Which high end lens for A37/57

[classiccameras]

Two requests here, has any one got views on which lens might be the better performer. The Tamron is quite a bit cheaper but is it as good, better or worse.

Sony 16-50 F/2.8
Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 [Non VC version for Sony]

Will the in camera lens adjustment work on a non Sony lens such as the Tamron.

Lens Comp shading
Lens Comp Chro Aber
Lens distortion

Thanks

[David Kilpatrick]

The Tamron is not supported for corrections, so you have one good choice here only - the Sony. Also, the SSM mechanism of the Sony lens works with video, works on the NEX with adaptors (including for CD focus) and will work with new sensors using on-sensor PD pixels. It's probably no better optically than the Tamron, but quite definitely a lens with greater functionality and compatibility.

David

[classiccameras]

Thanks David.

I had a look at several reviews of standard kit lenses for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony. On the comparison tests, Sony did rather well and was on average equal or better than the rivals and definitely better than Pentax.

I guess any corrections that are not done to the Tamron on a Sony body could be rectified in PP?
My microsoft edit programme has an auto correction facility.

[bfitzgerald]

I've personally never really found an issue with the Tamron and having to make corrections ie distortion/CA much of a problem at all, but that's because I don't use that feature and it only works on jpegs and I don't shoot jpegs often. No the Tamron isn't supported but big swing!
DK has pointed out the pros of the Sony lens sealing, SSM, 16mm v 17mm wide end

The Tamron is smaller, lighter, takes a smaller filter, slightly closer- close focus ability, and I can get one right now for less than half the cost of the Sony lens via grey market
Optics wise I don't think there is a lot in it, some say the Tamron is a tad sharper but samples vary.
I don't actually think the Sony is badly priced for an f2.8 zoom lens.

Down to price really. If someone already had a 17-50mm f2.8 I personally wouldn't bother changing to the Sony. For a new buying choice it's a bit harder.
I can tell you I've used the 17-50mm quite a bit across lens mounts and I think it's a lens that is unmatched in terms of bang per buck.

[Birma]

Just to throw a slightly different lens in to the ring . Had several happy years with the older version of the Tamron (pre VC etc.), before the Sony one came out. Replaced this with the SAL CZ 16-80 (second hand). Very 'average' build quality, but superb optics. 16 to 17 was a bigger difference than I expected, and going out to 80 was very handy for a walk around lens. I never used the Tamron at 2.8 and so the fact the SAL CZ was slower was never an issue for me. It comes down to personal taste and probably cost at the end of the day. If I was after a lens in this range for Alpha APS-C then the 16-80 would be my choice every time.

[classiccameras]

Most reviews rate the Tamron 17-50 Non VC version as an exceptional performer for the money and Kurt Munger thought it was as good as the CZ 16-80, if you had a good copy.
Not much is said about the Sigma 17-70 which has a much more useful range and has a slightly better build quality, one of the 17-70 models also gets top marks for IQ, although quite a bit more expensive than the Tammy.

I'm not to sure, but I read some where that one of the independants was going to 'chip' the lens according to the mount so the camera can support the lens, whether this includes corrections I don't know.

birma, I must admit, I have always fancied a CZ 16-80 but price has been the stumbling block although there is no huge difference between the Sony 16-50 and CZ 16-80 in price. Photozone and Lenstip found the CZ a top performer but it also had issues and they both thought the build quality could be better for the money, they gave Tamron the better buy!
Spending this sort of money on a CZ is a big investment for my small system that may be to expensive if I decided to jump ship.

[bfitzgerald]

Depends how you are building a system. If you're getting an UWA lens you can get over the 16 v 17mm aspect.
I've no problems with the Sony lens, it's at least reasonably priced. There are a couple of seriously overpriced lenses on A mount, the 16-80mm is one, the 70-300mm G is another (probably worst offender price wise, price is just plain rip off land and even more so since the new 70-300mm Tamron turned up)

16-80mm is badly due a mechanical update and for the money should be sealed with better build and SSM. So I'd pass on that one, optics are good has to be said but not perfect either (CA quite an issue at times)

The Sony 16-50mm f2.8 seems to suffer from fall off, CA and distortion more than the Tamron, might not be a big deal to some but it's probably on balance not quite as good as the Tamron is. I think of it like this, don't do video often, don't really need sealing, with the cash saved you can buy a decent flashgun (or something like that)

The other reason I'd go for the Tamron is v the Sony and Sigma's the Tammie has more consistent performance esp regarding edge performance, both the other lenses are weaker here IMO, Tamron do better with good sharpness and holding it more consistently across the focal range. The Sigma has had a hefty enough price cut recently it might be worth a look, but blow for blow..extracting your max pound of flesh/bang per buck I think the Tamron has it in the bag. I'm considering this myself, as this is the one lens I didn't update when moving back to A mount, I'd be more likely to go with the Tamron again.

Sigma have just updated their 17-70mm lens, it looks somewhat improved over the older one:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a ... a1770284os

Bear in mind that f2.8 is only wide end and drops quickly, it's still a sound choice though as the range is good, but as I have the 18-135mm I don't really need that range. But I do need f2.8

[classiccameras]

16 or 17 at the wide end for me is academic, I suspect if I needed wider I would get something like the Sigma 10-20. The bigger the zoom range no matter who's name is on the lens only invites more and more compromise in overall IQ, although Steve Huff found the Sony 18-135 excellent, see his test shots on a A-57.
I will certainly do some more research re the new 'C' grade Sigma.
Lenstip found the Sony 16-50 an excellent/superb performer stopped down but it had some edge and corner issues that were worse than the Tamron at similar apertures. Rumour has it that the Sony 16-50 is based round a Minolta 24-85 body/barrel. I was also told by a Sony rep once that several Sony zooms including CZ were made by Tamron and Carl Zeiss actually only make a few primes!
I currently only have the 18-55 kit lens which is surprisingly good for the money, but I hardly use it, a Minolta 24-85 [quite rare to find] and a KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens which is a re badged Tamron. My main aim was I needed something a bit more versatile than the 17-35 as a walk around and landscape lens.
Thanks for all the advice, its been most helpful.
Pete

[bfitzgerald]

No doubt Tamron do make some of the zooms that's a long standing relationship that KM had too. Not sure "which ones" though.
The 18-55mm is quite good for some tasks it's got a better than normal close up ability which can work well.

I was a little disappointed though that Sony didn't update the 18-70mm kit lens life gets a bit boring with everyone doing the 18-55mm route, and I found that lens my "go to lens" range wise it served me very well indeed. 27-105mm equivalent is just about perfect for day to day use. I suppose the Sigma picks that baton up but adds better build and speed. The 17-35mm is good even on a crop body but 35mm is a bit short and the lens is large enough being a FF lens (just about fits in my Tamrac expedition bag mounted on the body)

Not an easy choice really, not sure where you are based Pete but the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is dirt cheap from one stop digital (where I got my previous ones) not much over £200

[classiccameras]

Quite so Barry, Sony have really dropped a few clangers over the years but not to have developed the 18-70 was a big clanger. It could have been a Kit lens for others to envy. Yes, even the CSC's are offering 18-55 kit lenses, it seems to be an industry standard. As you say boring. These kit lenses are seen by the manufacturers as a lens to get you started and then they hope you will purchase better and more expensive lenses further up the food chain.
I think Nikon's 18-105 kit lens was a good move and it does score well in most reviews. I had one on a D5100 and it was very sharp with a good build quality even thought it was a plastic mount.
The Tamron 17-50 and especially the Sigma 17-70 seem to have filled the empty spot left by Sony who could have had a winner with a 18-70 Mk 2. They really do have the wrong people running that company.

I have bought from One Stop Digital before, I think they operate from the Channel Isles but items are posted from Hong Kong. I waited 10 days for a Sigma a few years ago, but it arrived and my worries were over.
I live in North West London outer suberbs, with Watford being my nearest place for photographic equipment, SRS Microsystems. I have had some great deals from them over the years both new and used, plus they have sold some of my stuff on commission.
Right now I still use my KM 17-35 a lot and have no complaints about IQ, Its just a bit short.
I did consider a Minolta 24-105 as a second choice which I believe is the lens Sony used to develop their 16-105, but reviews on both those variants were/are just average.
I have checked out the new Sigma 'C' class lenses, most up grade is cosmetic and a reduction in size and weight, with a small improvement to performance, however, Sigma point out that they do not replace the EX lenses which remain their top of the range.

[bfitzgerald]

Well for what it's worth I'm very pleased with the 18-135mm surprisingly good really. I used it as my main lens for a few jobs and it's performed very well indeed.
So I can recommend that for folks looking for "more range than a kit lens", and not needing an f2.8 zoom or 16mm start off point.

On the other hand you'll have to consider the fact I didn't actually pay for the lens
However, I can say after using it real world field use it's way better than I expected and I would pay the asking price for such a lens (quite a fair asking price)

The 16-105mm v CZ 16-80mm always was a tricky choice for some. Down to that 16mm I would think.
All of these lenses have some compromises, but the 18-135mm is much nicer price wise, and surprisingly well built.

I made a decision some time ago I'd get an UWA lens to cover that aspect, so I'm quite happy with 17/18mm zoom lenses. Really down to taste or how you want to build the system.

[classiccameras]

Barry, you convinced me, I got a brand new 18-135 for £275, un boxed kit seperation lens. It should arrive Monday by parcel post.
Its interesting to read that this particular lens has no legacy from either Konica Minolta or Tamron even though Sony partially own [majority share holder] Tamron.
No, it was a completely 'in house' job.

[bfitzgerald]

Let me know what you think, I've been happy with the lens if you want a good range lens and don't need speed it's quite impressive really.
And I'm not usually into lenses like that, though the Nikkor 18-105mm was quite a nice lens optics wise.

The Sony lens is really very sharp esp in the centre, has good contrast, very little CA. Just a touch of fall off and some distortion to deal with, which I can handle. It stomps the kit lens that's for sure

[classiccameras]

Thanks Barry
Since my last post, the 18-135 arived late Saturday, wow, Cardiff camera centre to London the day after. I was told Monday.

Will be using it at a country show today on my 57 so will check the pics when I get home and write a mini review which I will post later.

[Birma]

Congrats on the new lens. Looking forward to your review and perhaps some pics from the show .