what do people use instead of the kit lens on a crop camera?

[themoneyshot]

Someone I know in the UK wants a better camera than their current point and shoot.

I was thinking of recommending the a200, however the sony 18-70mmn kit lens isn't good enough for using all of the time, although the focal range is ideal for someone who will be using 1 lens 95% of the time and who wants a smallish camera to carry around all of the time. I think the aperture range of the kit is ok even in average light as short focal lengths are relatively easy to hand hold.

The cz 16-80 is too expensive. SO what else would people recommend in about the same focal range , starting from about 18mm? or is there another smallish camera in another brand which may be more suitable and which has better overall performance than a sony a200 and 18-70 kit lens.

thanks

[lattiboy]

Well, the kit lens is great for a beginner. Stopped down to f/8 it's quite sharp in the center. Obviously, there are better lenses out there.

In that range the Sigma 17-70mm DC is by far the best value IMO. There are huge QC problems, but if you buy from a reputable vendor from ebay and use the cashback program (in the US), you can pick one up for $200. Until I got a good Zeiss copy, it was the most versatile and sharp lens I'd owned.

[KevinBarrett]

Which zoom lens for a new APS-C user?

APS-C Body + Two Zooms

I made these two polls to help new users in the forum, I hope they are a help to you.

I use the Tamron 17-50/2.8. It is inexpensive, it is fast, it delivers very impressive results, but it isn't quite as awesome as a good copy of the CZ 16-80, and its zoom range is shorter. I am already considering the CZ 16-80 for a future purchase, just waiting until I'm at a place where I can justify it.

The 18-70 isn't a very bad lens, I'm discovering a lot of usable pictures I got from it a while back when all I could see was the CA in some of the shots.

[Chris Malcolm]

The Sony 18-250mm is a good general purpose one-zoom-for-everything lens. It's a bit soft at both zoom extremes, but still much better quality than any P&S with the same kind of zoom range, and when kept off the extremes of zoom and stopped down to f8 is sharp enough to exploit a 14MP sensor.

[bfitzgerald]

I tested two recent copies of the sony kit lens, and both sucked IMO.

Ist was just soft, stopped down, and not very impressive, terrible at tele end, even stopped down, the 28-80d blew that apart with ease. some poor soul got that one aka ebay (though for smaller prints they won't care), the 2nd was almost good, bar softness on the right hand side, even stopped down..still there, and not up to par IMO. The KM kit beats them both, it's decent ish, on 10mp, though not mind blowing, ok for a kit though.

Choices are:

17-50mm tamron
17-70mm sigma
superzooms as above
16-80 CZ (looks nice, but pricey IMO)
17-35mm is a good lens, limited range, but good optics, full frame too
19-35mm is the budget option, cheaper than the above, previous model, not as wide, but blows the kit lens apart on optics. Again, small range, less speed than the 17-35mm

Tough one really, might give the tamron 17-50 a spin myself, wanted to avoid APS only, but hard to as time goes on

There may well be some decent kit lenses out there, but if my recent samples are anything to go on, you are more likely to get a lemon, than a legend

[Al_]

Someone I know in the UK wants a better camera than their current point and shoot.

I was thinking of recommending the a200, however the sony 18-70mmn kit lens isn't good enough for using all of the time, although the focal range is ideal for someone who will be using 1 lens 95% of the time and who wants a smallish camera to carry around all of the time. I think the aperture range of the kit is ok even in average light as short focal lengths are relatively easy to hand hold.

The cz 16-80 is too expensive. SO what else would people recommend in about the same focal range , starting from about 18mm? or is there another smallish camera in another brand which may be more suitable and which has better overall performance than a sony a200 and 18-70 kit lens.

thanks

There are not many inexpensive choices to replace the Sony kit lens other than the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70.

If someone needs an entry level/small dslr and intends to use only the kit lens the Olympus E420 with the 14-42 kit lens is a good choice. The Olympus kit lens seems to be better than the Sony kit lens. With the Olympus system, the 14-42 is 28-84 35mm equivalent .

[themoneyshot]

Thanks for the answers everyone and for the links

Regarding the kit lens. I haven't used mine too much. The range is certainly very useful to use a s a general purpose lens, especially since it starts at 18mm. And stopping down a bit helps get a lot of the scene in focus, similarly to a point and shoot. I took the kit lens for a spin for about 1 1/2 hours a coupe of days ago specifically to see if it would be suitable as a general purpose lens for the person I know. I used the kit lens exclusively and used it in program mode at iso 100, 200 and 400 depending on the light.And also in aperture mode at iso 100-200 f8 a few times. I used it at iso 200 80% of the time in program mode and the camera usually stopped down to about f8-f10. So I was shooting in the sweet spot most of the time.

I took all sorts of shots of different buildings, signs, local scenes, shops, anything, a bit of some scenery with a lot of grass and trees, a few of the lake etc. I think i have a good copy of the kit lens because I can see decent detail when the subject matter isn't too far away and when there isn't too much fine detail.

The specific areas where the kit lens isn't so good are:

color: the color is very average compared to a good lens. Especially in less than perfect light where it will be used a fair bit. Nature like the greens of the grass and trees looked dull and boring in color compared to a good lens like the 50's. And just color in general isn't that great. And excellent color was one of the highlights of the a100 and a good lens, so this worse color with the kit lens is noticeable.

resolution detail: The kit doesn't resolve fine detail too well compared to a good lens. Such as high level of small detail on buildings and grass and leaf detail and just in general. The 50mm lenses define this type of detail much better and I've seen people compare the CZ and the 50's so I'm sure there must be something better than the kit.

Contrast: contrast is a bit low, so I noticed images looking duller than what I'm used to and in average light they look duller still.

curvature: I noticed some curvature on some wide angle shots of distant buildings, so horizons might curve too much.But I didn't really test this out enough to notice it more.

So After taking about 100 shots of all these things, Im underwhelmed with the kit lens, though i got some good shots I got the impression that the kit zoom is inadequate in terms of iq for someone that will be using it 95% of the time.

Bfitzgerald, your reasoning sound good.

The best option seem like:

1/ cz 16-80 (too expensive)
2/ 17-70 sigma(questionable QC)
3/ some tamron lens like a 17-50 (range too short for someone using 1 lens 95% of the time)

I'm Not considering a super zoom since there's too many compromises in those, and since the extreme wide end is important and since its likely to be a bit too big. So the tamron and the sigma are the only 2 real options in the Sony mount.

There could be an Olympus or something with their own kit lens which produces results as good as the a200 and sigma 17-70 and which has more reliable quality control. Since a smallish camera was an important criteria I'll have to look into that too. . The wifeless flash option of the Sony is good too, So I'll have to check if other cameras have that too if I check them out.

I think 10mp would be adequate with a decent lens. Noise starts showing up a bit too much on my a100 at iso 400 and above so that steers me away from a higher MP count than 10 on a 1.5X sensor.

[bfitzgerald]

I found the KM kit good on the 6mp body, and still pretty good on the 10mp A200.

the 2nd sony would be fine, were it not for the right hand side, it has severe blur on the edge (edge not just corner!) wide open its a disaster, and it never clears up till f16, by which time the dffraction kills the sharpness on the rest of it. Clearly a duff QC issue on that one.

I am very happy with the 19-35mm, it's done some nice stuff for me on 35mm, sweet spot is f11 on film, and it holds the corners pretty well too. It's pretty good stopped down to f5.6, some minor vignetting at times, nothing major though. For the money it's a deal. It's razor sharp on the A200, and I would think it could take 14mp no problems if not more. Ok so a bit less field of view...you might have had a weaker one, this one tears all the kits I have tried apart, and with nice contrast too. I know some have complained about the 17-35mm too. Obviously samples vary...

Trouble is with that, it's a bigger lens, and forget onboard flash, the barrel is too big..and the hood even reversed has shadowing on the A200 onboard flash, which is poorly designed anyway, does not go up anywhere near as high as it should. Hence the desire for an all round lens for that one, the tamron looks like a better bet, and it has speed. Sigma one is good, tried it on a Canon, just for me anyway, the f2.8 is worth more.

Nobody expects a mega kit lens, I can live with the CA, and don't expect CZ tack sharp images, plastic feel is par for the course on these lenses. But the ist sample was so bad, I pulled it off, and was looking for the jam jar label! Really, you would wonder!

Sony need to sort out their QC, and just re-vamp the thing..bad on A200 is going to be even more bad on the A350

[themoneyshot]

Cheers Ill check that out. I'm not too familiar with the plethora of models from all the other brands except to know that the Olympus cameras are small and have a good reputation for decent color. and the person specifically wanted a relatively small camera so the Olympus might be suitable.

Someone I know in the UK wants a better camera than their current point and shoot.

I was thinking of recommending the a200, however the sony 18-70mmn kit lens isn't good enough for using all of the time, although the focal range is ideal for someone who will be using 1 lens 95% of the time and who wants a smallish camera to carry around all of the time. I think the aperture range of the kit is ok even in average light as short focal lengths are relatively easy to hand hold.

The cz 16-80 is too expensive. SO what else would people recommend in about the same focal range , starting from about 18mm? or is there another smallish camera in another brand which may be more suitable and which has better overall performance than a sony a200 and 18-70 kit lens.

thanks

There are not many inexpensive choices to replace the Sony kit lens other than the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 17-70.

If someone needs an entry level/small dslr and intends to use only the kit lens the Olympus E420 with the 14-42 kit lens is a good choice. The Olympus kit lens seems to be better than the Sony kit lens. With the Olympus system, the 14-42 is 28-84 35mm equivalent .

[KevinBarrett]

The wifeless flash option of the Sony is good too,

What? Mine didn't come with that!

[themoneyshot]

You better send it back for a refund and ask for one with the wireless flash option

The wifeless flash option of the Sony is good too,

What? Mine didn't come with that!

[themoneyshot]

I'm not sure which PnS hes currently using now. Something that's not that great, thus the need to upgrade.He used to use a Fuji PnS which had very good looking color. He mentioned that he wants to use a new camera occasionally to take a few soccer shots but that would require another lens.

If it was for me I'd get an a200 because I like the a100 and i like its color and auto wb,image quality,and reasonably good dynamic range and the a200 is meant to have 1.7x times faster AF. For a stroll I usually just choose a couple of different lenses like you .Mabe a 50 or a 20 or 24 for wides and switch lenses.Or maybe a 20 or 50 and something long, but I know he wouldn't be bothered with different lenses and wants something moderately priced and smallish. He also wouldn't be post processing for color correction etc, probably just straight batch conversions of a whole bunch of photos so the color and auto wb should be good. I'd recommend to shoot raw plus jpg then batch convert to HQ jpg.

I just found this link comparing various cameras:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3434&p=5

I'll have to look into theOlympus e420/e520 which also support wireless flash. I think the important thing is the performance of the olympus kit lens and the size.

One other consideration I thought of now is the shutter noise of the a200. The shutter is very loud on my a100, that may be another thing needing consideration. Ill have to check how loud the shutter is on the Olympus cameras.

I'll tell you what I use in that range...

Sony 11-18
Sigma 24 1.8
Minolta 50 1.7
KM 28-75 2.8
Oly A-200 1.5X
CL49-200's (single and stacked)

Yup...I usually need all that for a simple "short range" stroll. I have a hard time dealing with a single "walkaround" lens...just too many compromises for me!

-Sonolta

PS...I only use the KM kit in an emergency and in this particular case I was squeezed from the Independence Day location that I intended to shoot from, and I had brought the 18-70 along as a lightweight emergency alternative just in case something like that happened.

PSS... I will also have with me (and one of these will be mounted much of the time) either my 100 macro, the Beercan, or the good ol' Siggy APO DG Macro ....I almost never leave home without one of those unless I am shooting indoor sports...in which case then I drag out lenses that I have not yet listed here.

BTW, moneyshot, what pNs is your friend coming from?

[Al_]

As you know, the A100 shutter/mirror slap is quite loud. The A200 shutter sound is much more quieter than the A100 (I know, right now I have both). You'll want to hear the Olympus E420 and Sony A200 side by side.

[Matt_Atkinson]

I've got the 18-200 which was the kit lens on my A100-H, which is great to have (apparently not as great as 18-250), but sometimes it feels like it's just got too MUCH flexibility, so I end up using my 50 1.4. Maybe it's just me, I like primes, they're flexible in other ways (apeture) and make you think more about composition

[themoneyshot]

Thanks everyone.

I read a review of the e520 at dc resource and somewhere else. One of the negatives about the Olympus's is the noise gets a bit high due to the slightly smaller sensor. I'll just present some options with the pros and cons and let the person decide.