sony vs tamron 18-250

[Joanel]

need to buy one of these lens for sony a700 camera. interested in quality and sharpness. diff in cost is secondary. which to you recommend? tried a search but nothing came up

thanks

[Dr. Harout]

First of all welcome to the forum Joanel.
A question from my part: Are you strictly considering just one lens? or maybe you'll go for 2 if cost is not a problem? If you'll opt for the second choice, then my suggestion would be the 16-80 CZ + 70-300 G SSM.
I would never go for such a "big" zoom, though am not an expert but I know that optically they cannot equal "smaller" zooms.

[Dr. Harout]

At least dreaming is free

[Joanel]

would like to hear from people who own the lens.

[Joanel]

would like to hear from people who own the lens.

[[SiC]]

The Sony version seem to focus quicker:

Tamron takes 21 screw turns to focus from one end of the focus plane to the other, whereas the Sony only takes 12. Just about half! Mated with the A700, this lens has no issues keeping up AF at any focal length, and zips into focus very prompt.

http://www.alphamountworld.com/reviews/ ... -63-review

[Dr. Harout]

If I remember correctly Yildiz (aster) owns one. Probably she could be of real help as an owner.

[aster]

If I remember correctly Yildiz (aster) owns one. Probably she could be of real help as an owner.

Hi,

I would of loved to be of help and offer a comparison or an idea on either brand of this particular lens but I don't own any one of them I'm afraid. I own a good copy of the SONY SAL 18-200mm which actually is a good lens within its aparture and zoom range, as I had no complaints of build or optical quality: a very tight, stout lens. But SONY SAL 18-200mm and SONY SAL 18-250mm are very different lenses when in action. The SONY 18-250 is designed and built to make shooting a lot easier for the photographer and delivers better optical quality.

An other forum member, Thomas (bossel), does own the SONY version of this zoom lens and he uploaded photos he shot with this lens to the forum's relevant threads in the past. He likes this lens and didn't bring up any issues for us to hear so far. I personally heard from actual users of the Sony lens that Sony version is more pleasing than the Tamron (one sold his Tamron to buy the Sony version).

And if I were to buy one I'd prefer the Sony version too, at least for this zoom range.

Yildiz

[aster]

LOL...fanboys will be fanboys. The 18-250 lenses deliver the same optical performance. If price is not an object, then only reason you should chose one of the other if price is not an object is that. :

1. You prefer the look.
2. You prefer the feel.
3. You prefer the Tamron warranty.
4. You want an all *Sony* system.
5. You prefer the manual focus ring direction of one or the other.

Since the lenses deliver the same optical performance, then the I guess the only other reasons to choose one over the other tha I can think of would be that you are a Sony fanboy deluxe, or you have tried the lenses at say the macro range, and one lens delivers more precise focus easier than the the other because it uses more focus turns to get the job done.

-Sonolta

Hi Sonolta,

Actually I always enjoyed Tamron's warranty policy; a very important asset to any electronics' brand. What I read on discussion forums such as DPreview, both brands sound just as good. I personally don't know the Tamron version, never held one in hand or tried it on the camera but I got a chance with a friend's Sony which he sold the Tamron to get one. I always believe that each lens or camera is different, not the brand. Some lens samples may prove really disappointing enough to turn one away from a certain brand for that particular range.

My Tamron 90mm Macro is a keeper for one and I feel no urge to get the Sony 100mm Macro unless something really goes wrong...It's all about the lens sample for me.

Yildiz

[pakodominguez]

One other thing that is a bit removed from the OP's original a700 questions. I don't believe the Tamron will force the a900 into crop mode, and that can be an advantage for some shooters who use non-Sony badged APS-C lenses on the a900.

-Sonolta

This is one of the options we have to ask Sony to fix on the firmware (allowing using DT lenses FF) otherwise we will finishing buying off brand lenses in order to override Sony's intransigence...

[KevinBarrett]

Sony version has rounded aperture blades and fewer AF screw turns between minimum and maximum focusing distance, whereas the Tamron version has that awesome 6 year warranty. However, if Tamron is willing to put a six year warranty on theirs, and the Sony is essentially a clone, then I'd wager the Sony will hold up as long as the Tamron.

[peterottaway]

Sonolta wrote about whether to choose Sony or Tamron. All I will say is

Yes I do prefer the same look

Yes I do prefer the same feel

Yes I do prefer the same direction in manual focus, especially as I use mf most of the time except for street shooting and sport.

Saving a couple of dollars just doesn't cut it with me. However offer me a special discount / close out of 20 - 25 percent, just watch how quickly I can change my mind.

[tomalpha]

OK. It's gratifying to see my thread on DP review quoted by Sonalta. Basically this subject has been done to death over there. In the days when I had enough money not to worry about it I would have swapped my Tammy for a Sony if there was any difference. There wasn't and isn't so far as I can see. I don't believe there is any differnce in either focussing speed or iris blades (to my eyes the Tammy forms a perfect circle at wide apertures and I think tthe suggestion that the Sony is better is marketing blurb).

However, all is not perfect with my Tammy, and I believe the Sony would be the same. Bokeh is to my mind sometimes "nervous". It is far away in sharpness and contrast from my 100-400apo, even further from my 70-300G at max at 250mm. Focus speed on both is slow on my 5D if you want it to go from close to distant. On my a700 it is better, but still slower than most other lenses

But if it gets you a shot you would otherwise not have captured, it's worth every penny.

Mine stays on my camera of the moment most of the time. In fact right now I have the 5D with the 70-300g (SSM does the focus speed thing) and my a700 has the 18-250 both sitting on my table. If I need to rush out into my garden to shoot a butterfly or bird I grab the appropriate combo.

To end where I started, if money is no object go for the Sony, at least the labels match! If you are watching pennies go for the same lens in a different cloak, and a better guarantee, at a lower price

My 2c worth, anyway!

[Joanel]

"Mine stays on my camera of the moment most of the time. In fact right now I have the 5D with the 70-300g (SSM does the focus speed thing) and my a700 has the 18-250 both sitting on my table. If I need to rush out into my garden to shoot a butterfly or bird I grab the appropriate combo."

Which is the appropriate camera for what type of shot?

[tomalpha]

I guess I didn't phrase that very well. If I am taking shots in my garden, unless I need wider than 70mm, I will pick the camera with the 70-300g, which will almost always be my lens of choice for things like butterflies, birds or close ups of flowers. It just has better IQ than the 18-250 especially at the longer end. However even close to home there are times when I do need wider than 70, either because it's more of a landscape shot, or because I can't physically get far enough back to get the subject in the sensor with 70, e.g. a tree in blossom. I suppose I would be better off with a higher quality wide/medium zoom (16-80, or 17-50) if I am keeping two bodies at the ready. However the 18-250 compares pretty well with these zooms at the wider end. It has also become a sort of fixture for travelling or local trips, so it stays on one or other body which I take (I may take one or two other lenses on a trip, e.g. something for low light shots if I expect I am going to be taking indoor family shots, or something longer if I expect to be taking shots of yacht racing). I also know the 18-250 shots are going to be acceptable (if not spectacular) at the longer end, so it's a safe choice if there is doubt or if I am taking just one lens.

(When would I choose the 5D in preference to the a700? well if I am going somewhere which might be a bit dodgy, staying in simple hotels in Asia, for example, I take the 5D with just the 18-250, as I would hate to lose the a700)

The temptation now is to buy a 70-200g. However, common sense has so far prevailed. I think I would find it too heavy and not long enough for local trips, and the main benefit I would get would be in the extra speed. If I took a lot of field sports I would certainly think about it for the extra speed, but I don't, so the 70-300g does very well for now.

Sorry to go on a bit!

cheers

tom