--
Well-known
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
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
Bugleone
Established
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.
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.
--
Well-known
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
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
peterm1
Veteran
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.
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.
Last edited:
Bugleone
Established
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.
uhoh7
Veteran
I haven't peeped but the 18200 is a good lens
here's a set with full size
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55299472@N07/sets/72157627101543277/with/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.
here's a set with full size
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55299472@N07/sets/72157627101543277/with/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.
FPjohn
Well-known
grainhound
Well-known
In case you haven't checked already: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html
Ronald M
Veteran
Buy a 55/200 VR to go with the kit lens. You will be better off.
FPjohn
Well-known
--
Well-known
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.
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.
burancap
Veteran
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!
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!
--
Well-known
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
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
burancap
Veteran
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.
burancap
Veteran
I was in a rush... Weekend is coming!!!
I just bought a body only, plus a Rainbow M adapter - will be here tomorrow!
After some fun, I will dig back into the kit lens idea -perhaps sourcing the seemingly better 18-200.
Thanks again!
I just bought a body only, plus a Rainbow M adapter - will be here tomorrow!
After some fun, I will dig back into the kit lens idea -perhaps sourcing the seemingly better 18-200.
Thanks again!
flyalf
Well-known
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.
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.
--
Well-known
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
uhoh7
Veteran
1855 between 24-30mm is sharp in daylight.
All of the sony lenses, except the primes, have their sweet spots.
All of the sony lenses, except the primes, have their sweet spots.