Sony AF DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM A-mount lens reviews
 sOniboy#8723 date: Mar-1-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon EF-S 15-85mm Lumix G Vario 14-45mm |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | Sharp when stopped down Lightweight |
| negative: | Soft at edges Zoom ring turns jerkingly |
| comment: | It is very unusual for a lens to show optimal sharpness at f11 to f16 but that is what I find about this lens. Most lenses are optimal near f5.6 but at this aperture this lens is unusable in my opinion. It is a good thing I mostly shoot in bright daylight so I don't have to discard it. When stopped down, image quality is quite good except for getting soft towards the edges. Contrast may be a bit low for this lens. No noticeable distortion when wide. Color fringing at the edges can be corrected in Photoshop. The zoom is jerky when you extend or retract it. This is ok for still photography but in videography your zooms in videos will look amateurish. I wouldn't use this lens to shoot video. I am one who goes for an ultra light weight system so I can't complain about the plastic construction. In fact I think the external design is befitting a modern age product. |
; 20MP| imaginas#8719 date: Mar-1-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | came with body |
| positive: | lightwait |
| negative: | Very soft |
| comment: | Tested with A300 and A550 |
| br127#8666 date: Feb-17-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-105 |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | + price + size + weight + build quality (for plastic) |
| negative: | - plastic feel - awkward noise - sharpness |
| comment: | Got this as kit lens with my A33, but sold it soon. The image quality did not convince me, especially the sharpness was very bad. Maybe I had a bad sample. If you are looking for a cheap lightweight zoom for simple outdoor shots and no large prints, this still might be worth to consider. |
| olegoo#8646 date: Feb-9-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 75€ |
| positive: | light & small AF accurate Min. focus distance Excellent quality considering its price Sharp when stopped down |
| negative: | - Plastic feel - None for the price |
| comment: | It's good as Kit and usefull for walk around. |
| dcisive#8644 date: Feb-9-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55vr Nikkor |
| price paid: | 100(new) |
| positive: | remarkably sharp for it's price. Fairly fast focus response providing accurate focus with a minimum of noise. Excellent color rendition. Allows for very close focus (near macro) |
| negative: | very inexpensive plastic casing, not meant for tough treatment. Focal length adjustment isn't butter smooth but gets the job done |
| comment: | For it's price this lens provides a remarkable level of performance. It seems that around the internet it is trashed by many who have nothing creative to say about it. it is plenty sharp, provides excellent results in the end. It is very lightweight which in many cases makes for a more pleasurable travel companion. All in all for someone not requiring the ultimate performance all around it is more than up to the task, and will provide superb large prints in the end. Suitable for landscape, portraiture and semi macro up close shooting of flowers and such. An example can be seen at: http://www.pbase.com/traveler/image/131764119/original.jpg |
| sungeunbae#8598 date: Jan-31-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - 35-105 Minolta (New) - 24-105 Minolta - 18-70 Sony - 50 F1.7 Minolta |
| price paid: | 100 USD |
| positive: | - Excellent quality considering its price - Sharp when stopped down - Light!! |
| negative: | - For the price, I think I can't complain. - Plastic feel |
| comment: | I think this lens is very underated. I think this 18-55 F3.5-5.6 out-performs Sony's old 18-70 lens and other similar offerings from Canon and Nikon. This one has less distortion and sharper at corners. For landscape and normal shooting conditions, I think, in bang-for-buck terms, you'll be hard-pressed to excel this one. It's very very light, which is a big bonus too. Build quality could be better, but good iq and lightness compensate plastic feels. |
| gunnarganzer#8588 date: Jan-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony AF DT 18-70 (kit lens) |
| price paid: | 60 (used) |
| positive: | weight, price, size, relatively close range focus. |
| negative: | build quality, sharpness, |
| comment: | I know that reviewers here usually tend to hype their latest buy, possibly due to not being able to admit that their latest buy might not have been as awesome as they had hoped, but I am not going to do that. I had heard so much good things about the new Sony 18-55 kit lens, compared to the older kit lens (18-70), that I finally decided to buy one. What a mistake that was! The build is flimsy (worse than my old 18-70), picture quality also inferior to my old 18-70. I might have gotten a bad example of the new kit lens (Sony 18-55), but if the difference in quality between examples of what essentially should be the same product is THAT big, then that in itself talks AGAINST buying one. |
| aplmike#8553 date: Jan-22-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50 f1.7, 35-105 old-style, 18-70 Minolta kit lens |
| price paid: | Kit |
| positive: | Sharp Useful wide end Low CA and fringing Focuses close enough for casual close-ups Lightweight |
| negative: | Construction, I have doubts about long-term durability APS/C so not usable should I move to full-frame |
| comment: | IQ is close enough to the 50/1.7 prime and to the 35-70 zoom that this stays in the backpack while the 35/105 (a bit sharper) is now if-needed. For me, even with anti-shake and moderately fast shutter speeds, I get more IQ improvement from a tripod or clamp than from switching to one of the older lenses. ENORMOUSLY better than (my) 18-70 that came with a Maxxum 5D. |
| FogoGirl#8521 date: Jan-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Any other kit lens out there today |
| price paid: | $100 |
| positive: | Very Sharp for a "kit" lens Lightweight plastic does NOT mean cheaply built |
| negative: | None |
| comment: | I am appalled that some (recent) reviewers have had the gall to say that this lens is best avoided. This is total nonsense. If your lens is that bad, take it back to where you got it from for refund/repair. I have three of these, and all are extremely sharp. For some reviewers to give it a 1 or 2 for build quality is ridiculous. Just because these lenses are constructed nowadays with plastics and don't weigh a ton, does not mean a poor build. Come on people, they can't all be built like the old Minolta tanks! I have NEVER heard of one of these lenses breaking... ever! They are tough indeed. One person on here went so far as to say that anyone giving this lens a good review simply doesn't know anything about photography! Get serious! As a pro photographer since before most of you were born, believe me when I say that this is the best "kit" lens out there today! Let's face it; if it were not for so many people automatically assuming that a plastic build means poor quality, this lens would have a very high overall rating. It pains me to see the score drop as a result of such misinformation! If it takes incredibly clear and sharp photos, with extremely accurate colour reproduction, who gives a hoot that it "feels plasticy"? Sheesh! |
| Zony#8507 date: Jan-11-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 100. |
| positive: | It's cheap It covers a heavily used field of view (FOV) |
| negative: | Might break if you look at it hard Needs tiny aperture to look ok |
| comment: | If you want sharp, you came to the wrong place. Crank the aperture to a pinhole and you can settle for not-blurry. Why couldn't Minolta cop this kind of flare control years ago? All of this family of plasticoid Easy Choice lenses give the sun a beat-down. And why are these other reviewers going on about the 18-70 ? That lens is finished. Don't worry about the Sony 18-70. As soon as you are financially able, try to get a better lens immediately like the Easy Choice primes, once you can afford to go beyond this kit lens. Better yet, skip this lens and get one of the Easy Choice line-up from the get-go. If you must have this zoom, then keep this lens for the wide setting when you have some better lenses in the future. |
| Torchwood#8367 date: Dec-6-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 2 flare control: 4 overall: 2.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70, NEX 18-55 OSS |
| price paid: | £40 |
| positive: | Well, errr its Small... (Its also NEX compatible if desperate and have the converter) |
| negative: | No better than the 18-70 but shorter - way softer than the NEX 18-55 at 55mm , not as smooth or solid in build as even the 18-70 |
| comment: | I found this lens a severe disappointment after the superb 18-55 OSS NEX kit lens. I expected it to be equal to the old 18-70 at 18mm (which it is) but also expected it to perform a lot better at 55mm than it does, in fact it`s as bad or worse than than the 18-70 is at 70mm so you`re gaining nothing and losing reach . the NEX 18-55 OSS is tack sharp at 55mm F5.6 ..... Could be sample variation of course. Sharpness rating is taking the horrible 55mm performance into consideration hence the poor score |
| mydarkstars#8341 date: Dec-2-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 Min 35-70mm f4 Sony 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | came with body |
| positive: | Compact, cheap, bokeh |
| negative: | Small range, no supplied hood, plastic build, zoom not smooth |
| comment: | Not sure this is the huge improvement over the Sony 18-70 kit lens people say it is. I prefer the range of the older Sony lens. Would use the Minolta lenses more if they were wider but have to stick with the Sony's for everyday shooting. |
| Mink#8301 date: Nov-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 17-35G Sony 24-70CZ KM 28-75D KM 18-70 kit |
| price paid: | Free with cameras |
| positive: | Amazingly sharp across the frame - if you get a good copy |
| negative: | Very pronounced barrel distortion Bad flare - even in interior shots! Plastic lens mount Inconsistent quality control Noisy AF |
| comment: | I got two copies of this lens with different cameras, so I decided to test them against each other and the lenses listed above, on my A55. Both of the 18-55s were de-centred, producing different results on the left and right of the frame, but this was barely noticeable for one of them. The other lens also had a rough and uneven feel to the zoom, so I got one peach and one lemon! From the reviews, I was expecting this lens to comfortably outperform the old 18-70 kit, and the peach did - but not by much. In fact the 18-70 has much less linear distortion, but this is not an issue with LR3 of course. The big surprise was that the peach comfortably out-performed the 17-35G at the edges of the APS-C frame (and was about the same in the centre) and compared favourably with the CZ24-70! I realise this is sacrilege, but the results were quite clear and consistent at various apertures and focal lengths, so I feel duty-bound to give it a full score for sharpness. Of course there's more to life than resolution, and the 18-55 doesn't compare with professional glass in terms of build, speed, distortion or flare (which is quite bad) but it's pretty amazing for what it is - if you get a good copy. |
| fute77#8244 date: Nov-12-2010 | |
|---|---|
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: | KM 17-35/2.8-4 Tamron 28-75/2.8 |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | light SAM Motor weight |
| negative: | entry level zoom |
| comment: | nice to have as included in a kit would not have bought it alone however I let it for my daughter on the sony Alpha 350 |
| derekw#8191 date: Nov-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 20-35 f3.5-4,5 (2nd Version) |
| price paid: | £51 (GBP) mint |
| positive: | Light Very sharp across the range Good colour |
| negative: | Sample variations, this copy much better than my first one. |
| comment: | Not as sharp as Tokina but still very good. Much more portable tan the Tokina. |
| eLCee#8184 date: Nov-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 35-70/4 |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | light & small AF accurate Min. focus distance |
| negative: | AF noisy no hood MF ring distortion on the wide end |
| comment: | This was included as a Kit lens with my A330. I still use this when i want a compact lens. While all plastic the lens feels, the only thing im missing is a hood. On the wide end this lens has a noticeable distortion. Still i use this quite often with my 330 when i want something compact with as few lenses as possible (adding a 55-200 or 70-300 tele to my bag). Or i use this when i don't want to look after my gear all the time, wouldn't hurt that much if this was lost/broken/stolen. |
| rcolman#8153 date: Oct-28-2010 | |
|---|---|
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: | 100 USD (kit lens) |
| positive: | missing |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | I have gone through several Minolta lenses trying to find a combination that works in terms of desired zoom range, image sharpness and pricing. As with the old engineering adage, you can usually have two out of the three - go ahead and pick. So, I needed to go up in price to see if a more modern Sony APS-c lens would give me better performance. Anyways, my latest iteration involves the very low-cost 18-55mm vs. the expensive 16-105mm zoom. The kit lens is an additional $100 when you buy the body. The 16-105 costs six times as much when purchased stand-alone. Is it six times better? The answer is no, not really. If I had to guess, it is may "two or three times" better. Too bad it costs $600. Diminishing returns strikes again. It may be I may have a particularly good copy of the 18-55 kit lens, but it is really quite excellent. Testing center and corner sharpness only, through a range of 18-55mm and through f-stops from 5.6 through 11, the 16-105 is generally better at 35 and 55mm focal lengths, often MUCH better in the corners. However, at 18mm, it is really a toss up. I am going to keep the 16-105 because i really need the extra reach for much of my work, and it really is a sharper lens. However, the 18-55 is decent and makes a great all around lens at a very low price. |
| 3up1down#8121 date: Oct-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 35-70, Min 100-200, Tamron 20-40, Min 35-105 (old) |
| price paid: | 90.00 USD |
| positive: | Good sharpness Price Light Focus |
| negative: | Build |
| comment: | For gear heads this is not the lens for you, everybody else will find this to be an excellent little performer without a big price tag. I recommend this lens for general use, its easy to slip in a pocket to use where a longer lens would not be appropriate. If you are just starting get the lens it will not let you down. Compared to the lens listed I would give the 18-55 a seven on a scale of 10. |
| DarkScribe#8114 date: Oct-19-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105, Sony 18-70, Minolta 17-35, Minolta 20-35, Minolta 24-50 |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | Very cheap kit lens, light weight. Colours reasonable, can focus quite close. |
| negative: | Very soft in the corners at all apertures. Extremely poor auto-focus (slow and unreliable in anything but good light), very noisy, flimsy plastic in build, including the mount, very difficult to use manual focus, ring too small and stiff, range too brief to get accurate focus easily. Obvious CA at both wide and long ends, distortion and flare when close to 18mm. |
| comment: | This is a lens that typifies the worst of kit lenses. It came with a second-hand A700, I would never buy such a poor performer deliberately. I am selling mine currently. This is yet another of those lenses where any good reviews seem to be from people with no experience of good glass. |
| danny001#8101 date: Oct-15-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 10-20 F4/5.6 Sony 70-300g Sony 500mm Reflex Sony 16-50/2.8 Sony 85/2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp enough at 18-35mm AF speed is ok |
| negative: | Build quality Noisy AF |
| comment: | This lens came with my A550. And there is not much to complain about it. I made nice pictures of it without having the need for a better/pricier lens. This lens is sharper than the Sigma 10-20 whitch costs a lot more. The 70-300g has the advantage in terms of sharpness. Update 2/11/2012 : Sold the A550 + 18-55 and have an A77 + 16-50/2.8. I thought the 18-55 was good but this combo is so much better. The lens is sharper, especially at 35-50mm and better contrast/color. |
| 495#8073 date: Oct-10-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | none |
| price paid: | came as kit lens |
| positive: | light small pretty sharp good colors decent bokeh |
| negative: | poorly built slow to almost none af in low loght very small and hard to work with focus ring mf is hard to achieve, the ring doesnt stop "on the spot" easily |
| comment: | Bought this as a kit lens to sony a230. Pretty happy with IQ but hope to get a zoom pretty soon. I will keep this, as my only wide lens, for now. SAM is nothing. |
| camperbc#7586 date: Jun-19-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70mm kit lens |
| price paid: | 110 new |
| positive: | - excellent clarity and sharpness, right to the sides and into the corners - even performs well in low light - 110% better in every way than the original kit lens |
| negative: | none to speak of! |
| comment: | What a breath of fresh air this lens has turned out to be! I have taken a few incredible shots with the original kit lens, but it took a lot of work to get there. With the 18-55mm, it is hard to take a bad shot. Really. For the price, this lens cannot be beat for clarity and sharpness. The 18-55mm should be in everyone's bag! |
| Bill73#7558 date: Jun-13-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SONY CZ 16-80/f3.5-4.5 Tamron 90mm/f2.8 Macro Sony 18-70 kit Sony 50/f1.4 Sony 75-300/f4.5-5.6(kit) Tamron 18-200/f4.5-6.3 Sigma 28-200/f3.8.5.6 |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | Light and compact (plastic construction a plus I would argue) huge improvement over 18-70mmSOny Great lens! Nice (but not perfect) color rendition and sharpness. |
| negative: | Not a thing. |
| comment: | I really like this lens! I believe it is better than either the Canon or Nikon kit lenses. It is a very significant improvement over the 18-70Sony - even though shorter. Shooting at 55mm and cropping produces a sharper/better image than shooting at 70mm with the 18-70mm! All-in-all a very convincing kit lens that will cope (and cope well!) with what is was designed for. |
| Thelone#7475 date: May-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
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 AF 35-70 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 59.99€ (new) |
| positive: | - Cheap - Light - Sharp - Short MFD |
| negative: | - Not much |
| comment: | A great kit lens. For the price, you can't really go wrong with this little guy. Sure, it's all plastic and SAM is kind of a joke, but who cares ? The lens can also be used for proxy/macro shots. |
| atmaan#7457 date: May-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-70 KM 18-70 Km 24-105 |
| price paid: | $100, (as a kit) |
| positive: | Light, accurate AF, Sharp, Close focusing, nice colors |
| negative: | Somewhat loud AF, not the most pleasant bokeh |
| comment: | This lens came as a kit, so I will compare it to other "kit" lenses I have used or own. It is of a all plastic/polycarbonate construction, so will feel awkward on heavier cameras, but mates nicely with the a2...5 Sony alphas. Capable of some reasonable macro type shots, but Bokeh is not the most pleasing. Very light, and is sharper than both the 18-70 lenses. Nice, light, very usable travel lens, definitely not a "body cap only". Does not come with a hood, but I have not noticed any flare to speak of. Usual,(expected) distortion at wide end only, as with most cheap zooms. This lens finally lets alpha mount Kit owners take pictures equal or I dare say better that Cannonites and Nikonians with theirr 18-55 kits. |
| brororn#7071 date: Mar-13-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | K-M 17-35/2.8-4 Sony Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 69 EUR (new) |
| positive: | Small and lightweight, close focusing, cheap |
| negative: | Mechanics not so good |
| comment: | Not perfect but best buy because it is so cheap, focusing not so fast and very noisy. |
| warriors.photo#7067 date: Mar-12-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-70 |
| price paid: | With kit |
| positive: | Small lens |
| negative: | Color distortion |
| comment: | I like this lens more then the Sony DT 18-70, for its color rendition. I do like that lenses extra reach though. The colors are sometimes off, I don't really get sharp images like I though I would with this lens. It does have the AF/MF switch on it. Its small. I sold it already and didn't really look back. Just my .02 on this lens. |
| the_fat_zebra#6936 date: Feb-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Kit Lens |
| positive: | Very sharp for a kit lens. Lightweight. |
| negative: | It hunts, hunts, hunts in anything other than ideal lighting conditions. It's making me look for a replacement such as the 17-50 tamron. |
| comment: | For a kit lens, this is an excellent performer. The focal range is useful, although maybe a tad short, but I've managed to get some amazingly sharp pictures from this. As for build quality, I don't mind modern plastics at all as they are light. The main thing I don't like is that it hunts a lot in low-light shooting, but that may also be the alpha 230 on which I use it. |
| harbinger#6823 date: Jan-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 50mm 1.7 50mm 1.4 135mm 1.8 70-210 F4 |
| price paid: | $90 |
| positive: | Good center focus Sharp edge to edge starting at F7.1 Acceptable group shots at F5.6 small lightweight and new constructs |
| negative: | i still hate the rubber area, its a dust magnet Just a little short on the 55mm |
| comment: | Truly an amazing gem released by Sony. Comparing it to the 18-70mm, this one starts to get sharp even at f4 for group shots. A more accurate lens in terms of getting the right mix of sharpness across the range. Combined with a powerful flash and my A200, its so amazing how pictures come out sharp edge to edge Not something you should pass up especially if you want a casual day to day lens. it won't compare to the 18-250 in terms of versstility but think about where you will most cry when you drop the lens? |
| ScYcS#6784 date: Jan-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
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 18-70mm Kit Canon 18-55mm IS Canon 18-55mm non IS |
| price paid: | $100 US |
| positive: | Cheap kit lens that actually delivers. Fabulous for the price. Useful range on APS-C. |
| negative: | Plasticky.... |
| comment: | Great lens for a kit lens. There really isn't much to complain about and i would even consider buying it for $100 seperately. It delivers and delivers well. |
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