Which high end lens for A37/57

[classiccameras]

As promised a mini review of my new Sony 18-135.
I tried to load a couple of pics but my file size [3.5 MB ] are too big and are blocked by this forum, 2.5 MB being the bigest the post will accept.
Any sugestions would be good.

The lens is surprisingly solid and has a metal mount and is no light weight compared to the kit lens, but not over heavy. To me that's reassuring of its build quality. This lens is put together [in Japan!] with some pretty impressive tolerences for a plastic construction. With the lens fully zoomed to 135, the two segment barrels had no discernable wobble, unlike the infamous Canon 28-135 which had the worst barrel wobble I had ever come across.
Zooming action is pretty smooth and above average compared to the opposition with no creep although no where as smooth as some of the old metal construction zooms.
A nice touch is the zoom lock switch a bit like the Sigma and Tamrons have.
I mostly use manual focussing and this was very smooth to use and in a far more sensible place than the 18-55 kit lens.

I had a cloudy and bright day at the country fair with occasional bursts of sun shine, Using Jpeg 'Standard' and 'Portrait' mode mostly on AP produced some excellent true to life colours. Both these modes were set up with contrast -1, all other settings '0'. Most pics were at ISO 100 and 200 with auto WB.
Edge performance/sharpness was OK but stopped down to f-5.6 and above showed very good edge performance and sharpness. Centre performance/sharpness was excellent at most focul lengths and even out to 135 was very good. 100% crops on all pictures at all focul lengths were very good to excellent. Obviously a prime is going to out perform this lens but don't they always. High levels of detail were maintained at all focul lengths and colour rendition remained vertually constant throughout. I tweaked sharpness a tad in PP for my own taste.
I found this lens a very useful zoom with a performance almost as good as the CZ 16-80 and definitly better than the 16-105. The build quality is as good or better than the CZ 16-80 and just look at what you get for the price.
I probably haven't covered every thing so if there are any other points you wish to raise send a post.

classiccameras [Pete]

[alphaomega]

Seems like a great lens except it is 18-135. Would not switch it for my Sony/CZ 16-80 at any price. Hoping for a 16-something quality G lens for my NEX. Sonyalpharumors have variously suggested a 16-80 and 16-70 F2.8-4. Either would do for me. My only problem with my RX100 is the 28mm starting point.

[classiccameras]

Alpha, your quite right and yes, the CZ 16-80 is a great lens but out of reach for me on my tight budget.

As some of you may have noticed, I was beginning to lose faith as did a few others in Sony Alpha and this forum has been fairly critical over recent times and quite rightly, as to the direction Sony were going. I was at the stage of weighing up my options to what other brand to jump to. Then along came Steve Huff's and Barry's account of the 18-135 which was all positive. So, i plunged in and got one at a very good price. After using it and seeing the end results, it kinda restored my faith in the system, well at least its prolonged my stay with the brand for the time being, however, the next stupid thing they do, I will have to seriously consider joining the opposition.

At my level of photography and I suspect many others, the 18-135 is a great lens to take out for a days shooting without having to take extra lenses, this I think is where it scores for me. Its not quite as good optically in certain areas and focul lengths [if you pixel peep] or as fast as the CZ 16-80, but quite frankly, its not that far behind in overall IQ and represents excellent bang for your buck as they say.
Agreed, the NEX system does need some new high end zooms with bigger focul range.

[bfitzgerald]

For me the CZ just isn't worth the asking price and it badly needs an 18-135mm build make over it's a good lens optically (but it's not perfect), mechanically it's disappointing and nowhere near where it should be for the £550 asking tag. The focal range and speed are just fine for a lens like this, I'm really surprised Sony has not updated the lens some time ago. If it were around £400 ish might be worth a look.

At the current asking price I can see a lot of folks going for the 18-135mm for a general purpose zoom lens.
You can near enough pick up a grey market 17-50mm f2.8 and the 18-135mm for the same price as 16-80mm, for many folks that's a no brainer. Sony have to learn to charge top dollar you have to have something that is actually worth the asking price.

16-105mm is about £100 cheaper than the CZ, the 18-135mm is priced about right in line with it's rivals.

[alphaomega]

Barry's comments above surely make a lot of sense for some folks. I found my Sony 17-250 a good all round lens but so often had to switch to my Sony/CZ to get down to 16mm. 18mm even worse so there you are. It always boils down to "horses for courses" and I don't do well on the "narrow runs". That's also why I find my NEX-6 with 16-50mm pancake handier than the RX100 when doing street/architecture photography and the reason I invested in the excellent Sony E10-18mm F4.

[bfitzgerald]

Everyone is different so might see things from their own point of view.
Still there is now a fairly decent choice from Sony for crop zooms:
16-50mm f2.8, 16-105mm, 16-80mm and the 18-135mm. Out of that you might buy one or two of those of look at Sigma/Tamron too, but it's good to have a choice here.
I assume that the 18-135mm is something that is wanted, as Canon updated their model, Nikon are releasing an 18-140mm and Pentax have an 18-135mm too.

Obviously not tried the new Nikon it's not out yet, but I have used the others and the Sony has a bite and edge to it's images that the Canon doesn't (it's also got that awful focus by wire, but optically it's decent enough the Canon) and it completely wipes the floor with the Pentax offering.

I've been pretty critical of Sony for a long time, but they have done a good job on the 18-135mm, esp in terms of balancing the optical performance, build is good, zoom lock is there, AF motor improved and fast, full time MF too which is the way to go if you're doing in lens motors (which seems to be the trend nowadays right or wrong) So credit where it's due for Sony on this one. I hope they update other lenses with the better in lens motor, the full time DMF and better build as I think people would be happy to pay a bit more esp with those budget primes which need an updated AF and build.

I could nit pick, still not a fan of the fine dust magnet ribs, and the hood is a bit tight fitting reversed (be careful not to scratch it on the metal front part of the lens) It's surprisingly sharp really quite impressive considering the range it covers. I'd still like to see a new kit lens as the 18-55mm SAM isn't great being honest, only going to get worse with more pixels.

Do bear in mind that 18mm on A mount is more appealing than 18mm on Canon due to the crop factor.

[classiccameras]

Agree with your comments Barry, apart from that awful 18-70 most A mount lenses have always been half decent and some exceptional. Put along side their rivals from Canikon and Pentax, they give an excellent account of themselves.
This is the problem with the pixel race, lenses are lagging behind all the time and they need to be right up to date to get the best out of the high pixel count sensors. There may come a point especially FF where lenses designed to get the best from the FF sensor will be prohibitively expensive for the average 'snappers'.

I would much prefer to see new sensor designs and back lit sensors [like Fuji] with out filters at 16mp rather than 24 mp +.
I'm perfectly happy with 16mp and the lenses I have.
All the main camera makers are trying to offer a "one lens solution" for the DSLR users by making bigger and bigger zoom ranges, from what Lenstip said, the bigger the range the bigger the compromise no matter who's name is printed on the lens.
I don't know why Pentax bothered with their 18-135, it is by far the worst performing lens in their inventory and one reviewer was quite scathing by referring to it as a bottle. The best zoom in the Pentax range is the 16-40 F/4

Agree, Sony lenses are beginning to make sense in their line up, but there is still plenty of work to be done, especially up dating some older models.
Canon lenses have always had a hot and cold reputation, some have been brilliant and others a complete let down, their high end 17-55 F/2.8 I think thats the one, but correct me if I'm wrong is equalled by the much cheaper Tamron.
It was very gratifying to read that the Sony 18-135 was all in house from design to production. May be this is the direction Sony are going, more in house less contract. If Sony can continue with this standard of lens then its all good for us the user and them for reputation.
I think APS-C is here to stay and there is so much more development potential.
Interesting new rumour, SLT will not be dropped next year, but it will be different.

[bfitzgerald]

Well I put the awful 18-70 up against the 18-55mm SAM and it beat it hands down optics wise
Don't mistake the iffy Sony re-badge as an example of the KM version, Sony I suspect farmed it out to some dodgy so called lens maker. The Sony badged versions I tried were awful, in fact terrible and hugely variable with serious de-centering issues on one copy.

If anyone is digging around for an 18-70mm def go for a KM version. I'll probably keep mine as it's a back up lens now and whilst the 18-135mm is clearly better it's worth keeping as it's got no real s/h value.

Anyway, I'm sure you can see the punch the lens has v the 18-55mm it's a clear step up in terms of optics. Let's hope as Sony seemed to gett it right with the 18-135mm, they apply the same thinking to other lenses they add or update.

[zoeyku]

Congrats on the new lens.

[Mark K]

Is there a A mount version of Sigma 18-35 which is an exceptional lens in optical quality.

[alphaomega]

It's announced and available here for pre order
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/9 ... c_hsm.html
or UK http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sigm ... t/p1539950

[peterottaway]

I wish you joy to those of you who can find an A mount copy of the 18 to 35, however I am more impatient for the production of the 24 to 105 as these are FF lenses and not an APS lens.

Depending on what Sigma and Sony deliver in 2014 it will mean that my Minolta 24 to 85 can go into retirement as well as my 28 to 135. Or at least not be so nervous its going to die on me every time I use it.

[bfitzgerald]

Evidently Sony are working on an A mount 24-105mm f4 lens. I'm not sure how that's going to stack up v the Sigma.
I did look at some Sigma samples, I wasn't blown away being honest. Then again I've used the Canon version and it's a lens with compromises too. Maybe the Sigma is a tad better than the Canon hard to say.

Bottom line I think is a full frame 24-105mm is going to have limitations. They might have less issues with a 24-85mm if they updated that lens.
Either way if I were looking for a full frame 24- something lens for general use I think I'd look at the Tamron first for a new purchase. The KM 24-85mm wasn't a bad lens I had one, but I felt it could have been a bit better at the tele end. Still a decent buy s/h though. Otherwise I can't help but think a 24mm prime or UWA zoom and a 28-something is a more reliable bet

[Mark K]

18-35 is so good and the only..thing it does not have is in lens IS....so will be great to be used on Pentax/Sony bodies. BTW the 16-50 f2.8 is a very sharp lens after all

[peterottaway]

I have used the Minolta and Nikon 24 to 85 (3 versions) lenses and as Barry said they have issues. All of them for serious work are really something more like 28 to 75/80 lenses.

But which marketing department is going to let the designers put out a good 28 to 90 lens to compete with the rag tag bunch of 24 to 105 or 24 to 120 lenses.

Its up to potential buyers to work out which will suit them best.