Sony A200 kit lens replacement / Florida - HELP!

B

Blonkster

Messages
94
Edit My Images
No
I've had my A200 for a year now and have bought the obligatory 'Beercan' and also a Minolta 75-300mm.

I'll be doing the Florida theme parks later in the year and I'm not sure what to do about lenses.

I wanted to travel failry light and not have to carry/swap lenses, if possible; so wondered if the kit lens focal range would be OK.

I assume most shots would be fairly wide (rollercoaster-type scenery and Mickey Mouse), but maybe something longer would be need for zooming in on show/dolphins and similar.

So, do I get a superzoom (18-250mm) and just take that - but worry about compromised image quaility. Or do I replace the kit lens with a Sigma 17-70, or maybe a Tamron 17-50 and take that and the beercan (or Minolta for lightness) - or maybe just the new smaller zoom?

Then again, do I get the current Sigma for about £250, or wait for reviews on the new HSM model to see how that compares, but it is about £300+ - the same as the Tamron, which may be a little short.

Discuss ! ;-)


Thanks for any advice, based on your expereinces in Florida theme parks or the above lenses.

Blonkster
 
The "BeerCan" is nice, but a little bulky for travel.

I use the Minolta 100-200 f/4.5 - lovely little lens no ones heard off - tiny, and produces lovely colours.


min100-200.jpg

​

I don't recall using it on my A200, but its nice on my A900. That would keep the weight down.
 
If you're happy with the IQ of your kit lens then you'd certainly be happy with the Sony 18-250mm as its performance is reputed to be very good considering its zoom range. Tamron's equivalent is a little cheaper and apparently optically the same but the AF gearing is slower. The lens is pretty dark at 250mm and f6.3 maximum aperture, though the light in Florida should be good.
 
eccles said:
If you're happy with the IQ of your kit lens then you'd certainly be happy with the Sony 18-250mm as its performance is reputed to be very good considering its zoom range. Tamron's equivalent is a little cheaper and apparently optically the same but the AF gearing is slower.
Click to expand...
1 of the magazines tested the 2 of them side by side in an issue on superzooms that was on the news stands about 10 days ago & there was a noticeable difference in the mtf curves (the Sony was better) so perhaps gearing isn't the only difference.
 
heidfirst said:
1 of the magazines tested the 2 of them side by side in an issue on superzooms that was on the news stands about 10 days ago & there was a noticeable difference in the mtf curves (the Sony was better) so perhaps gearing isn't the only difference.
Click to expand...


I'll look for the magazine, but on checking online those lenses are a bit out of my price range - approx £400.

Blonkster
 
Does any one have experience of the two lenses (17-50, 17-70)?

Would I miss the 20mm? Is it worth it for F2.8? I realise the answers will depend on the photos being takens - but just genreral answers for a walkabout lens please.
 
Ive got the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 and I love it on my A200...£125 on ebay 2nd hand

I do miss the wider end at times to may get the 17-50 to overlap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top