Nashua Riverwalk with A6000, FE 24-240 and SEL 10-18

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by dbmiller, Aug 22, 2015.

  1. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    Last weekend I received my FE 24-240 lens from the Sony Store. I was also at the local camera store to pick up my daughter's 5DmkII that was in for possible repair, and they had a used SEL 10-18 that was pretty ugly looking, but appears to work fine. I got a good price on it, so picked it up as well.

    This weekend I went down to the Nashua, New Hampshire Riverwalk, and it was my first real chance to use the lenses, so here are some pix and review notes...

    The FE 24-240 is a heavy lens. Especially on the A6000. You certainly can't easily hold the camera one handed for very long with the lens attached. I noticed throughout the day that my fingers were getting a little cramped while holding onto the grip. I definitely need to support the lens underneath with my left hand while composing/shooting with this beastie.

    In actuality, it's not much heavier than my daughter's EF 24-105L that she uses as her walk around lens on her 5DmkII. So for twice the reach, I'm pretty happy with it. Once the camera body is attached, the A6000+FE24-240 is still lighter than the 5DmkII+EF24-105L.

    For comparison, here's the Canon 5DmkII+EF24-105L, the A6000+FE24-240, and the 5N+SEL18-200:

    20177501733_c406faa661_z.jpg 20150822_170938 by DBMiller1961, on Flickr

    Focusing in bright daylight is often good. Phase detect is picking up and working fine. But there are some gotcha's that happen, even in bright light. I noticed that if I focused at 24mm and took a shot, then brought the camera down while I reviewed the shot. Then zoomed to 240mm and lifted the camera to take another shot... Well the camera got real confused and would slowly move the focus until it (hopefully) got it correct, and then phase detect would kick back in. I do have Pre-AF turned off, as I mostly hate it, but maybe that has an affect on things - Something to try at some point, I guess.

    Zoom ring is definitely on the stiff side, and the hope is that it will not develop lens creep. On the A6000, 24-240 translates to a 36-360 range due to the APS-C crop factor. Between that and my newly acquired SEL10-18, that's a decent pair of lenses that I can pack "light" with.

    Shots at 24mm, 112mm, and 240mm:

    20805305941_7cffd1da0d_m.jpg 20788834362_23ffbe4dea_m.jpg 20788833972_170dd04b42_m.jpg

    But can it bokeh? Well yeah, if you coax it a little bit...

    240mm, f/6.3, 1/250th, ISO-500:

    2015-08-22 Nashua Riverwalk 0005
    by DBMiller1961, on Flickr

    The lens comes with the standard plastic reversible hood. Which is required if you want to avoid lens flare. Without hood (left) and with (right):

    20611522529_5be4077342_m.jpg 20611522019_5756e9194b_m.jpg

    Oops - Pizza is here. I'll cover the SEL 10-18 in a little bit...
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    The SEL 10-18 is certainly the opposite of the 24-240. Tiny, lightweight, a pleasure to carry around and use. Focus was always quick to lock on throughout the day - Never a hunt, never a miss. Of course, only a 2x zoom range versus the 10x range of the 24-240. Still, it can make quite a difference:

    20788832652_609a21e0d1_n.jpg 20177313013_d0a655f83f_n.jpg

    All the store had was the lens with caps. No lens hood. But lens flare is pretty much non-existant. From the same spot where the 24-240 flared...

    2015-08-22 Nashua Riverwalk 0014
    by DBMiller1961, on Flickr

    There is some definite distortion approaching the edges, especially at the widest focal length. But if the subject is more centrally located, or not replete with straight edges, it doesn't seem as noticeable.

    2015-08-22 Nashua Riverwalk 0002
    by DBMiller1961, on Flickr

    2015-08-22 Nashua Riverwalk 0020
    by DBMiller1961, on Flickr

    But can it bokeh? Uh... not really. After all, it is an ultra-wide lens. Well, maybe just a very little...

    2015-08-22 Nashua Riverwalk 0004
    by DBMiller1961, on Flickr

    Overall, I'm very happy with both lenses.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. serhan

    serhan TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2011
    10-18 & 24-240 should be a good combo for travel...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Thanks for sharing your impressions! Nice write up :thumbsup:
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  5. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Nice to see scenes around Nashua! Nice reviews....considering adding a 10-18 myself.
    Curious, what did your daughter think of your new combo?
  6. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    She hated the 5n. And hasn't wanted to use the A6000, even while her 5DmkII was being looked at. But she did finally use it a while back and said it was definitely better than the 5n. She did like several of the pictures I took - The 10mm end of can be quite a wow - although fairly comparable to her 17-40.

    She would like something lighter than her Canon, and she's been like me, oohing and aahing over the A7-series. The A7Rii is the first of the FF we both felt had enough features we'd be happy with, but the cost is just too high, and the MP is way more than needed.

    They couldn't find anything wrong with her camera - But the 24-105L wasn't focusing correctly. So I tried setting Micro Adjustments on it, and we'll see if that will keep her happy until some more options become available.
  7. soeren

    soeren TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Dec 12, 2014
    N├Žstved, Denmark
    24-240 on APC compared to 24-105 on FF, isn't that a bit more than 3X the reach rather than twice...?
    Yes I know Im a nitpicker :)
  8. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    Heh - I wavered on this point, definitely confusing. I ended up comparing the 105 long end to the 240 long end for what they were. As my goal is to eventually get a FF Sony, I didn't take into account the fact that I was using it on my A6000. Think of it as if I were comparing the SEL18-105 with the 24-240. :)
  9. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    Update on the 10-18:

    I was shooting with it today, and tried to do some in-camera panoramas. Shooting into the sun @ 10mm flared really bad. I guess I'm going to have to order a replacement lens hood.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. michelb

    michelb TalkEmount Veteran

    Oct 27, 2013
    Greater Montreal area in Quebec, Canada
    Michel Brien
    I have the 24-240 that i use on FF A7r and A7II. The weak spots for the 24-240 is from 24-35mm and from 200-240mm on FF cameras: edges a little soft and some noticeable distortion mostly at the short end.

    I love the range and am agonizing over getting the 16-35mm for the shorter end and covering the 24-35 weak spots.

    Looking at some of the equipment i have that i am not using too much lately: the NEX-7, 10-18 and Tamron 18-200 have been sitting idle for a while.

    The 10-18 is covering the equivalent of 15-28mm in FF size
    The NEX-7 is still giving me 6000X 4000 pixels like the A7II but in APS-C format
    The 10-18 being an OSS lens, i still have some sort of stabilization

    Considering the price and weight of the 16-35 F4 ( about 1500$ plus taxes here in Canada and weighing in at 518g)
    The NEX-7 weighing in at 291g and the SEL1018 at 225g for a total of 516g

    I am keeping this pair as for the same weight:

    - I have a spare camera with me that uses same batteries as my main one and on which i can still use the 24-240mm as a 36-360mm
    - I don't need to change lenses in windy/dusty environments and less fumbling around to find a comfortable spot to do the change
    - I would not recover the price of the 16-35 should i sell the whole system: maybe 400$ for the body, 500$ for the 10-18 and 400$ for the Tamron 18-200
    • Agree Agree x 1