Which walkabout lens for Sony A200?

B

brotchaq

Guest
All

Have a Sony A200 with kit lens 18-70 - not that impressed with the kit lens zoom so am thinking of buying something to replace it / also for walkabout. Which lens of the below would you buy / not buy - or any comments about each welcome...my budget is around £120.

Thanks in advance...

Minolta AF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 - £46 del
http://www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk/d...mm f/3.5-4.5

Sigma 28-105mm F2.8-4 Asp AF Wide Angle Lens - £107 del
http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/...-standard-zoom

Sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 IF Asphrical Macro - £126 del
http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/...r-minolta-sony

Also the well regarded 70-300 is a good price here - £145 del - but would there be too much overlap if I go for 28-200?
Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro Tele Zoom Lens
http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/...telephoto-zoom
 
Another lens worth thinking about getting is the minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan.Just got one nice lens
 
brotchaq said:
All

Have a Sony A200 with kit lens 18-70 - not that impressed with the kit lens zoom so am thinking of buying something to replace it / also for walkabout. Which lens of the below would you buy / not buy - or any comments about each welcome...my budget is around £120.
Click to expand...


What specifically do you dislike about the kit lens? Not sharp enough? Not wide enough on the aperture?...?

The reason I ask is that if it's the sharpness that bothers you, you are likely to be disappointed. The Minolta 28-105 is considered to be pretty sharp but the others you list, not so. The Sony kit lens is considered to be about the sharpest kit lens available and good examples have been shown to perform very well even in comparison to the 16-80 Zeiss. Maybe you just have a bad example?
The kit lens is pretty slow though. But if you need a wider aperture, none of the lenses you listed are any better.
Depending on the sort of walkabout you want to do the 28mm wide end may well prove quite limiting with the 1.5x crop factor.

Logically I can see two ways to go, but you might not like my ideas:

You could go for something sharp with a wider aperture like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and live with the small loss of range.
You could go for something with superzoom range like the Tamron 18-250 which is really attracting acclaim and put up with the f3.5 max aperture.

Either way you'll be saving a little while longer but I honestly can say from experience that buying a lens because it's cheap rather than because it's what you need is a false economy.

Hands up everyone who has at least one crap lens you wish you'd never bought :wave:
 
spannerdude said:
You could go for something with superzoom range like the Tamron 18-250 which is really attracting acclaim and put up with the f3.5 max aperture.
Click to expand...

I bought the Tamron for my A100 last year and it was the only lens I had on my camera whilst I was on holiday! (y)

spannerdude said:
Hands up everyone who has at least one crap lens you wish you'd never bought :wave:
Click to expand...

:wave:
 
Thanks for the detailed and helpful reply.

spannerdude said:
What specifically do you dislike about the kit lens? Not sharp enough? Not wide enough on the aperture?...?
Click to expand...

Fair question - its not got enough zoom range

spannerdude said:
The reason I ask is that if it's the sharpness that bothers you, you are likely to be disappointed. The Minolta 28-105 is considered to be pretty sharp but the others you list, not so. The Sony kit lens is considered to be about the sharpest kit lens available and good examples have been shown to perform very well even in comparison to the 16-80 Zeiss. Maybe you just have a bad example?
Click to expand...

How can I tell if I've a bad example?

spannerdude said:
The kit lens is pretty slow though. But if you need a wider aperture, none of the lenses you listed are any better.
Depending on the sort of walkabout you want to do the 28mm wide end may well prove quite limiting with the 1.5x crop factor.

Logically I can see two ways to go, but you might not like my ideas:

You could go for something sharp with a wider aperture like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and live with the small loss of range.
You could go for something with superzoom range like the Tamron 18-250 which is really attracting acclaim and put up with the f3.5 max aperture.

Either way you'll be saving a little while longer but I honestly can say from experience that buying a lens because it's cheap rather than because it's what you need is a false economy.

Hands up everyone who has at least one crap lens you wish you'd never bought :wave:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - I'm more temptes by the Tamron 18-250 - but as I write, I'm not sure of the price. Presumably this would mean I needn'r go for the 70-300...?
 
You could always go for the 18-200.. it can be had for £220 from warehouse express
 
I can highly recommend the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM II and apparently it is available in a Sony Mount. I am using it as a walk about lens and it has very good IQ for the money and is nice and quick.

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/50-150mmEX.htm


edit: opps, sorry, didnt see your budget, this is a bit out of your price range ;-(
 
Jamougha said:
Eh? According to who? Never used one but all I've heard about the sony kit lens is that it's a total dog. e.g. photzone, dpreview.
Click to expand...

i agree...it's an okay lens i would say,but there's so many better one's available,although most will be out of your budget.i would save a bit longer and get one you won't be sorry in purchasing in the future...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top