Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Non Rangefinder Cameras > CSC : Digital Compact System Cameras - > Sony NEX / Full Frame Alpha non DSLR Cameras

Sony NEX / Full Frame Alpha non DSLR Cameras Sony does a lot of things well. Naming their cameras so the nomenclature makes sense is not one of them. The NEX series has now become the Alpha NEX series, not to be confused with their Alpha DSLRs. Huh ? IS the person who misnamed the Leica M10 the Leica M240 now working for Sony? The new full frame Alpha 7/7r are incredibly successful. I wonder how long it will take the other manufacturers to make their version of the 7/7r full frame cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

18-200 better than 18-55?
Old 10-25-2011   #1
xpanded
Registered User
 
xpanded's Avatar
 
xpanded is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: €urope
Posts: 485
18-200 better than 18-55?

I have tried searching but could not find anything here comparing the two – sorry in advance if I missed it.

Has anybody tried the 18-200 as well as the 18-55?

I love my NEX-3 to bits (particularly with my Contax G 45mm lens) but do not care too much for the 18-55mm lens (too soft)

Is the 18-200 of better quality?

All input much appreciated
Thanks in advance

Xpanded
__________________
There is an alternative to the EU. It is called WAR. You think that is cheaper, better, and guarantees uniform human rights across Europe? No? I thought so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2011   #2
Bugleone
Registered User
 
Bugleone is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 93
I can't answer your question directly since I don't use the 18-200,...however, when I had a look at it I was fairly horrified at the size and weight and questioned whether anyone often needs to carry about a lens like this. How often are you going to use the 'tele end' of the zoom range? If only a small percentage of your shots are long focus then you will be carrying the considerable extra bulk and weight (and cost) unneccasarily most of the time.

To shift attention to the 18-55,....perhaps you have a duff specimen since it appears to me to be quite a good lens provided one is sensible about it's use. Personally, I only ever use f8 because, like several makes of kit zoom, it has a 'parabolic IQ curve',...messy corners and edges at 5.6 and increasingly poor look after f11. I have direct experience with pentax and nikon 18-55's and the pentax is the best one but the Sony is as good (on f8) I only use the NEX 3/18-55 handheld and have not yet printed larger than A3 but have some very nice results so far. Certainly I get sharper images with my Canon FD lenses but only use those with camera supported for 'serious' stuff.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to try using your 18-55 with camera supported (and f8) and see if results look better or not....it might simply be that these small cameras are not always easy to hold.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-25-2011   #3
xpanded
Registered User
 
xpanded's Avatar
 
xpanded is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: €urope
Posts: 485
Yes, it is quite big :-) However, since it would replace a whole DSLR kit when traveling it would not be too much of a burden.

It may indeed be my specimen that is a bit off since tripoding it really does not seem to solve the problem. Without having made a scientific study the IQ does seem to be on par with many other 18-55 lenses out there.

I usually have the camera supported against my body (like a TLR), which yields significantly better results shake-wise.

Thanks,
Xpanded
__________________
There is an alternative to the EU. It is called WAR. You think that is cheaper, better, and guarantees uniform human rights across Europe? No? I thought so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2011   #4
xpanded
Registered User
 
xpanded's Avatar
 
xpanded is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: €urope
Posts: 485
Thanks all for your input. Unfortunately I would not like a 55-210 since the idea is to have one lens only (for this camera).

I think I read most reviews out there (in English at least) prior to posting here, but these days I tend to value input from other photographers (amateurs and pro alike) more. People who actually care enough to spend amble time with equipment prior to forming a firm opinion.
__________________
There is an alternative to the EU. It is called WAR. You think that is cheaper, better, and guarantees uniform human rights across Europe? No? I thought so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-08-2012   #5
burancap
Registered User
 
burancap's Avatar
 
burancap is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Age: 49
Posts: 1,667
Reviving the thread here as after a search -this seemed the most recent that was basically on topic.

Simple question...

The NEX-5n will most likely be my next purchase. All along, I was after just a body for use with adapters and legacy lenses. So, my question is: Is it worth the extra ~170-200USD to source a full kit w/ the 18-55? (i.e.) Would I miss (or miss out) on anything in the "stock" NEX kit if I did not buy the paired lens?

Thanks in advance!
__________________
Jeff @ flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-08-2012   #6
xpanded
Registered User
 
xpanded's Avatar
 
xpanded is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: €urope
Posts: 485
Hi Jeff

I started this and was not too pleased with the 18-55. Still am not for stills.
For fairness sake I must add that I like the lens quite a lot doing video.

If I were to buy from scratch knowing what I know now I would add a zoom lens to this combo for convenience and video. Probably the 18-200 if the price was right.
Otherwise the 18-55.

Being on the other side of the Pond I am a bit surprised you write 170-200$. Adorama price difference for instance seems to be only 100$ (out of stock though). For 100$ it is worth it.

I bought my Nex-3 with 18-55 for 199€ which was an absolute bargain. Since then I have made the m4/3 my mirrorless system of choice but still own the Nex-3.

If i were to recommend a camera for somebody wanting to take a portable camera for holiday snaps of good quality I would however recommend the Nex-3 or 5 or newer with 18-55.

For the video (I am not a skilled videographer nor can I apparently spell it) to me there is no comparison. The video out of the image stabilized 18-55 on the Nex-3 is much, much better than from the m4/3 (I have E-PL1, E-P2 and GF-2 - all bought at bargains). Anyone with my video-skills or below (if possible) would probably get the same results.

Good luck in your purchasing deliberation and please do report back on the 5n.
Cheers
Xpanded
__________________
There is an alternative to the EU. It is called WAR. You think that is cheaper, better, and guarantees uniform human rights across Europe? No? I thought so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-08-2012   #7
burancap
Registered User
 
burancap's Avatar
 
burancap is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: South Carolina
Age: 49
Posts: 1,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by xpanded View Post
Being on the other side of the Pond I am a bit surprised you write 170-200$. Adorama price difference for instance seems to be only 100$ (out of stock though). For 100$ it is worth it.
You are correct... the real difference is $100USD.

Completely my fault... I had "used body prices" in my head and was comparing that to a new (in the store) full kit price.

At any rate, thanks for the response. I think it would sway me towards the purchase of a full kit for the little extra outlay -brand new in the box. The reasoning is that I also don't really shoot a lot of video (the exception, of course, being birthdays, xmas, etc...). Recently, I have switched 100% from shooting video with a dedicated camcorder to simply using my iPhone. I think I would appreciate the better quality afforded by the NEX full kit!

I will be happy to keep you posted on my decision.
__________________
Jeff @ flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #8
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,288
There is a review of them both here http://www.photozone.de/reviews

Look under Sony NEX (Sony E Mount)

This will give you what you want I am sure as this guy does technical reviews.

The odd thing is that the 18-55 seems to do better on resolution in the centre portion and about the same or a bit better on edge resolution at all focal length when compared with the longer zoom. And yet most reviewers seem to criticise the 18-200 less. (The usual complaint being that the 18-55 edge performance is not up to par.) If you look at the sample images on that site, though most of them look pretty reasonable to me. Although I certianly could not say they are superb! However they are certainly adequate. I have also read some reports suggesting they perform better on the NEX 5N suggesting perhpas that the original model had an excessively strong anti aliasing filter.
__________________
Peter M

Flickr me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/[SIGPIC]

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston S Churchill

Last edited by peterm1 : 10-26-2011 at 02:23.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #9
Bugleone
Registered User
 
Bugleone is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 93
I had a look at teh 'Photozone' site,.....the 18-200 seems to have no advantage over the kit-zoom apart from extra focal length. Indeed, the performance looks very similar in the 18-55 range, so the bigger lens only offers extra facility at the cost of size, weight and price,....you might be better off with the kit-zoom plus older SLR 70-200.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-26-2011   #10
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,534
I haven't peeped but the 18200 is a good lens

here's a set with full size
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5529947...th/5951845142/



The 1855 is not bad either, I've seen pretty sharp shots from it. I think you need to find the sweet spots in length and aperture.

But neither is going to be a Lecia R 60.
__________________
twitter: uhoh007
  Reply With Quote

Nex Kit Zoom
Old 10-28-2011   #11
FPjohn
Registered User
 
FPjohn's Avatar
 
FPjohn is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 1,507
Nex Kit Zoom

I agree on the 1855.

yours
FPJ
Attached Images
File Type: jpg petrocan.jpg (54.3 KB, 7 views)

Last edited by FPjohn : 11-17-2011 at 06:31.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2011   #12
grainhound
Registered User
 
grainhound is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 377
In case you haven't checked already: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2011   #13
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,065
Buy a 55/200 VR to go with the kit lens. You will be better off.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-28-2011   #14
FPjohn
Registered User
 
FPjohn's Avatar
 
FPjohn is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald M View Post
Buy a 55/200 VR to go with the kit lens. You will be better off.
SEL55210?

yours
FPJ
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-08-2012   #15
flyalf
Registered User
 
flyalf is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norway, Tromsø
Posts: 190
Hi,

I find it a bit strange that you consider the 18-55 a bit soft, and perhaps you have a faulty one? I have compared this zoom with some of the best Leica glass, and find the sharpness good. I would say the distortion is the weakest point.

Are you sure focus is correct, end that your tripod/mount is ok? Without a good tripod it doesnt make any sense to talk about sharpness since you will get some movements at any shutter speeds.
__________________
Regards, Alf Sollund, Tromsø, Norway
------------------------------------
http://alfsollund.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2012   #16
xpanded
Registered User
 
xpanded's Avatar
 
xpanded is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: €urope
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyalf View Post
Hi,
I find it a bit strange that you consider the 18-55 a bit soft, and perhaps you have a faulty one? I have compared this zoom with some of the best Leica glass, and find the sharpness good. I would say the distortion is the weakest point.

Are you sure focus is correct, end that your tripod/mount is ok? Without a good tripod it doesnt make any sense to talk about sharpness since you will get some movements at any shutter speeds.
Yes and yes. I do not know how you compared with Leica - on the same body I assume. I have used Contax G 45mm and 90mm on the Nex and they are (like Leicas) full frame (36x24) and enjoy a good reputation. There is simply no comparison on the output and the Contaxes deliver shake free output even without tripod. So does the 18-55 btw - I find Sony's OSS' at least as effective as the system employed in their competitors' lenses if not better. The AF is not super, but if you know how to use AF it is not a major problem to nail correct focus in good light.

If others are getting better results with their 18-55 that is absolutely wonderful . Based on manufacturing faults with other lenses (Voigtländer and Nikkors) and the evenness of the relatively poor performance of my 18-55 I do not think it is a lemon. I could easily be wrong of course.

Will the 18-55 stop a decent photographer from making great photos? No of course not. Does it do the sensor justice? Not in my opinion.

Alone the 18-55 sells for 300$. Would you buy it at that price? I most definitely would not. It does not stop it from being probably the best lens for the money I have ever bought - but that is just because I got the Nex-3 + 18-55 so dirt cheap.

Cheers,
Xpanded
__________________
There is an alternative to the EU. It is called WAR. You think that is cheaper, better, and guarantees uniform human rights across Europe? No? I thought so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2012   #17
uhoh7
Registered User
 
uhoh7 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,534
1855 between 24-30mm is sharp in daylight.

All of the sony lenses, except the primes, have their sweet spots.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:53.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.