Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If you're going with the Alpha 100, and looking for a good, all-in-one design, then look no further.

Built specifically for digital, this is the Konica-Minolta 18-200 lens repackaged for the Sony, which included a bit of restyling. Optically, this is a solid performer. It's not cutting edge technology, and won't hold up to the rigors of professional photojournalism, but it's small, lightweight, and give you a tremendous zoom range.

Even with the Alpha's anti-dust technology, it's still best to keep the dust out in the first place. There's no better way than to minimize the changing of lenses.

For other options, look at the Tamron 18-200 for Maxxum mount (which Sony has adopted as the Alpha mount). Yes, the two lenses do look VERY similar! If you're wanting more top-end range, look at the Tamron 28-300. This latter lens might be the best option if you've already picked up the Sony 18-70 with the kit.

If you're ordering it now, you won't need the "kit" 18-70 zoom, but make sure the body only configuration is available.

I spent five hours yesterday comparing pictures from this lens (which I thought would be markedly inferior) on a Sony A100 with those from a friend's Nikon D200 ($1,400 today) with a 70-200mm f2.8 lens ($2,000). I had decided to sell my setup and spend the money on the Nikon to get the additional sharpness I thought it had and was just doing the test to be sure. I'm glad I did because I got a surprise.

We set up the cameras one after the other on the same tripod, in the same position, in the same lighting, shot the same object, both used spot focus, controlled ASA and aperture plus used automatic, shot at 70mm and 200mm and then compared 100% crops of pictures from both. Using 100% crops to compare is a severe test.

A 100% crop is looking at a portion of an image displayed on a monitor when the picture is allowed to scroll way off the screen. That way, rather than looking at a 3872 x 2592 pixel image squeezed into perhaps a 5"x7" print which would be VERY sharp, you're looking at the image at whatever screen resolution is set for your computer monitor (to see your setting right click an empty portion of your desktop, then select Properties, Settings). Mine is set to 1024x768. That means I use the entire width of my monitor, which is 15.4" diagonally and thus maybe 13" across, to display 1024 pixels. So the above image would be displayed about 50" wide or seven times magnification of that 5x7, a very high magnification.

The upshot of all this is that most crops, flipping back and forth repeatedly from one to the other and trying to see differences in the fuzz of the weave of a pillow as photographed from across the room (no kidding), were virtually the same. I'm no professional, but I've been into amateur photography for 45 years or so and I'm telling you, that for all practical purposes these two lenses produce the same pictures... when taken at the same apertures and focal lengths (zooms). His lens will open up to f2.8 in its entire range, allowing him to take a picture without a flash when I could not since mine cannot open up as much, and not nearly as much at 200mm where I can only get f6.3. I don't mind using a flash, but its limited aperture when zoomed is one of the things responsible for this lens' relatively low price.

Also, and I think this is important, there is a significant difference in how zoomed the lenses really are when each says it is zoomed to 200mm. By that I mean that in pictures of the same object taken at the same resolution and distance with both fully zoomed to 200mm, a throw pillow that filled his entire image side to side only filled 2/3 of mine. I conclude that this lens does not actually zoom to 200mm, but to something less I blame this lens for being deficient rather than the Nikon being better because I figure Nikon would brag about it if their lens zoomed to more than 200mm. That is a significant deficiency in my opinion and why I withheld one star. False advertising.

FOR THE MONEY, and considering that I think camera lenses in general are hideously overpriced, I'd say this lens offers a remarkable value. You get one lens that you can leave on the camera at all times, never having to buy any other lenses or tote them in a big heavy bag or change them and maybe miss a picture, that's very light and short compared to other lenses, and that produces pictures whose resolution is within a whisker of much more expensive lenses if you can accept its smaller maximum aperture. For four times the money I'll use a flash if I can have all the above advantages.

I'd say get one. The reviews that talk about this lens being a little soft (blurry) at all lengths are based on comparisons by professionals using a magnifying glass. I thought the differences would be significant to my rather critical eye, but they are not. I'm keeping mine.

As a professional landscape photographer who feels compelled to carry a wide variety of lenses, I found this lens has helped me lighten my carry on case. This is a versitile lens that provides fine steady quality under most landscape conditions. It replaces 3 lenses that I used to carry on my travels. The reproduction quality that I get from most enlargements from my new alpha 700 with this lens is top quality. As others note, I wish it had sturdier materials but if it gets banged up, it is reasonably inexpensive to replace. If you add a set of macro filters, it does a great macro job on flora. You will find that on most shoots, you will likely use this lens over 75% of the time. That helps keep the dust and dirt from getting on the sensor when you change more frequently as I used to do.

I got this lens as a kit with an A700 in August, 2009. It was a used kit, which saved me a few bucks, and everything appeared perfectly new. I've taken this lens around the world (always taking it carry-on on aircraft), hiked with it, taken it on motorcycle trips in a holster and in a holster in a saddlebag. It's a very practical one-lens solution for trips; even when I've also brought a fast prime along, I've usually just used the 18-200 for almost everything.

The image quality has been quite good when I've done my part. I wouldn't say I've ever mistreated this lens. After about 9 or 10 months of use, the rubber on the zoom ring started to bubble. Then, a couple of weeks after I'd had it for one year, the lens would no longer zoom all the way out to 18mm. The zoom ring has seemed to stick once or twice, but it never actually stuck until now. Sony says $135 to fix it, and really I'm not sure if this lens is worth fixing. That's probably the most important sentence in the review, right there.

If you can spend a bit more, I've done a little shooting with an 18-250, and it's obviously a higher quality lens, both in terms of image quality and the quality of the construction. The 18-200 has a plastic mount. The 18-250 has a metal mount. If you need to spend a bit less, the 18-55 has better reviews than the 18-200, and costs much less, so if you use the wider end of the zoom range most, consider that one instead of this.

Perhaps this review is colored by the fact that I got the repair quote today, but I've done my best to present the facts in an impartial manner.

This lens is perfect for general use. Sony is often criticized for its lack of professional lens, but this one is rock solid and produces excellent images at all ranges (18 mm to 200 mm). While it's not a Carl Zeiss glass Sony-branded lens, it's nontheless a Sony product and you can't beat this price! You won't be disappointed.

As an oldtime Minolta 35mm photographer, I was excited when Sony took over the brand because I thought all my old lenses would have a new lease of life. But that didn't happen - about three years ago I purchased the 18-200mm Sony zoom with an A100 and shot comparisons with my Minolta AF lenses. Results looked identical or the Sony lens was better in some cases which meant that all my old Minolta lenses stayed in storage. So for the next year or so I only ever traveled with one camera and one lens - for the first time in my life. The 18/200 lens was a fantastic creative tool and very reliable but after a while I started to find its limitations. It's slow, and even with the in-camera stabilization of the A350, low light shots were disappointing. Some reviewers report high noise problems at relatively low ISO, but I very rarely get visible noise in pictures because I don't shoot in the dark with this lens. I started being more critical in reviewing my photos and had to admit that edge sharpness wasn't perfect with chromatic aberration and flare in highlights, although this was usually only apparent at print sizes above letter or A4. I decided to go back to basics - carrying prime lenses around instead of zooms. I bought a Sony 50mm f1.4 to start, which is an absolutely amazing lens. Obviously very fast, but tonally accurate at any aperture and razor sharp. Only problem is that not every photo I want to take, fits into a 50mm focal length, which is I think equivalent to about 75mm in 35mm full frame. The difference between the stated focal length of a lens and actual focal length on a digital camera is to do with the size of the sensor, and as each brand and even each model have varying sized sensors, it's difficult to be certain.
[In case you never shot 35mm, the actual negative "full frame" size is 24mm x 36mm which gives a diagonal of 43mm - the so-called "normal" equivalent of a human eye's coverage, ignoring peripheral vision. Photographers decided that around 50mm was normal, so anything lower than that became a wider angle, anything higher was a telephoto. But digital sensors come in many sizes all the way up to "full frame" which means the diagonal changes too. So a 50mm "normal" lens will be a telephoto on a digital camera if the diagonal of its sensor is say, 30mm. The actual distance that a light ray travels from the front element of the lens to the sensor or film plane, gives you the focal length of a lens. Zoom lenses vary focal lengths by moving lens elements, mirror telephotos by bouncing light backwards and forwards inside the lens housing. If you divide the focal length of a lens by the diameter of the front element, you'll get the f stop, which is why "fast" lenses have wide front elements. Slow zoom lenses like the Sony 18/200 sacrifice a fast f stop for smaller, lighter optics].
Although the 50mm f1.4 is so sharp, I was still itching for the creative framing freedom of the 18/200 zoom. So now I'm back to the bad old days - I carry around an A100 with the 50mm Sony attached, and in my bag I have an A350 with a Sigma 28/70 f2.8 zoom, a Sony 11/18 f4.5/5.6 zoom together with the big gun - the expensive and very heavy, but truly extraordinary Sony G series 70/200mm f2.8 zoom. So now I can take sharp photographs of almost anything in semi-darkness if required, but I'm lugging about 6 kilos of gear. My wife thinks I'm crazy - she likes using the Sony camera, so now she has her own A350 with my old 18/200 lens and is very happy with the results. In the end it depends what sort of a photographer you are, and what you do with the photos. I'm carrying a big bag of tricks that will photograph anything to a very high standard - but it's not very convenient on vacation ! The Sony 18/200 zoom is not up to professional standard, but for the price, performance and convenience it's hard to beat for everyday use.

Although I am pretty much an novice to the digital camera world , I must say that this lense is the perfect lense for just about any need for the every day camera person . It also is nicely compact and not to heavy which is what I was concerned about . I give this lense a 5 star rating and highly recommend it .

the competitiona lenses are so much more expensive that I was afraid to purchase this lens. Much to my surprise this lens is really sharp. The added benefit of the zoom and sharp to the end is the + in this lens. Buy it!

Very handy Lens - instead of switching between 18-70 mm and 70-300 mm lens all the time - this substitutes the need for most commonly photo shoots. Not bulky - and very good quality.

Purchased this lens prior to my trip to Mexico and very glad I did. I'm still new to Digital SLR so technically, I can't elaborate but I will say that not having to carry three lenses with me on my photo shoots was awesome! I could attach this lens, pocket a couple of filters and shoulder the camera as I hit the beach or the nature trails of Playa del Carmen. This was certainly one of the best investments I ever made. Consider the 62mm 1-A filter for general purpose and protection and also the UV and Circular Polarizer filters for outdoor use. My photos have been phenominal and the rave reviews from friends makes me know that in spite of my pro skills with the camera, the lens is making up for it! A must have for Sony Alpha Owners or as in my case, the Minolta Maxxum 5D.