a better lens, it is one you can use
with at least a one stop advantage
in wide aperture sharpness, and on
average a half-stop gain in speed.
It also produces better differential
focus for portraits, especially
if you use 80mm and ƒ4.5.
The 16-105mm is a dilemma. You
might imagine it would get better
close-ups than the 16-80mm; 35cm
minimum focus at 80mm versus
38cm at 105mm? No! Both cover
roughly 4"/10cm wide at their closest
focus and longest focal length. Both
are beaten by the humble 18-70mm
kit lens which covers 8.5cm wide
at 70mm and its closest focus.
Well, of course the 18-250mm
will do better… but it doesn’t to
the degree you would expect. What
it gives you is a greater work-
ing distance and a little larger
image scale the the 18-70mm.
The higher the figure, the better
for close-ups in this list. We can also
compare the weight, and you’ll see
that going for a shorter range does
not save you grammes for travelling:
SAL 18-70mm 0.25X 235g
CZ 16-80mm 0.24X 445g
SAL 16-105mm 0.23X 470g
SAL 18-200mm 0.27X 405g
SAL 18-250mm 0.29X 440g
The different zoom designs, and
the way they change focal length
when focusing, are responsible. The
super-tele zooms are also much the
same size as the shorter models.
This situation applies to other Practical aspects of your zoom choice: these photographs were
lenses. The tele 55-200mm and taken from the seats of a calishe in Luxor, which drove us illegally
75-300mm low-cost kit lenses through the busy market and got plenty of ‘feedback’ in return.
both manage 0.29X, the 75-300mm Top: using the 16-80mm, David Kilpatrick was able to include
achieving this at 1.5m focus the driver and architecture at 16mm. 18mm would not have
distance. You might imagine the been wide enough. Left: at 30mm, the CZ 16-80mm framed dyes
new 70-300mm SSM would beat this and spices with a smooth depth of field focus transition at ƒ5.6.
comfortably with a 1.2m minimum Above: working with the 18-250mm zoom, Shirley Kilpatrick was
focus. Not so – it only gets 0.25X, better able to get shots of people. This trader was taken at 100mm
because it uses internal focusing focal length, beyond the range of the 16-80mm for such a tight
which changes the real focal length. composition.
If you want those flowers, insects,
cat’s eyes, coins, stamps or anything
Actual apertures of zooms across their range
else close-up the 18-250mm is the
best choice you can make short This is a 3D graph and all the lines start at 0 which represents ƒ3.5, the lowest actual value is -1.66 stops from full
of buying a dedicated macro lens. aperture. The real decrease in maximum aperture is a smooth transition, these are the values reported by the camera.
No non-macro lens made in the Á 16-80mm CZ Á 16-105mm SAL Á 18-250mm SAL Á 18-200mm SAL Á 18-70mm SAL
entire Sony range – not the 135mm
ƒ1.8, 70-200mm ƒ2.8, 24-70mm
ƒ2.8, 50mm ƒ1.4 – can match the
18-250mm or the lower cost kit
tele lenses for close-ups. Beware
the 24-105mm, which has about
the worst close-up capability of any
standard zoom at 0.18X and will
be less than impressive on a full
frame DSLR when that arrives!
Hopefully, these comments
and facts will help you choose
the best kit lens or replace-
ment for older lenses.
– David Kilpatrick
Á
photoworld 26
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34