Sony AF DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM A-mount lens reviews
 Ago#10076 date: Apr-2-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | 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: | 110 |
| positive: | good alternative for a wide lens sharp (especially stepped down) cheap weight good AF nice color flare is well controlled |
| negative: | focus ring can be jerky |
| comment: | I can't believe people give this kit lens such bad reviews. Its miles better than the old kit 18-70 in every way. I think it is sharp even at max wide open aperture at all focal lengths, in the central portion of the frame. Yes, corner sharpness is not great at larger apertures but the corners sharpen up quite considerably at one stop above max aperture. Nothing new, I'm pretty sure most zoom lenses have similar performance characteristics. Great little performer and useful when I want a lighter, smaller standard zoom. |
; 12MP| Thatguyfromvienna#10046 date: Mar-22-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55 Canon kit |
| price paid: | Kit |
| positive: | Really sharp, not very heavy, nice all around range on APS-C, good AF speed. |
| negative: | Feels cheap (well - it is!), could use just a tad more range. |
| comment: | Actually, this little thing is a gem. Compared to my former Canon 18-55 kit lens, this thing is sharp as hell. Never had the AF hunt. It does indeed feel really cheap with all the plastic but then again, it IS cheap. Value for money is hard to beat. |
| Freddan_6#9887 date: Feb-5-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-80 f/4.5-5.6, Minolta 35-70 f/4. Minolta 50 f/1.4, Minolta 24 f/2.8 Minolta 28 f/2.8 Sony DT 35 f/1.8 Sony DT 50 f/1.8 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp, lightweight, range, AF Speed, a lot of lens for the money. |
| negative: | Plastic mount, feels cheap. No rear lens cover. |
| comment: | Sharp through the range except for left edge at 24-28mm, and then only at f=4-4.5 (fully open). Flare control better than Minolta, colors worse. Build is a little cheap, but so is the Minolta kit lens 28-80. Nice walk around lens, perfect range will keep it until I buy Sony 16-50 2.8. Bought it as part of kit together with camera. |
| SonyA580#9844 date: Jan-24-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 |
| price paid: | £0.00 |
| positive: | Sharp lightweight |
| negative: | Plastic |
| comment: | For a starter lens, this is more than adequate, My copy is sharp and it was made in china, ;-) Cheap secondhand. |
| boyzone#9811 date: Jan-18-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL 1870 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Light |
| negative: | - SAM is a bit noisy |
| comment: | Kit lens from A550 and A33. Besides the range, overall performance is much better than SAL1870. |
| derekw#9788 date: Jan-14-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC |
| price paid: | 39 GBP mint |
| positive: | Sharp!!! Colours Light Accurate AF |
| negative: | Build Distortion at wide end |
| comment: | This copy is very sharp across the range and at all apertures. Better than the Sigma at all focal lengths below f5.6. At 18mm f3.5 it blows the Sigma away. Light, portable and probably wouldn't suffer much damage if dropped. If you don't need the larger apertures a f2.8 lens gives, recommended IF you can get a good sample. This sample was made in Thailand. |
| lam409#9767 date: Jan-8-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Quantaray (Sigma) AF 24/2.8 Minolta Af 28-85/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 28-200/3.8-5.6 Aspherical Minolta AF 35-80/4-5.6 silver Minolta AF 50/1.7 |
| price paid: | kit ($50) |
| positive: | A good kit lens lightwieght quick auto focus |
| negative: | plastic add-on pricing |
| comment: | Nice kit lens that come with the package but I certainly wouldn't pay the "separate price" for one if I had body only. I use it mainly as a walkabout lens in situations where I need the wider end than my Tamron 28-200. I use these 2 lenses only in situations where changing lenses is a hassle. I compromise a bit of quality for convenience. |
| Pavel S#9726 date: Dec-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 HSM OS Tamron 70-300 mm 4,5-5,6 USD Tamron 70-300 mm 4-5,6 LD Macro Tamron 60 mm 2 Macro Sigma 105 mm 2,8 Macro |
| price paid: | kit lens new |
| positive: | center sharpness fast and accurate AF good colours small and lightweight |
| negative: | corner sharpness distortion 18-25 mm noise rotating front element no hood |
| comment: | I found in one Sony shop a55 with this lens in the price that was cheaper than any price in that time only for the a55 body so I took it - it was January 2011 so I have now one year experience with this lens. It looks like a toy but I was amazed by the sharpness and colour spectrum. But after deeper exploration I have noticed that there is small difference in my copy in sharpness in the corners on the right side i.e. to be really sharp at 18 mm left side need F11 and right side F16, at 55 mm left side is OK from F5,6 but right side need F9. Just to be fair and precise this is valid mainly for shots for short distance where some sharp edges are in the corners - for landscape shots and "infinity" shots it is not recognizable but still is valid to get sharp photos F9 or better F11 is a need = so not the best option for low light photography. I don't mind it's plastic - after one year it works without problems and on the other hand I like it is small and lightweight. The second reason to find another all-around basic zoom was taking movies / the noise and clicking of the AF is annoying and destroying result of very high quality video. Final words - taking into consideration I got it for free and I have a lot of very nice A4 prints taken by this lens I keep it as a spare basic zoom and I think it is good "starting point" with APS-C cameras - great value for the spent money. |
| hrstrat57#9669 date: Dec-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Maxxum 35-105, 35-105N, 28-85, 24-105, Sony 35 1.8 other Maxxum glass. |
| price paid: | 65 USD (used) |
| positive: | Nice range, MFD, quick and accurate focusing |
| negative: | build, slow |
| comment: | Picked up a Japan made version of this lens from KEH in mint like new condition. I am quite frankly so far astounded at how good it is. Fast and accurate focusing on A 700 / A100 and great, sharp images so far......same exact colors as my Sony 35 1.8. Not "Minolta magic" colors but very good. Did I get lucky and snag a sweet copy? Maybe, but it sure is good! Very pleased. Has put the 24-105 on the bench. |
| GlassEye#9502 date: Oct-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 50-1.8 SAM |
| price paid: | with kit |
| positive: | Good all-around range. Inexpensive. Sharp if you are careful! Light weight. |
| negative: | Slow. Front element exposed. Lots of flare and CA wide open. Zoom ring sticky. |
| comment: | This lens will give sharp results if it is stopped down to f8 or better. Colors seem true w/ no cast stopped down. Build is not pleasing. The zoom ring sticks and drags a little. There is no damping in the focus or zoom rings. Yet, I have no reason to think it will not last with non-pro use. Focus is quick and not all that noisy,IMO. I liked the way the wide end showed very little distortion. Light on the front element is an issue. It will mess up your shots. Contrast is shot when this happens and some ghosting is very visible. With care, though, it will give very clear and sharp results. All in all this lens is fine for the money. If you can afford a faster, better mid-range zoom, get it. If not, just be careful, stop down and don't point it at a light source! 11-21-2011 Update: Just a note on the 'plastic fantastic' aspect of this lens. The other day I dropped this one. It was one of those when you reach for it you really smack it a good one. So instead of landing gently on carpet, I slammed it into some furniture. Man, I thought it was a goner. But it showed not sign of impact or damage. I've used it since then and it is just fine. I have to wonder how a metal lens would have done. Might metal have dinged instead of bounced? I'll never know, but it's reassuring to know that it's not as fragile as it looks. |
| Introspect#9486 date: Oct-11-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta AF 35-105 N minolta AF 50 1,7 Beercan |
| price paid: | nothing (kit lens) |
| positive: | very cheap for a wideangle lens (range) nice colors, more blue than the minoltas light weight versatil |
| negative: | flares to much don't have a rear cap (kit lens) haunt's to much in low light very plastic |
| comment: | Today I used this lens again, since I buyed the minolta 35-105 it hasn't seen much action, but it's a good lens, very useful especially for panoramics and street photography (with good light), it's the widest that you can go for such a low price, the problems are in low light, especially in doors (to much noise and become very slow) and also flares to much (the kit lens doesn't have a hood)... with this lens and playing with the sharpness, contrasts and saturation in your camera can give you some amazing results, some of my favorites photos were taken with this lens, worth keeping... |
| MedsRX#9438 date: Sep-18-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 1 USD (with a33 kit) |
| positive: | Cheap. Acceptably sharp. Light. CA and Fringe control is decent. colors aren't "minolta" but they do have a certain appeal. |
| negative: | Needs to be stopped down to achieve true sharpness. Range is ok. |
| comment: | I may adjust my review as i expand my collection. The Lens performs pretty reasonably as kit lenses go. you could get worse glass for a much higher price. some of it's sharpness is lost at it's maximum app. just for it's fairly wide start point it can be quite useful. it's range is kind of strange. but i am not one for "one lens does all" i'm more for "a lot of groovy lenses makes a kit". . it's aps-c angle is useful. as for video use (given that it is the kit lens on my a33) it's zoom is as jerky as a jr high bully. CAN NOT BE USED FOR ZOOM SHOTS! that is a build problem hence my lower build score. the plastic build is not a fault to me: i have average hands and a small camera. Flares like crazy. get a good hood. sony not including even the little one for this lens is an obvious marketing move and not very nice ;) i will keep it, even as my glass expands. building a nice range of budget-minded lenses is my goal. so look for my reviews with this idea behind them. i shall be focusing on light-weight '88 minolta glass as a start. |
| Velectron#9309 date: Aug-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Various Minolta primes and zooms that cost much more |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Very sharp kit lens especially when stopped down Small and light |
| negative: | Poor build quality Plastic mount Rubber grip is a dust magnet |
| comment: | This Sony kit lens is pretty much an overlooked and belittled lens that actually could stand on its own against "better" and more expensive lenses. I myself was guilty of that too until I compared control pictures taken with this lens against my array of Minolta glass. Wide open or stopped down a little, the sharpness of this lens could easily match many of the Minolta primes I have - 24mm, 28mm & 50mm. The only downside of this lens is in low light situations, where the weakness of the small aperture shows up quite evidently, especially when used without flash. Built quality is pretty bad. My lens broke down just after 6 months of usage. The focal length was reported wrongly and hence the aperture was off too. Resulted in many over-exposed pictures. Luckily it was within the warranty period so got it fixed for free by Sony. |
| almassengale#9272 date: Jul-27-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-80 |
| price paid: | 150 NZD |
| positive: | Sharp, compact, quiet, and light. |
| negative: | Could focus faster. Range is limited. Bokeh isn't great. |
| comment: | Just took it on a big trip and this lens really surprised me. I bought it the first time my 16-80 was out of commission just to have a back up. When my 16-80 again broke before a big trip to the South Pacific and the American West it was my fall back. I've just poured over the results and have been extremely impressed by what i've seen. Kit lenses are much better than they were a few years ago and this thing, at a reasonable aperture, is capable of pictures so sharp and pleasing that unless they were blown up to a large size would be indistinguishable (from a sharpness perspective) of those from my unreliable 16-80. I missed the range of that lens but I really don't feel like my results took that much of a hit. The 18-55 is a keeper and an absolutely great starter lens. |
| Tudor#9268 date: Jul-27-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 F/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 60 EUR (as new) |
| positive: | Sharper than the old kit lens |
| negative: | Build is worse |
| comment: | The zoom ring squeaks on my copy. You can feel parts rubbing on each other when moving it. The distortion at 18mm seems negligible in reviews but it's noticeable enough to bother. This didn't seem to happen with the old kit lens. Since I use it mostly at 18mm, I actually lose a part of the image at the extremes when correcting distortion. I like the colors of the old one more, too. My advice is to keep the Sony 18-70 if you think about changing it. |
| Skidog2k3#9161 date: Jun-20-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-105mm 18-70mm kit |
| price paid: | Kit |
| positive: | -Nice and sharp up close -Close focus on the wide end -Lightweight |
| negative: | -Filter ring moves while focusing (polarizer) -Plastic mount |
| comment: | It has much better control over flare than the 18-70 kit lens... much better lens overall in my opinion. I really liked the close focus ability of this lens, and used it almost exclusively for that purpose until I was able to afford a real macro lens. It is now part of my son's kit.... I actually kind of miss it, but after the purchase of my 16-105mm and 30mm macro, I never used it. This lens does a lot of things okay, but doesn't really shine in any area, which is I guess why it is kit lens, but there are much better options out there. If you are looking for somthing better than the 18-70 kit lens, or a good close focus lens, at a cheap price, grab this up off of ebay for next to nothing used. |
| Blitzkri3g#9160 date: Jun-19-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 10-24mm Ultra Wide Lens. Sony 18-70mm Kit lens. Tamron 55-200mm F5-5.6 Konica Minolta 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D |
| price paid: | Kit Lens (Sony a550) |
| positive: | -Sharpness esp. at F8+. -Light. -Compact. -Cheap. |
| negative: | -Not so great at F4.5. -All around plastic (mount too). -Small range. |
| comment: | Well,It s really sharp for a kit lens and cheap too. Not so great because the range is limiting to say the least. Feels so fragile because of the plastic materials used. Still,its ages in front of the old kit lens. More than reasonable resolution and sharpness for its class. N. PS.No hood with the lens.Come on Sony. Ridiculous! |
| sonya300#9132 date: Jun-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 |
| price paid: | 0.00 |
| positive: | Sharp Lightweight |
| negative: | Plastic |
| comment: | A sharp kit lens, a great improvement on the old 18-70, but alas at a price,the range. Ive got a very sharp copy, almost as good as my tammy 17-50. |
| paulevans#9076 date: Jun-2-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 KM 16-105 Sony |
| price paid: | 37 GBP (as new) |
| positive: | Sharp at all apertures Light Light zoom control Very fast AF Focusses to 10" across the range |
| negative: | Zoom motion a bit graunchy, but for the price, not a problem |
| comment: | To be frank, this little lens is very close to the 16-105 in quality, though of course lacking the range. The 18-55 improves on the KM 18-70 that came with the KM 5D - it's sharper in all circumstances. |
| revdano1#8995 date: May-8-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sigma 17-70 sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | 110 usd |
| positive: | Generally sharp, light, nice colors |
| negative: | soft bottom right corner |
| comment: | This is a very decent lens. Most overlook this lens as it's a kit lens, however, they are missing out on what this lens is capable of doing , and spending extra money on lens that they don't need to spend. I mainly used it as a general lens to walk around with. It does a very good job as it is mostly clean, crisp and I am very pleased with the color it produces. If you have this lense don't be in too much of a hurry to brush it off, as it is a good lens and esp. for the price. |
| filipescu1007#8953 date: Apr-20-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | other kit lenses |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | good alternative for a wide lens sharp (especially stepped down) cheap weight good AF nice color flare is well controlled |
| negative: | focus ring can be jerky |
| comment: | As far as I'm concerned, and it's not just me, I really enjoy this lens. Its versatility isn't universal but it goes from a nice wide-lens alternative, to a pretty good portrait lens when needed. It might be slow but with nowadays cameras, higher ISO isn't a problem anymore. If you are careful enough about what you do in MF, your shots will be sharp, with very nice colors, and flare shouldn't be such a problem. It is sometimes soft around the corners but the center is very nice. It is a kit lens, don't expect the moon from it, but it is a very good kit lens, it might be in plastic, but it's not weakly build as some said. I travel a lot and it never leaves me even though I have other lenses that cost much more. The IQ is good and given this lens' price, why would you even bother complain! I admit that I wouldn't have bought it on its own, but as a kit lens, go for it. Hopefully, you'll get a good copy. They do exist! |
| nicols#8950 date: Apr-19-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Came with camera |
| positive: | Its very cheap. IQ is actually a cut above the average kit lens. |
| negative: | Plastic mount. |
| comment: | This lens is getting a bad press here but really its not as bad as some say - its a reasonable kit lens, better than the old Sony kit lens. Nothing stunning or outstanding but with a little care it can take reasonably sharp pictures, colours are good and its plastic body means its a compact and light lens to carry. I still dig it out and stick it on my a55 when weight is an issue - I have a choice of better zooms that all costs 100s of pounds more but they are all heavier. My only complaints are that the mount is plastic and Sony didn't supply a proper rear cap in the kit. |
| Tuck Loong#8943 date: Apr-18-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | * 18-70 * 28-80 * Tamron 17-50 |
| price paid: | 40 USD |
| positive: | * Sharp * Cheap * Ultra Sharp from f8-f11 |
| negative: | * Not that sharp wide open |
| comment: | Had this lens for some time. Gotten some nice pictures and got them published. Recommended if u gotten a good copy...only bettered by more expensive lenses such as the Tamron 17-50mm |
| Effstop#8905 date: Apr-10-2011 | |
|---|---|
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: | missing |
| price paid: | 0 (kit lens) |
| positive: | Lightweight Compact |
| negative: | Slow - f5.6 at 55mm? Give me a break! Plastic lens mount |
| comment: | This one came with my a55 and has been a bit of an orphan since it arrived. Range is too short to be very useful and f5.6 at 55mm doesn't do it any favours. Colour, sharpness etc are OK - nothing special but nothing to complain about either. Within 6 months I had replaced it with the CZ 16-80 |
| maraten#8898 date: Apr-9-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | -Minolta 28-80 -Sigma 70-300 |
| price paid: | Came with kit |
| positive: | +Range +Versatile +Colors +Accurate focus +Build +55mm filters |
| negative: | -Sharpness -Prone to flare -A F3.5-5.6 -MFD at long end |
| comment: | Came with the a230, with lens was actually cheaper then without. Overall build is good for plastic. But I personally have no problems with plastic, never heard of anyone breaking a plastic mount. I like the wide angle of this lens, with not much distortion. 55mm end is nice for portraits, but too bad it's a F5.6 there, that means it doesn't produce the best bokeh, but it's acceptable though. My Minolta 28-80 does a better job here. Colors are okay, bit Minolta. It perfomances the same as the 28-80 over here. Focus is fast under good conditions, acceptable under a little worse conditions. Then the worst of this lens, sharpness, f11 is the sweet spot? And even then it's still soft in the corners, centre sharpness is good from f6.3 to f11 but corner sharpness, always lets me down. I think it's because of the aps-c coverage of this lens, my Minolta is already good from f4.5 That one covers full frame. This lens is also quite prone to flare, no hoods were delivered... |
| blek#8850 date: Mar-31-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Sony AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 (previous kt) |
| price paid: | IDR 500.000 new |
| positive: | Acceptable Sharpness Acceptable Bokeh Nice Flare Control Nice CA control |
| negative: | Bad Build Sony Colors, not to my liking, but you may like it Useles AF/MF Switch on lens |
| comment: | Ok, this is the secondary kit for the Sony Alpha Series after the 18-70. The sharpness and bokeh may be exciting but not for me. However, it has such a nice flare control, but again, flare and CA control are normal for the lens nowdays, it is not surprising. 100% plastic, what do you expect for such price from Sony? What I hate most is the AF/MF switch. It looks like I need to break my on body AF/MF switch for make this useful. Whats more, even you switch it to MF from body, if the switch on the lens still point to AF, you can't rotate its focus ring. To avoid this, just make sure you always use MF on the lens. Perhaps this 18-55 and his predecessor, 18-70 both have bad quality controls. Well, after using this lens now I kinda miss my 18-70. At least the range is better and although 18-70's hood is useless, it boost its appearance. Sony sold separated hood for 18-55, it is not included. |
| Robin#8767 date: Mar-10-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 Minolta 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 75 USD (new) |
| positive: | - very nice color, contrast - sharp from f4 - good price - usefull range - no CA - light - decent bokeh |
| negative: | - horrible build!!! - nothing more in this price |
| comment: | missing |
| crappybokeh#8754 date: Mar-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | missing |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Not overwhelming but decent. |
| 12AMS#8745 date: Mar-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Minolta 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | No CA Sharp when stopped down a little Light Flare control |
| negative: | Poor build Terrible at 18mm |
| comment: | Overall, I like this lens. It is my most-used lens because of the convenient focal range. I have never seen any CA of any type in the images from my copy, and the sharpness is quite acceptable when stopped down 1-2 stops from max aperture. My copy tends to be a bit more blurry on the right side of the image, so I might try to get Sony to replace it under warranty, just to try another. But even with this little problem, it still is a great, light, walk-around lens. It is much sharper than my copy of the Minolta 28-85mm, but the Minolta 35-105mm is that much sharper again than the Sony lens. The modern coating on this lens make it much better than the Minolta lenses at flare control. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen any contrast-destroying flare in any of the pictures with this lens. I'm quite happy with this lens and will keep it even if I get a better performing replacement because it is sometimes good to have an "expendable" lens. |
| ratboy#8733 date: Mar-2-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Old Sony Kit 18-70 Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 DC OS HSM |
| price paid: | Part of kit |
| positive: | Sharp Light |
| negative: | Zoom not too smooth |
| comment: | I can't believe people give this kit lens such bad reviews. Its miles better than the old kit 18-70 in every way. I think it is sharp even at max wide open aperture at all focal lengths, in the central portion of the frame. Yes, corner sharpness is not great at larger apertures but the corners sharpen up quite considerably at one stop above max aperture. Nothing new, I'm pretty sure most zoom lenses have similar performance characteristics. Great little performer and useful when I want a lighter, smaller standard zoom. |
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