Replacement for Sony 18-55mm kit lens

[David Fraser]

Hi I am looking to replace my Sony 18-55mm kit lens with something better.

I use it for taking landscape photos. (i do have a Rikinon 14mm manual lens, for ultra wide) on my Sony A6700

I like the idea of having a  bit more zoom for walk about photos as well as a better quality lens. I am finding the kit lens is very blurry when zoomed into my landscapes and not sharp throughout.

I have read numerous reviews on the following two lenses and they seem to be in my price range but I am finding the reviews are half and half as two which is the better lens.

I have been looking at either the Sony 18-105mm F/4 lens which is about 700 Australian Dollars or

the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 lens.

I will not be using the lens for video only photography and was wondering peoples opinions as to which is the better lens

 

thanks

 

David

Edited August 21, 2024 by David Fraser
add information

[Phormula]

Hi.

Being there, done that.

Here is the link to the discussion.

My experience with the 18-105 f/4 has been awful. Now I am perfectly happy wiht the 18-135 (one lens travel kit, does a little bit of everything) and with the 10-18 + 16-70 Zeiss + 55-210 when I want to travel with all the options. I do mostly landscapes. Sometimes I travel also with the 16-70 only, especially in urban area, where spaces are narrow and 16 mm can make the difference over 18 mm.

[Cameratose]

I know guys that have that 18-135 welded to their mount! 😃 I agree that you may find you want something a bit wider for street style shots. 

[Phormula]

12 minutes ago, Cameratose said:

I know guys that have that 18-135 welded to their mount! 😃 I agree that you may find you want something a bit wider for street style shots. 

Well, the 18-135 mm is a good travel lens, a little soft and tad slow at the long end. It does not cost a fortune and it delivers reasonable performance, as long as you do not count the pixels. Furthermore, and this is the reason why I use it a lot, with mirrorless cameras I try to reduce lens changes in the field to a minimum. No matter how much care I put in the process, especially in windy or rainy situation or when changing lens in a hurry while travelling, it is relatively easy for dirt to reach the sensor, and having to fix most of my pictures to remove a dust spot is a long and annoying process. Plus, the risk of damage to the sensor when cleaning it. I am sure that there are millions of alternatives that are better in term of image quality, but I prefer to pay the price rather than spending days behind the screen to edit pictures.

[Cameratose]

1 hour ago, Phormula said:

Well, the 18-135 mm is a good travel lens, a little soft and tad slow at the long end. It does not cost a fortune and it delivers reasonable performance, as long as you do not count the pixels. Furthermore, and this is the reason why I use it a lot, with mirrorless cameras I try to reduce lens changes in the field to a minimum. No matter how much care I put in the process, especially in windy or rainy situation or when changing lens in a hurry while travelling, it is relatively easy for dirt to reach the sensor, and having to fix most of my pictures to remove a dust spot is a long and annoying process. Plus, the risk of damage to the sensor when cleaning it. I am sure that there are millions of alternatives that are better in term of image quality, but I prefer to pay the price rather than spending days behind the screen to edit pictures.

It's not uncommon for a superzoom in that generation to be a bit soft fully extended. It was the nature of the beast up until more recently when for some reason (most likely improvements to CAD) they got a lot better. Of the Sony 18-'X' zooms, it seems to get the best reviews across the board. By those who use them, convenience is always the main reason. 

Cleaning a sensor shouldn't be a scary thing, I clean mine at the beginning of each season, then again later if a check reveals dirt. If you follow the instructions it'd be pretty hard to damage one. 

If IQ is a major consideration, another option the OP may wish to consider is one of the many fantastic full frame lenses. Tamron's 17-50/4 would fill the bill with a 25-75 full frame equivalence. although it won't provide the added reach. It's sharp across the range, and the constant f/4 aperture is a nice advantage. It's a bit larger, of course, but not terribly so. Shown below, 18-135, then 17-50, then 18-105. The problem with the 18-105 (unless you specifically want it) is the fact that it's a power zoom, something you really only need for video. 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited August 21, 2024 by Cameratose

[Phormula]

1 hour ago, Cameratose said:

It's not uncommon for a superzoom in that generation to be a bit soft fully extended. It was the nature of the beast up until more recently when for some reason (most likely improvements to CAD) they got a lot better. Of the Sony 18-'X' zooms, it seems to get the best reviews across the board. By those who use them, convenience is always the main reason. 

Cleaning a sensor shouldn't be a scary thing, I clean mine at the beginning of each season, then again later if a check reveals dirt. If you follow the instructions it'd be pretty hard to damage one. 

Agree, superzooms are compromises and manufacturers tend to compromise the most at the long end, supposedly where the lens is least used. I end taking most of my pictures in the 18-40 range and find myself reaching out for 135 only occasionally. Therefore I prefer softness at 135 rather than at 18 mm.

Cleaning in itself is not an issue if done with proper equipment (blower, pads and fluid), however it needs to be done in a clean place. Not exactly a common situation while travelling. Once a dust particle has settled and does not go away with the blower, I have to live with it in all my pictures until I have the possibility to perform a wet cleaning.

Sigma and Tamron are also good alternatives, and should be considered.