A comparison of the SAL 18-55 with SAL 18-135 and 18-250 SAL is of course a comparison of apples and oranges, because the SAL 18-135 around 300 euros and the SAL 18-250 are around 450 euros more expensive. Nevertheless, he likes one or the other to ask if it makes sense to buy the same kit with the 18-135 or 18-250 to 18-55 this or to buy it. Here's my impression:
2. The SAL 1855
Pro 18-55:
- Very cost effective
- Kit with 18-55 and 55-200 are still cheaper than the kit with the 18-135 alone
- Can be combined for even greater focal length very well with the new 55-300, the LT test should be significantly better than the 55-200..
- With more than 200 gr only half as heavy as the 18-135
-. Lt tests extreme, low ghosting and flaring (during 1855-2 is supplied with the A58, be better again). In that regard, it does not hurt that the lens hood is included
Contra 18-55:
- Sharpness increases from the image center than with clearer from 18-135
- Smaller zoom range (equivalent to 27 to 82.5 at small image)
2. The SAL 18-135
Pro 18-135
- Feels much as 18-55 valent
- Better across the board picture quality than 18-55 (test shots on 18, 35 and 55 show, in particular in the corners at 18-55 significantly shallower than the 18-135) - in a test of Kurt Munger established, relatively strong blur in the corners I could not reproduce in my tests. Maybe he caught a bad copy.
- In the range 18-135 also clearly better image quality than 18-250
- Zommbereich 55-135 comes to (ie on small image level equivalent to around the range from 82.5 to 202.5)
- DMF (Direct Manuel Focussing, ie you can after the AF has focused button pressed halfway, readjust nanuell without lens and body before switching from AF to MF)
- Despite nominally equal intensity seemed the 18-135 in real life even brighter than 18-55 or 18-250 and accordingly produced a little less noise in low light
- Lens hood incl.
- No lens change necessary (I once had a set that roughly the set of 18-55 and 55-200 corresponded, but the 55-200 practically never used because it was too troublesome to drag it and to change the lenses)
- Made in Japan (the other two are made in China)
Contra 18-135:
- Price
- Twice as much as 18-55
- Some users report problems focusing (AF stuttering) at the telephoto end (ME but not as dramatic for some back and forth the AF has always worked, and you can manually intervene)
- No lens distortion correction more than 18-55, especially in wide angle, but which are very well corrected by the lens correction of the A57
- A little more zoom range would be nice, other travel zooms up to 200, 250 or 270
3. The SAL 18-250
Pro 18-250:
- Significantly valent as 18-55, 18-135 similar (although not made in Japan)
- Large focal range (equivalent to 27-375 in small picture)
- Focus in the range 18 - 55 significantly better than 18-55
- Despite double zoom range is not larger and heavier than imperceptibly 18-135
Contra 18-250
- Price even higher than 18-135
- Twice as much as 18-55
- AF louder than the 18-135 (not so nice for video recording)
- A bit dated (no SAM engine, no DMF)
4. Comparison of image quality:
In general, the color fidelity was good for all three lenses. The distortions were the 18-55 lowest and the 18-250 most. Anyone who has a camera with lens correction as the A57, but in order to live, because these distortions quite effectively eliminated.
The following applies to focus my impression:
18 mm: Centre: 18-135> 18-250> 18-55 (18-135 and 18-250 close beeinander), image corners: 18-135 = 18-250> 18-55
35 mm: Centre: 18-135 = 18-250> 18-55, image corners: 18-135> 18-250 = 18-55
55 mm: Centre: 18-135> 18-250> 18-55, image corners: 18-135> 18-250 = 18-55
55-135 mm. Both lenses allow at normal magnification sharp images that are toward the corners a little fuzzier, but if you look at the picture in more detail, especially on PC enlarges the image, you can see a significantly better resolution of SAL 18-135 , with which the images are also bright.
135-250 mm: here the SAL 18-250 is strictly speaking alone. However, you can by a digitally enhanced zoom in some Sony cameras (Clear Zoom), digital expand the reach. It is not simply reduces the resolution, but by interpolation achieved in comparison to the normal digital zoom significantly better picture, which is more than sufficient for normal magnifications.
Interestingly, the photographs of 18-250 in this area are no better across the board than the digital-zoomed pictures of 18-135. In flash photography, the images of 18-250 are better resolved and reveal finer structures. When shooting outdoors at slightly lower light, however, the recordings with the 18-135 and Clear Zoom seemed sharper and more defined than at full level of the optical zoom with the pictures 18-250-made, even when magnified on the screen details.
5. Which lens or kit should I buy?
a) First thing first: Why at all Sony lenses?
There are good lenses from Sigma and Tamron, which are cheaper than the Sony lenses. Nevertheless, I would buy Sony lenses because of this a lens correction (distortion, vignetting, CA) is on offer, while foreign lenses are supported in this respect at best by chance (the Tamron 18-250 is probably largely identical to the SAL 18-250 and is of the cameras can be recognized as such, how to read). Those who want to save money and make a little more work, can of course also purchase a third-party lens, and make the necessary corrections then subsequently with Adobe Lightroom. Mir is the Zeiersparnis important. Those who work with RAW Material, the corrections must always make my Lightroom, because the in-camera adjustments relate only JPEG.
b) "I've had enough of the zoom range of 18-55"
In my experience, 18-55, although the image quality worse than the 18-135, but the quality of 18-55 is very fine if you do not see the images directly, enlarged compared to the other lenses. Even with the 18-55, the camera (an A57 with me) shoot very good photos. It therefore "sufficient" only once, since the set of camera plus 18-55 is often cheaper than the body alone.
However you need when you later but a 18-135 or 18-250 buys that 18-55 actually no more than that the two "large" lenses offer by the Bank better picture quality than the 18-55. Who buys a 18-250 as a second objective, can the 18-55 but well wg. use of quieter AF for video shoots. As far as the low weight is certainly an advantage.
c) "I want a lens with telephoto"
aa) "I extend 135 mm (202.5 mm small picture)"
Clear message: Kit with 18-135 purchase. Advantage: significant price advantage over kit with 18-55 plus 18-135. Better picture quality than 18-250 (and certainly than 18-55).
bb) "I extend 135 mm not"
In this case, it makes little sense in any case, the owning 18-135 and 18-250 parallel. Here are four options:
(1) low cost: purchase the kit with 18-55 and 55-200. This is certainly the cheapest alternative, but also with the lowest picture quality. In addition, many (like me) the lens change troublesome, so that one hardly used the telephoto zoom.
Purchase the kit with the 18-55 and 55-300 to buy (this is new and after various tests significantly better than the 55-200 and the zoom range as the 18-250): (2) maximum image quality in zoom range. However, the image quality is then in the range 18-55 significantly worse than that of the 18-135 and also than the 18-250. In addition, there remains a need of the lens changes.
(3) maximum comfort and great optical focal length: buy the kit with the 18-55, the 18-55 use because of the quieter AF for video and otherwise the 18-250 can be bought as "always on" lens (increasing the range of this lens then with Clear Zoom, if you like, even to 500 mm = 750 mm KB-format).
(4) the maximum comfort and zoom the 18-135: purchase the kit with the 18-135 and use a zoom enlargement Clear Zoom technology (eg A57), that is, the digital focal length extension: Here you can - with still good Quality - extend the focal length by a factor of 2 (ie in quasi 270).
6. My choice: The kit with the 18-135.
Most of the pictures that I make, are in the range 18-100 (27-150 mm film equivalent). Telephoto I use quite rare. In this area which is 18-135 clearly presented the best optics of the three here. Although the telephoto range of 18-135 is a bit short, but if I still need more time, I would expand digitally Clear Zoom. The achievable only with the 18-250 per Clear zoom range between 250 and 500 mm I do not need. For me, therefore, the kit with the 18-135 is the best choice.
Decisive was the image quality. But it's also nice that you can save a little. While it is at the A57 330 euros more expensive than the kit with the 18-55, but still around 190 euros cheaper than the set of kit 18-55 plus 18-250. That's enough almost for a bright fixed focal length for shooting at dusk without flash (SAL 35F18) that I have to buy at Amazon for 207 Euro (which is currently not available but will soon take back).
Who the SAL 18-250 already has, receives from this a very decent image quality, so that an additional purchase of the 18-135 does not pay in this case, in my opinion.
If you only have a 18-55, should the acquisition of 18-135 are considering if the money is there. There is the object OVP Amazon and about 15% cheaper ("bulk", ie taken out of camera kits and sold separately) in the Amazon Marketplace.
