Which Lense is better?

[edtorious]

I'm in the market for new DSLR lens for my Sony A33 camera and looking in the range minimum of 18 to 28 mm and max range of 200 to 300 mm. Below are couple of items to compare but not sure which one is better or worth it?


1. Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Zoom Lens for Konica Minolta and Sony Digital SLR Cameras - $299

2. Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Lens for Minolta and Sony Digital SLR Cameras - $269

3. Sony DT 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Aspherical ED High Magnification Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Camera - $479

or

4. Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II PZD LD Aspherical IF Macro Zoom Lens with Built in Motor for Sony DSLR Cameras - $649

5. Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM IF Lens for Sony Digital SLR Cameras - $479

6. Sony SAL18250 Alpha DT 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 High Magnification Zoom Lens w/Lens Hood - $648

or

7. Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Ultra Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras - $419

I don't mind spending on the expensive Sony brand but is it worth it? I'm leaning toward the Tamron AF 28-300 so I can get that max 300 mm zoom or maybe the Tamron AF 18-270 mm. But being the Sony fanboy that I am I'm leaning toward the Sony SAL18250 18-250 mm. This is so hard

Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Designer Dale]

I didn't vote because I only have used one of these lenses. I got the Tamron 28-300 with my XSi in '08. It's pretty good as super zooms go. Mine fell into disuse when I got the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Fantastic lens. I traded the 28-300 for a Canon 50mm f/1.4.

Dale

 

[Prodo123]

To be quite honest, all superzooms have distortion and bad-to-average image quality.
Usually price equals image quality. More you pay, the more you get. Considering the price you pay for any of these lenses, you're looking at average quality images.

Out of the bunch I would get the Sony 18-250mm, as I am not a fan of 3rd party lenses. Except Sigma, which occasionally produces good images, most 3rd party lenses cannot catch up to the likes of Nikon, Canon and Zeiss. And the general consensus around the web says that the 18-250mm is a better lens than the 18-200mm.

One thing I will point out. You will not be able to shoot in darkness with any of these lenses. Yes, they are versatile. But they are not very good lenses at all. The largest constant aperture on all these lenses is ƒ/6.3, which is very small. A good telephoto lens with the focal length of 70-200mm and aperture of ƒ/2.8 will let in 5x the amount of light as these lenses. Yes, it is expensive, and yes, it has a shorter focal length. But the image quality will be just as much better and the possibilities you have with this lens expands exponentially.

This telephoto zoom and this standard zoom will give you much, much better quality photos and let you shoot at night while covering mostly the same focal length (24-200).

But again, that setup costs $4000 plus tax...probably out of most people's price range.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't look for the biggest range zoom you can find. A standard zoom and a dedicated telephoto zoom will give you better images than a single superzoom. For the dedicated tele zooms I'd recommend the Sony 55-200mm ƒ/4-5.6 lens, which has lesser variation in aperture and lets in more light, or the 70-300mm ƒ/4.5-5.6. Mind you, these still won't be enough for dark, but it's better than the superzooms.

But if you do want a superzoom, and know you will not regret it, then get the Sony 18-250mm.