Replace Kit Lens (warning, Sony content)

[Bing o]

OK, so I took the leap and bought an a55 which came with a kit lens, and I bought a better zoom lens (which is brilliant).

I'm not overly happy with the kit lens - its this one:

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet...

I want something with a bit more zoom, and a faster aperture fopr shooting sports without blur (golf/football).

Would this be a better option?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-optical-stabilisatio...

[RobDickinson]

Its only f2.8 at the very wide end, tho f4 is a stop better than your kit lens.

You dont need the OS variant either.

[Bing o]

Would this be better I'm very tempted....

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet...

[RobDickinson]

A 135/1.8 would be superb if you can frame the subject.

Sigma make a 50-150f2.8 which is good , not sur eitsin alpha mount, and I dont know what else is realy alternatives.

whats your longer zoom?

[Bing o]

RobDickinson said:

A 135/1.8 would be superb if you can frame the subject.

Sigma make a 50-150f2.8 which is good , not sur eitsin alpha mount, and I dont know what else is realy alternatives.

whats your longer zoom?

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11035733

Takes some cracking pics.

[onomatopoeia]

So it seems you've got an 18-55 and 75-300. You're happy with the 75-300, and want something faster and with more reach to replace the 18-55.

Generally the short lens isn't going to be much good for football as you will be too far away, one of the 'standard' sports lenses is a 70-200/2.8 as these are always made to be fast focusing, sharp wide open etc, but you already have that focal length covered with your 75-300. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is faster and well regarded, but doesn't give you the extra reach that you want. The Sony 16-80/3.5-4.5 Zeiss lens is superb for something that zooms 5x (still have mine, it's the last crop lens that I haven't sold), has enough reach to overlap a little with your other lens, but isn't much faster aperture than what you have, it will be f/4 or 4.5 by the time it gets to the 55m max of your current lens.

Have an explore here : http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp?IDLensType...
It lists pretty much every zoom ever made in A mount. I don't think there are any 4 to 5 times zoom lenses that are constant f/2.8, didn't check them all though.

Oh and the Zeiss 135/1.8 mentioned above is quite the most wonderful thing you could ever attach to a camera. But while the autofocus is spot on, it doesn't focus that quickly (may be a problem for sports), does not zoom and sits in the range covered by your 75-300, not in the range covered by the 18-55 kit that you were looking to replace. This means it's applications are almost confined to static subjects where you can move to frame the shot.


I'd say you need to be clearer exactly what you want to do with the new lens.

[Monty Python]

It depends how close you want to get to the action. I use a 170-500 Sigma zoom for motorsport, and a car is a lot bigger than a person.

[onomatopoeia]

Depends on venue and degree of access, of course. At Llandow 70mm on full frame is sometimes too much.

[Cabinet Enforcer]

RobDickinson said:

Its only f2.8 at the very wide end, tho f4 is a stop better than your kit lens.

You dont need the OS variant either.

The older non-OS type wasn't as good optically, and was a tad slower at the long end (4.5).

The new 24-70 2.8 EX is quite tasty, but rather expensive, still a few of the older 24-70 2.8 EX macros floating about, there is a new one from a dealer on evilbay for under £400, or ffordes have a 2nd hand one at 200.

[honest_delboy]

I'm in exactly the same boat as you (A33 owner) have been looking long and hard at the tamron 17-50mm which seems to get good reviews, but also at the 28-75mm. I'm leaning towards the latter mainly because i always seem to come up short(fnar) and i feel i've had good results with the kit lens at the wide end.

Keen to know what your end decision will be.

[MadMullah]

as a fellow sony man

go to dyxum forums and read the lens reviews on there. alot of them have sample pictures too.

[Skodaku]

Another Sonyist here. My Alpha300 came with the kit 18-55 which is fine for me and I bought the Sony 18-250 for motorsport/airshow stuff. Very happy with it and it tends to be the one lens that stays on the camera for most situations..............although the 18-55 gets aired for travelling light in cities - well, lightish. Would like something "faster" but have got to an age of realistically considering Ability + Need vs Wishful Thinking + Want. Quite sobering. Gorilla Pod SLR Zoom "tripod" passed the test and is a great bit of kit within its limitations.

[Bing o]

Bit of a bump - I found this knocking about my Sony camera centre on Orchard Road - took some good pics of moving traffic through glass at a decent distance.

http://www.digitalrev.com/en/sony-sal2875-28-75mm-...

Is there any reason I shouldn't buy this - we took the kit lense to a recent 5-a-side competition (outdoor, but under a roof) and in the gloom it was pretty st to be honest. We also have the F1 coming up (night time, under lights) so want a lense that will do it a bit of justice. The kit lens is fine on a sunny day - I have some cracking golf pics, but under any challenging lighting it goes to pieces.

Or do I have to spend silly money on getting a decent lens for sports? (not that £500 isn't silly money).

[Cabinet Enforcer]

IF 28-75mm is an acceptable focal length, then tamron do an equivalent model which should be about 60% of the price. Comparative review here:
http://www.kurtmunger.com/tamron_sony_28_75mmid141... summary is that the tamron is actually better, despite being cheaper.

[Bing o]

Cabinet Enforcer said:

IF 28-75mm is an acceptable focal length, then tamron do an equivalent model which should be about 60% of the price. Comparative review here:
http://www.kurtmunger.com/tamron_sony_28_75mmid141... summary is that the tamron is actually better, despite being cheaper.

Well, I just picked up the Tamron model at S$660 with filter (vs the Sony S$1250 without), so will have a play tonight when I get home from work. (As a guide that's £330 and £625 respectively). At my skill levels, I can't believe the Sony would be twice as good, but time will tell...Thanks to those of you who proferred opinions.