Hello people, I'd really appreciate your opinions here. I've got a Sony alpha 77 with 16-50 lense and love it. I tend to take portrait kind of pics. Nevertheless, it would be great to receive some advice about tele-photo lenses. My poor pocket disagrees with the luxury options but I've also heard that Tamron ones are of poor quality. The idea is to have a versatile camera so that I can travel and take pics both of people and places, being able to zoom in a statue detail as well as take a general picture. Help!

Hi Olga,

 

First question, which focal lengths, would you like your new lens to cover? I understand that you want it as an addition to your 16-50, right? so something like a 70-200 or 70-300, not a travel-zoom?

 

I think the Tamron SP 70-300 Di USD is actually a very good lens for the money (at least for the money you have to pay for it here in Europe). It is of course no G in build-quality and operation, but it is not really inferior to the Sony 70-300 G in image quality...

An even cheaper option which also delivers good image quality is the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro, but that one is not very well built. I use mine a lot, especially because it is very light weight, but i had it break two times in about 2 years (both times the AF in the lens broke), Sigma replaced the lens both times though. AF is also slower than the Tamron.

Lots of people also like the Minolta 70-210 f4 ("Beercan"), which can be had for very little money nowadays, but i did not like it that much. Very strong CAs at f4 and wierd color shifts (green in one part of the image, magenta in another) in high contrast situations...

The Minolta 100-300 D APO and the "big beercan" (Minolta 75-300) are also supposed to be good, but i never had one of them.

The Minolta and Sony 80-200 and 70-200 G options are all very, very good, but also very expensive, i guess those are the ones you are referring to as luxury options...

Thank you so much Lorenzo, your answer's been very useful :) I've tried Tamron 18-270 and though it's a nice option, coming from Sony 16-50 I find it slow in focusing. The one I like a lot is Sony 70-400 but I should both gow an extra biceps (it's bloody heavy) and an exra wallet XD Will try the lenses you mention, lets see how it goes :) My problem is that I usually take pictures of people and in this sense 16-50 is perfect but when one wants to travel, you just need a bit of zoom. I hate carrying lots of luggage and weight so the idea is to find a 4 -wheel -drive-lense I could use for virtually everything while on holidays :)) Thanks a lot again.

Well, if you want to REPLACE your 16-50 with a lens that also covers the 200/300mm telephoto range, there are only relatively "sloppy" options, like the Tamron you mentioned.

I thought you wanted a telezoom as companion for the very good 16-50.

In my opinion there are only two lenses for Sony which cover a significantly longer focal range than your 16-50, start at a relatively wide angle and still deliver great image quality, the Sony 16-105 or the 18-135. I only had the 16-105, but the 18-135 is supposed to be as good (or even a bit better) considering the image quality. Both cover useful ranges on apsc, but of course not close to 200mm and are also not that fast...

Thanks again, Lorenzo. It's not that I want to REPLACE the lense, I'll combine both while in my country. Now, travelling somewhere and strolling around all the day long with 2 lenses – not my cup of tea. I know, one you sink in the reflex world, you must grow some muscles and patience. But I'm a lazy and pocket size woman XD Thanks a lot, you've given me some options to think of.

 

Choice depends on whether you want strong arms or strong leg. Don't automatically buy into the hype that big heavy zoom lenses are the best or even the preferable way to approach photography. That's mostly what the manufactures want you to believe, but it's far from a universal truth.

 

I have much stronger legs than arms!

Thanks Clyde. After thinking it over and over again (and testing my poor hubby's patience), I've come to a conclusion that the best gear is one own's brain. I'll probably try tamron 18-270. Nevertheless, it's how one educates one's sight and brain that matters. Honestly, I think that I've been spending too much money and not enough brain energy :) It is probably just the way to become a better photographer.

Do you own any prime lenses? They are far better for me personally. Using a prime lens or two at the most on any given day, helps me to study the subject and surrounding more.

noooo, but I've got an incredibly long Santa Claus wish list XD

 

Then I recommend a 50mm prime and a couple of months or maybe a 135. I use those two and a 20mm the most. Most of my primes are older Nikon manual focus. But I shoot manual focus and manual exposure most of the time anyway. The quality of these lenses is exceptional, better than even the expensive Nikon "Pro" zooms.

The Sony DT 50mm 1.8 SAM is actually a nice and inexpensive prime which is quite good... and there are lots of great old minolta lenses floating around as well...

 

First place on my list, Lorenzo :D Taken into consiideration, I almost always take portrait pics - it's a babe I'm after :D