Sony 18-250 vs 28-75/70-210

[bakubo]

Edge, 28mm at f4 (wide open) and f8.

Edge_28mm_4.jpg

(91.22 KiB) Downloaded 1952 times

Edge_28mm_8.jpg

(102.29 KiB) Downloaded 1952 times

[bakubo]

Center, 75mm at f5 (wide open) and f8.

Center_75mm_5.jpg

(162.52 KiB) Downloaded 1953 times

Center_75mm_8.jpg

(186.81 KiB) Downloaded 1953 times

[bakubo]

Edge, 75mm at f5 (wide open) and f8.

Edge_75mm_5.jpg

(78.82 KiB) Downloaded 1955 times

Edge_75mm_8.jpg

(81.56 KiB) Downloaded 1955 times

[bakubo]

Center, 250mm at f6.3 (wide open) and f8.

Center_250mm_63.jpg

(84.26 KiB) Downloaded 1957 times

Center_250mm_8.jpg

(86.58 KiB) Downloaded 1957 times

[bakubo]

Edge, 250mm at f6.3 (wide open) and f8. I just checked and see you shot at 200mm, not 250mm. Everyone says 250mm is worse than 200mm though.

Okay, that is it. What does everyone think?

Edge_250mm_63.jpg

(76.5 KiB) Downloaded 1957 times

Edge_250mm_8.jpg

(82.82 KiB) Downloaded 1957 times

[bossel]

Hi Henry,

thanks for posting this comparison, I know it takes some time to prepare and post all these crops.
I think the difference between edge & center is less on your 18-250. Either my edges are worse or my center is better
In an case I have the 16-80 now and more than happy with it. Used it a lot in Rome. Love the 16mm and I was surprised how well I could live without 16-80. I might even sell the 18-250, I just have too much stuff I use too less!

[bakubo]

thanks for posting this comparison, I know it takes some time to prepare and post all these crops.

You're welcome. Yes, it does take some time to do it. I was just curious to see if my 18-250mm was like yours. I had never noticed it as bad as yours but I had never actually checked.

In an case I have the 16-80 now and more than happy with it. Used it a lot in Rome. Love the 16mm and I was surprised how well I could live without 16-80. I might even sell the 18-250, I just have too much stuff I use too less!

Glad you found a lens you like now!

[alphaomega]

I was thinking of selling my Tamron 18-200 Di and purchase the Sony 18-250 instead. Having reviewed this thread I am thinking that I really would not gain a lot as Bakubo's 100% views at the long end do not look too good and there is an abundance of CA. I am sure that the CA can be removed in PS/ACR but the softness is another matter. I conclude that the range is too long and instead of going to 270 for the new CAN/NIK motorised lenses perhaps Tamron should have made an improved 18-200 and restricted the long end Fstop to 5.6.
Thanks to Bossel and Bakubo for their excellent work.

[bakubo]

I was thinking of selling my Tamron 18-200 Di and purchase the Sony 18-250 instead. Having reviewed this thread I am thinking that I really would not gain a lot as Bakubo's 100% views at the long end do not look too good and there is an abundance of CA. I am sure that the CA can be removed in PS/ACR but the softness is another matter. I conclude that the range is too long and instead of going to 270 for the new CAN/NIK motorised lenses perhaps Tamron should have made an improved 18-200 and restricted the long end Fstop to 5.6.
Thanks to Bossel and Bakubo for their excellent work.

You are welcome. Everyone says the Sony 70-300mm G lens is really good. That is probably what you want to get.

[alphaomega]

Thanks for your advice Bakubo. I currently also own the Tamron 70-300 Zoom, which is adequate for my purposes. I mostly use my CZ 16-80 but occasionally need a lens that will stretch into the 70-300 range and down to the CZ range in one go. That is what the 18-200 does adequately. I thought the Tamron or Sony 18-250 would do better than the Tamron 18-200 but I am not so sure now that I would gain much by paying almost three times as much. Ideally I would like Tokina to make their 16.5-135 available for Sony A mount.

[David Kilpatrick]

The 18-250mm is generally better than the 18-200mm. We had KM, Tamron and Sony 18-200mms and we have had more than Tamron 18-250mm and Sony 18-250mm. There is a difference, and the reports that the 18-250mm is a better lens are justified; it shows mainly at the long end. Where the 18-200mm is unsharp at 200mm, the 18-250mm is still sharp and only really falls off at the extreme of 250mm.

With both lenses, users tend to zoom fully every time and therefore always use the lens at its worst. It pays to back off a bit, say 180mm on the 200mm or 230mm on the 250mm - this improves results.

However, we now have a Sigma 18-250mm HSM OS. It is bigger, and costs more, but it has HSM and it also has optical stabilisation which is in many ways a benefit over in-body SSS at the long end (not necessarily for sharpness, but for viewing - this is not a 'swimming' type of OS). It is much sharper than any of the KM/Tamron/Sony variants.

David

[alphaomega]

Thanks for pointing out that the Tqmron 18-250 is better than the 18-200 and the new Sigma 18-250 is sharper than the Tamron. Weight is a major consideration for me now and the Sigma is 630g versus the Tamron 18-200 at less than 400g. I use it occasionally and I don't want to carry around a larger and heavier lens for occasional use. Even the 18-200 is rarely used at the "fully stretched" long end. I may purchase the Sony 18-250, as you can get it for £369 in Jessops, and sell the 18-200. It seems as if all new lenses have put on "flesh" compared with their predecessors. For me, that is a retrograde step.

[bakubo]

There is a difference, and the reports that the 18-250mm is a better lens are justified; it shows mainly at the long end. Where the 18-200mm is unsharp at 200mm, the 18-250mm is still sharp and only really falls off at the extreme of 250mm.

With both lenses, users tend to zoom fully every time and therefore always use the lens at its worst. It pays to back off a bit, say 180mm on the 200mm or 230mm on the 250mm - this improves results.

I will remember this and try to back a bit off from 250mm when I am at the long end.

[Chris Malcolm]

I found with my Sony 18-250mm that the combination of 250mm and f8 had just reached a shallow enough DoF that AF usually got things slightly out of focus with my A350. That explained why sometimes the soft 250mm shots I expected were occasionally oddly sharper than I could reliably get on purpose. I only discovered that when I made a small adjustment to take out a small amount of generic backfocus in my A350's autofocus. Suddenly most of my 250mm shots were as sharp as the previously occasional surprisingly sharp ones I could never reliably repeat.

That made the 250mm images sharp enough to usefully usable, in the sense that while 200mm was sharper, a 250mm shot gave at least as much detail as a 200mm proportionally cropped to give the same angle of view. On my A350 and Sony 18-250mm of course

[alphaomega]

I thought about the comments above and recommendations, particulary David Kilpatrick's statement that the Sony 18-250 was better than the 18-200. Not keen on the extra weight of Sigma's new 18-250 so when I saw the Sony 18-250 at £350 less a penny I pressed the buy button and got the last copy. Just had a quick try on my A550 and yes, I agree that it is better than the 18-200. It feels good in the hands and there is no creep. I feel this lens focuses faster than the Tamron 18-200 and my old Tamron 18-250 (passed to my son). All in all I think I will be happy with this lens when I need it. I will lose money on the sale of my old Tamron 18-200 but then, If I had bought the Sony 18-250 last October I would probably have paid close to £500 for it.