Upgrading Lens

[Anbesol]

I currently use the old vintage f4 Minolta lens. The beercan, of course, the prime 50 f1.7 and the 24-50 f4. I love them all and they have all performed brilliantly, but I am tired of trading them out in field, and the 24 isn't anything especially wide. I've been considering both the Sony 18-200 and the 18-250, it looks like their max aperture stays the same throughout (3.5-6.3), but I don't know if the range of the apertures differ between the two. I would be losing my f4 max constant when shooting with these, but it would be a lot more convenient (lightweight, all-in-one). My primary concern of course is quality, will the decrease in quality be very noticable to me? Has anyone in here any experience with these lens? Should I wait for a wide ranged Zeiss lens to hit the market? Will Zeiss be making wide zoom f2.8 or f4 constants in this range? Considering quality overrides the importance of convenience to me though, will the SAL18200 just be disappointing? I will be pairing this with the A700.

isn't it nice not worrying about a lens IS/VR ability

[Canuck935]

Well, it's rumored that the new alpha flagship will be released with a new zoom, but I believe it starts at 24mm so not very wide on a non-FF camera.

You may actually be gaining image quality since lenses like the 18-200 and 18-250 are made to work with digital cameras to reduce flare/ghosting/CA etc. Of course yes you lose the constant f/4. Of the two, the 18-250 is said to have superior image quality to the 18-200. So with the 18-250 you will have good image quality, a greater zoom range, a much wider wide end, and you won't have to change lenses all the time. The cons are the loss of the constant aperture and the incredible bokeh of lenses like the beercan.

[pisco]

David Kilpatrik has a very good article comparing this 2 lenses (+ the Zeiss 16-80 and 16-106) on his webpage (www.photoclubalpha.com). At the bottom there is a chart with aperture @ different zoom levels.

[NoKnees]

Definitely a few options, but there is always some kind of a trade between quality and convenience... For convenience, I have the Tamron 18-250 when I really need a one lens solution. 99% same as Sony model, so they say... The quality is there if you don't mind stopping down to as low as f8 on the zoom end... Close to wide open, things do get a little "soft", but quickly sharpen up with just a stop or two adjustment. Focus speed is just fine on the a700. The slightly older 18-200mm doesn't seem to perform as well in all tests, so I wouldn't look at this one unless the price was really, really good...

If you are looking for a little more quality than convenience, and plan on sticking with the smaller Alpha's, the two lenses mentioned above are pretty good ideas.. The 16-106mm gets some decent reviews. A further step up in quality is the CZ 16-80mm. The build quality sometimes get's a bad rep, but it consistently get's pretty good reviews, and both score extra points for having the extra few MM at the wide end...

Still, it really comes down to what you will be shooting, what kind of conditions, your camera body upgrade plans, and your budget. There really are a lot of lens options out there, so if you have some specifics in mind, you can get some more specific lens recommendations...

I've acquired a few here and there over the last couple years, all on the cheaper side... Can't afford all the nice high-end fast glass options just yet... So, if you are curious about any comparisons on these...

KM 17-35 D, f2.8-4
M 28mm f2.8
M 50mm f1.7
M 28-135mm f3.5-?
M 35-70mm F4 (sticky blades)
M 100mm f2.8 Macro
M 70-210mm f4 "Beercan"
KM 28-75mm f2.8 D (My fav right now)

Tamron 18-250mm f? (best walk-around)

Quantaray 70-300mm (cheap, not used, left over from film days)
Tamron 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 (cheap, not used, left over from film days)

Lens collecting is a disease... be careful..

[Anbesol]

Thank you all for your input!

I think I'm actually going to forgo the wide zoom options of the 18-200 and the 18-250. Quality is just too important to me, and the quality I get out of those old vintage minolta f4's is incredible. What I think is the better option here for me is the CZ 16-80, and the 70300g. I would be really happy if they made some constant f4 zooms like Canon does. I can't justify spending that kind of money on convenience when it would be better applied upgrading quality, which would be the zeiss and the G. I don't think theres a non zeiss or G sony lens that really compares to those old vintage f4's, fabulous stuff.

[NoKnees]

You are absolutely right, there really is nothing in the new lenses that comes close to the midrange Minolta's of the past. It's a bummer, but as long as my old minolta's work, I'll survive....

The closest thing to those great old Minolta's in the new lenses is the new 24-70 2.8.... Can't remember if it's G or Zeis, I only know it's costs more than what I paid for the a700... On the wide end, when they release the new FF they are supposed to have a nice 16-35 or so g lens that should definitely do it justice, but will probably cost an arm and a leg too. There should be a new 24-105mm to go with it as well, but that doesn't help us on the APS-C based cameras...

I do think the CZ 16-80 is a great lens, assuming you don't get a lemon. There were a few early on that didn't match what everyone else was seeing in quality, but for the most part, they are great lenses and offer a tiny bit more on the wide size for the APS-C based cameras. The 70-300g SSM looks and feels phenomenal. Definitely a great tele-zoom. Doesn't quite have the personality of the beercan or the old Minolta APO lenses, but it's sharp, smooth operating, and built well, and not bad bokeh.... Hoping I can grab one for Christmas if the company bonus works out.. .;)

Another one to consider on the wide end if you like the old minolta's and don't grab the CZ lens is the KM 17-35mm f2.8-4 D lens... That's the one I use on the wide end and it can still be picked up for an acceptable price... Not the sharpest wide open, but stopped down it's pretty nice...

Anyway, still happy to have all the old Minolta glass available to use... It seems to age pretty well.....