1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Any Room for a kit 16-50 PZ when I already own a Tamron 18-200? Is a fast prime a better Idea.

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by scottiebumich, Jul 22, 2013.

  1. scottiebumich

    scottiebumich New to TalkEmount

    8
    Jul 22, 2013
    Philadelphia, PA
    Scott B
    I would love to hear everyone(s) opinions and/or experience on having both the kit 16-50 kit and Tamron 18-200 super zoom:

    I've been using a 5n for a few years and recently purchased a 6 (integrated flash and EVF was what did it). The Nex 6, which I got off eBay, came with the new 16-50 PZ lens. I've been using the Tamron 18-200 exclusively (~95%) and have 3 high-grade filters for that lens - 62mm.

    My thoughts are this, "would I benefit more from keeping the oh-so-pocket-able" 16-50 along with my Tamron and get a step-up ring for the filters or from selling the 16-50 PZ and using that money for a fast prime? I take my camera everywhere I go (mostly) and just enjoy taking photos. However I can see the benefits of having a smaller zoom lens as well as a fast prime. It's hard to give up the small form of the kit lens, but it's also very tempting to get a fast prime to improve low-light shots. I live in down town Philly and the Tamron just gives poor Bar / indoor shots (damn flash is clipped by tip of lens). I would want the prime to be 1.8 and versatile enough to serve as a walking around lens and be fairly small in size.

    I'm very conflicted and would love some feedback/suggestions. Also, I have MANY hobbies and I am not looking to start a large collection of lenses so this is more of an either-or sort of decision.

    Thanks in advance for all your help.

    Thanks,
    Scott
     
  2. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    Do you need the smaller size package, or does the 18-200 fit the bill? If you're happy with the IQ you're getting with the 18-200 then get a fast prime.

    And I didn't vote because I don't have either lens. ;)
     
  3. scottiebumich

    scottiebumich New to TalkEmount

    8
    Jul 22, 2013
    Philadelphia, PA
    Scott B
    So I don't really mind the larger 18-200-when it's coupled to the small nex size it's still very transportable. IQ on the 18-200 and 16-50 seem comparable (each have their VERY minor weaknesses). I am leaning towards a fast prime, but Sony did SUCH a great job designing this that its small form is hard to give up. I am trying to run through scenarios where I would use the 16-50 because of it's size but I guess If the prime had a small profile I would accomplish the same with that?
     
  4. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    I would think so.
     
  5. Jazzer

    Jazzer TalkEmount Veteran

    344
    Nov 6, 2012
    New York
    Larry
    If you find yourself using the 18-200 almost all of the time and its size and weight doesn't bother you to use it as your primary walk around/always with you lens, then the fast prime probably makes sense. That said, have you spent sufficient time using the 16-50? If so, do you find yourself often missing the extra focal length of the 18-200 or are most of your shots in the 16-50 range? You said you had a 5n for a few years. How often did you find the need for a faster lens?

    I know you you said this is sort of an either-or decision, but the 16-50 is small and you probably don't want to find yourself having sold it and then wishing you hadn't. Assuming money is not the issue, owning three lenses for an interchangeable lens camera is not extreme and you can always sell a lens later, as they tend to retain their value fairly well. My thought is to use what you have, buy a fast prime if you think you would want to use it in enough situations to warrant the purchase and if you find that you just aren't using the 16-50, then sell it. You may very well find that a walk around prime and the 18-200 is all that you need/want. But I would be careful about making that decision without actually testing the assumption.

    This is sort of what I am doing. Like you, I really didn't have a desire to have a huge lens collection. Nonetheless, I seem to have acquired several. I now have the kit zoom and the 55-210 as well as 3 primes of different focal lengths, one of which is a manual lens (still a small collection by the standards of many on the forum). I don't know that I will keep them all, but I figured the only way to figure out my needs and desires is by trying out different things and seeing what I gravitate towards.

    Just my 2 cents.
     
  6. scottiebumich

    scottiebumich New to TalkEmount

    8
    Jul 22, 2013
    Philadelphia, PA
    Scott B
    Thanks Jazzer,

    You are absolutely right in everything you said. I probably could ditch the super zoom and not miss the 50+ focal length (and just buy the 55-210). But when I bought the Tamron it would have been the 18-55 + 55-210 and since neither of those lenses were extremely small the Tamron just made sense. Now I have high quality filters for them and I feel committed to keeping them. I really do appreciate your input.

    I have my father's old Vivitar lenses (which are great), but with the adapter in place the camera becomes rather large.
     
  7. Jazzer

    Jazzer TalkEmount Veteran

    344
    Nov 6, 2012
    New York
    Larry
    The 18-200 is very convenient and great for traveling also. It's nice to have the convenience of not having to change the lens. I bought the 16-50 and 55-210 as a bundle when I purchased my NEX 6. There are times, however, that an 18-200 would really be convenient, though. It's all trade-offs, unfortunately and that, I guess, is why people wind up with a variety of lenses.
     
  8. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    I use the 16-50 a lot, but a fast prime is so useful in a variety of situations, that it's almost a must-have in your camera bag, IMO.
     
  9. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
  10. gio

    gio TalkEmount Veteran

    382
    Sep 12, 2012
    Manchester, uk
    keep them both, the 16-50 for near pocketability, family functions,theatres, dinners, where the longer lens is not allowed and generally on holiday at night etc
     
  11. scottiebumich

    scottiebumich New to TalkEmount

    8
    Jul 22, 2013
    Philadelphia, PA
    Scott B
    Does anyone else have both the kit 16-50 lens and the 18-200 (smaller version) lens? When do you find yourself using each camera? How would you compare their strengths / weaknesses?
     
  12. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    916
    Aug 22, 2012
    I had, at one point in time, the kit 18-55 and the 18-200LE, and basically found the 18-55 redundant. The 18-200 even had better IQ to my eyes, and there was little the kit lens could do that the LE couldn't. Nowadays my perfect travel-lite combo is the LE + 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 depending on what I think will be my focus. Been on quite a few trips with just two lenses and never felt like I was missing out.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
     
  13. scottiebumich

    scottiebumich New to TalkEmount

    8
    Jul 22, 2013
    Philadelphia, PA
    Scott B
    Thanks quezra - I actually purchased the LE and sold my 18-55 kit lens b/c it was redundant. Now that I 'inherited' the 16-50 I have the same idea...selling the kit lens. I think selling the 16-50 for $160-$180 and purchasing the SEL35F18 may be the best option?

    The smallness of the 16-50 does make it VERY easy to throw the camera in my girlfriend's purse though.
     
  14. Dynamac

    Dynamac New to TalkEmount

    3
    Jul 24, 2013
    The 18200 is a very versatile lens for traveling and being the all in 1. They are lens for very different situations and if I were you I'd keep both. I have the Sony 18200 and 1650 and I use the 1650 more because it is more portable (the size is so noticeable), but the 18200 is much more useful on holiday. If you must have 1 or the other, as the 1650 isn't any faster I would keep the 1650 only if you find you really don't need to 50+ and like the portability. Further I also recently got my hands on the the 35F18 and it has simply become my most loved lens, I would love to have a wider lens (can't afford to Zeiss) but I haven't used the 1650 since acquiring the prime. So my advice is to get the prime regardless of which zoom you keep. You can keep the 18200, get the fast prime and come back to the 16-50 when a faster version is available (say f2.8) and when you decide to add a lens.

    I have the 18200, 1650, 35f18 and 16f28+ultrawide. I'm just hoping for the day a 300mm arrives, then I'll be complete.
     
  15. scottiebumich

    scottiebumich New to TalkEmount

    8
    Jul 22, 2013
    Philadelphia, PA
    Scott B
    Thanks Dynamac,

    really put things in perspective. 16-50 is a nice "going out at night" camera, but it's low light performance (i.e. slow speed) makes it no better optically than the coke can 18-200". Do you find the sel35f18 worth its price tag?
     
  16. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    916
    Aug 22, 2012
    I would say yes it is worth it. When I need to go 'compact' I slap it on and worry about nothing else. With 16-50 zoom you miss a bit of the wide angle, but rarely miss the longer end with the 35. Then the fact that you can take flashless photography indoors in almost any kind of light wins out. If I am going out 'compact' to someplace I know will be dark (which also usually means tight), my usual setup is actually the Sigma 19/2.8 + flash
     
  17. jcdoss

    jcdoss TalkEmount Regular

    118
    Jul 6, 2013
    I'm thinking of picking up a body-only NEX-6 and an adapter for use with my Pentax manual focus primes. Is this a mistake?
     
  18. quezra

    quezra TalkEmount Top Veteran

    916
    Aug 22, 2012
    Why would it be?

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
     
  19. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    Indeed, why would it be? Focusing on the NEX with manual focus lenses is much easier than it is on your Pentax body(ies) because of focus peaking and/or magnification. K/M/A lenses really don't make any difference on the NEX, it meters wide open or stopped down automatically, no green button required.

    And I speak from experience, I just sold my K20 to a Pentax Forums user a couple of months ago and went totally NEX. I even use my Tamron AF 28-75 on the 5N (around the house, I don't lug it around). While the focus feel could be better, the results are hard to argue with. I can manually focus a lens on the NEX hand held, something I was almost never able to do on a DSLR body.
     
  20. jcdoss

    jcdoss TalkEmount Regular

    118
    Jul 6, 2013
    It just occurred to me how poorly worded my question was. Typing on a phone makes me take too many short cuts...

    What I meant was... is getting the body-only kit a mistake versus the NEX-6/16-50 package? Does the zoom lens have good resale value? I'm trying hard to talk myself into picking one up at Best Buy on the way home tomorrow...

    EDIT: I have been able to do pretty well with MF on my K30, largely due to the focus indicator points. I find they're pretty accurate, but without them, I'd be in real bad shape. Also, part of my problem is a cracked viewfinder glass. I need to send it in, but I can't bear the thought of being without a camera for an unspecified time.