal lengths. It surely is a keeper. |
| minoltan#11239 date: Jul-7-2013 | |
|---|---|
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 24mm f/2.8 Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Sony 85mm f/2.8 Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5 Minolta 35-105mm f/4 |
| price paid: | 200 GBP (new) |
| positive: | Centre sharpness Lightweight Bokeh at long end Fast & quiet AF |
| negative: | Feels plastic (because it is). |
| comment: | Light and compact. In real life situations and good light, this matches the performance of the primes listed. I find myself only using my primes when I'm in low light. This lens stays on the camera most of the time. 18mm is as wide as I ever want to go and the distortion is well corrected. 135mm is fine for walkabout and I swap to the gorgeous Minolta 100-200 beyond that. The SAM is fast and accurate and is great for the occasional video, where the quietness is good. |
| xyizor#11220 date: Jun-30-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 28-135 Sony 16-105 |
| price paid: | 295 USD (new) |
| positive: | Light Quiet and Fast focus Bang for Buck Sharp in center at all apertures. Good CA control (the rest easily removed in post) |
| negative: | Corners - Im extremely nitpicking here though, corners are better than any DT Zoom lens I own from Sony thus far. |
| comment: | Got the lens on sale at LCS For $320AUD (295USD) Vs the Minolta 28-135 Pros; Sharper in center, Lighter and Smaller A lot quieter + quicker auto focus Cons; Not as sharp in the corners, but the 28-135mm lens covers a full frame sensor so corner performance is bound to be better on a crop sensor. Vs the SAL 16-105 Pros; Better performance across the whole focal range Lighter Goes to 135mm vs 105mm Sharper in the mid sections and corners Sturdier when zoomed out, The 16-105mm at 105 feels like it might fall off. Cons; Bigger (but lighter) not as wide 18mm vs 16mm on the 16-105 All up I was very surprised by the performance of this lens, I will be getting rid of my SAL 16-105 and 18-55. I have this lens on my A77 most of the time when im walking around the city or Hiking, in all other cases I switch between this and the Tamron 70-300 USD. |
| derekw#11177 date: Jun-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-200 Sony 18-250 Sony 16-105 Zeiss 16-80 |
| price paid: | 199 GBP |
| positive: | Everything |
| negative: | Pity its not a bit longer |
| comment: | Modern day 'Secret Handshake'. Must have for APSC user |
| Huge#11079 date: Apr-27-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-50 2.8 SSM TAmron 28-300 Sigma 18-250 HSM Macro Sony 18-55 SAM (kit lens) |
| price paid: | 219 £ (new) |
| positive: | Very good extinction resolution (Rayleigh criterion) CA is simple and easily removed Good build Fast focus Distortion is mostly simple and easily removed in camera or by post processing from raw |
| negative: | From 90-135, focus can occasionally hunt briefly Some loss of chrominance micro-contrast Astigmatism at ends of range (only in corners, but see comments) Varifocal (hence no distance scale!) |
| comment: | I was having difficulty deciding HOW to review this lens I decided to work on the basis that most people will use in-camera jpg or a more recent RAW converter that handles distortion and CA. In this lens, these aberrations are quite significant, but fairly simple and designed for correction; so in reality are not a problem at all. The sharpness/contrast characteristic is again designed so that post processing can reveal remarkable levels of detail, with only the corner astigmatism remaining (but see the comment on DxO). Of course this approach only sharpens luminance, so there is a detectable loss of chominance micro-contrast remaining, but this is nit picking). These two prevent it getting 5 for both sharpness and colour. The results I have obtained are significantly better than those obtained by Kurt Munger in his review of this lens (was his lens a pre-production example perhaps?). DxO. Finally, when the images are processed using DxO 8, the lens profile is excellent an also corrects the astigmatism; this lens then gets a 5 for sharpness. In fact the images are SO good that, in many cases, they are better than in-camera jpeg images from the Sony 16-50 2.8! - quite an astonishing feat for a 7.5x zoom. For anyone using this lens I heartily recommend DxO, it's the best accessory you can buy for it! Like the 16-50 this is another lens that doesn't (generally) get in the way during picture taking; it just does it's job unobtrusively, allowing you to concentrate on the image. Bottom Line: Very good lens, easy to use, and when used with distortion and CA correction this lens will not disappoint at all; when used with DxO it's simply amazing. This is now my walkabout lens, I just don't see any significant loss of quality compared to the 16-50. |
| kukynas#11072 date: Apr-25-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | CZ 16-80 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | 400 USD (new) |
| positive: | Range Fast and Quiet AF Build SAM motor Sharp light |
| negative: | nothing to mention |
| comment: | better then CZ16-80. Highly recommended. |
| Freddan_6#10980 date: Mar-14-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 3.5-5.6 SAM Minolta 28-135 4-4.5 KonicaMinolta 28-75 2.8 Tamron 17-55 2.8 Minolta Beercan 70-210 4 Minolta Big Beercan 75-300 4.5-5.6 Minolt 80-200 2.8 APO Sony 18-200 3.5-6.3 |
| price paid: | 239£ (new) |
| positive: | Compact, colors, sharpness, weight. |
| negative: | A bit stiff zooming |
| comment: | The updated SAM is fast, accurate and silent. Bought it new without box from UK, to a good price. This is not as sharp in the corners as the KM 28-75 or Tam 17-50 wide open but it sharpens up nicely at f8. Center is really sharp from wide open. I will use this as a travellens. Much better sharpness, contrast and colors than the 18-200. Color are a little more blue than minolta, still good colors. A little busy bokeh, worse thena the Beercan. Nice Minimal Focal Distance. No need for the zoom-lock so far . Update: Compared to my 28-135 4-4.5 "Secret handshake" it wins hands down. Better contrast, no CA, sharper. I made a test at maximum open f-stop (same apreture) This lens is definitely more sharp than Minolta 28-135 f:4-4.5. Tested at @28 f:4 @35 f:4.5 @50 f:5 @70 f:5.6 @100 f:5.6 @135 f:5.6 This lens has more contrast, much less CA, is more sharp, less prone to flare, much better MFD. |
| mnerd#10976 date: Mar-12-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-80 CZ 24-85 |
| price paid: | 220 eur (used) |
| positive: | + range + SAM + sharp + fast focus + lightweight |
| negative: | - no macro - APSC |
| comment: | Best colors, range and weight for money. |
| Peter1982#10846 date: Jan-12-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 24-85 mm RS - Minolta 28-105 mm RS - Sigma 18-200 mm DC - Sony 18-55 mm - Sony 18-70 mm - Tamron 28-200mm (not macro) |
| price paid: | 295 € (new) |
| positive: | - Sharp - light weight - range - the new SAM - CA-correction (with newer SLTs, like A65) - distortion correction |
| negative: | - AF sometimes a little bit nervous between 100-135 mm - only 135 mm - only F3,5-5,6 (but it is normal for a 7,5x zoom lens) - some vignetting with Raynox DCR-FE181pro Fisheye converter(more then the Sigma) |
| comment: | This is the best all-round lens I've ever had (especially for travelling). It has the Image quality of the Minolta 28-105 mm RS, with a better range for APS-C, the new quiet SAM and no CA (A65 has a correction for this lens). I have also the Sigma 18-200mm DC, which is a great lens, but it has sometimes a lot of CA and a noisy AF, which is not good for video recording. So if you have a SLT with lens corrections and if you're looking for a all-round lens for trevelling and video recording, I would recommend you this lens. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 42
- sharpness: 4.52
- color: 4.74
- build: 4.48
- distortion: 4.31
- flare control: 4.62
- overall: 4.53
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login