A6000 - moving to one "do all" lens?

[seuadr]

Hi,

 

Recently i have been thinking about simplifying my kit. I am a hobby photographer - i have a number of lenses that i always find myself swapping in and out, including the 16-50pz, 28-70, sigma 30 and 19, the 55-210 and recently aquired the 16/2.8 (intend to get the ecu1 converter for landscapes/staracapes)

 

Been seriously considering getting rid of most of them and picking up one of the 18-200 lenses as a replacement.

 

Seems like it would significantly simplify my kit - probably keep the sigma 30 - and significantly reduce lense swapping.

 

The image quality seems ok, and honestly given the glass i already have i think it is obvious i am not doing much pixel peeking.

 

Thoughts? Potential downsides? Anyone make the switch and prefer it as a beginner hobbist?

 

Thanks for your time.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The 18-200 is a remarkable lens, speaking of the first version which is bulky and silver. It produces sharp shots with low CA and good colour at both the wide and tele end. It also functions quite nicely for macro and portrait. The OSS works well.

 

The are three draw-backs. The biggest for me is that the photos lack a bit of 3D pop compared to other lenses. But I'm used to T* coated Sony Zeiss lenses, so that may be a nit-pick. Second is that the lens is big and heavy compared to the camera. Not a biggie, you carry it by the lens.

Third draw-back is the lack of wide aperture shooting. The lens stops down as soon as you touch the zoom ring. OSS and a short minimum focus distance does make up for it (low light/bokeh) a bit but not fully.

 

So, in summary, if you do a lot of walk-around photography, the 18-200 will be your friend.

[seuadr]

Thanks for the insight.

 

I do indeed mostly do walk around.

 

The lens doesn't seem much larger (though obviously heavier) than the 55-210 which is no problem.

 

I really like my 28-70, but wish it was longer. I also really like my 55-210 but when walking around wish it was wider often.

 

I swap between the two a lot more than i want... So the 18-200 seems like an excellent solution.

 

I will likely keep my sigma primes and the 16/2.8 to fill in for low light duties, perhaps the kit 16-50 as well. Between the 28-70 and the 55-210 i can pretty much have no new capital outlay for a used 18-200 of any vintage.

 

What are your thoughts on original vs LE?

 

Have you had any of the zoom creep on the original?

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The original is optically superior, so The LE was never an option for me.

 

It has zoom creep (more like zoom dash) but the zoom lock takes care of that.

[seuadr]

Fair enough. Now i just gotta find one for a good price. Seems that the LE and the original are about the same price - if the LE was significantly cheaper, i might go for that.. i don't care about the size, it doesn't appear to be that much larger than the 55-210, which i don't mind at all size wise. Sure, it will be heavier, but i'm not really concerned about that.

[seuadr]

Thanks again for your help, Jaf-Photo. I am on the prowl for a used "original" lens.

 

I am probably going to get rid of everything but my sigma 30 and 16-50 pancake. I really like the PZ for a pocket camera lens - the IQ might not be amazing, but it is really, really convenient. Afterall, the camera that takes the best pictures is the one you have on you.

 

Regards,

 

Jared

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Sounds Good. I bought mine used and got it at a very good price, about half the price of a new LE version.