Steve'sDigicams

mikeb33 · Dec 26, 2010, 11:53 AM

I bought a NEX-3 kit at Best Buy with the 16mm and 18-55mm lenses, case and 4GB card. 3X zoom isn't enough so I want the new 18-200mm zoom lens, even though it is $800 and can't be found anywhere.
I am new to anything but a point and shoot so I have a few questions. With my current lens that starts at 18mm, is there any reason for the 16mm pancake one? In fact if I get the 18-200mm, do I need any other lense at all? Does the 18mm function the same on any lens?

TCav · Dec 26, 2010, 1:36 PM

The 16mm f/2.8 Wide-Angle Lens has an angle of view of 83°, while the angle of view of the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens ranges from 76° at 18mm to 29° at 55mm. While both lenses are quite sharp in the center, the edges and corners aren't, and the difference intheir maximum apertures isn't much, so I'd say that, if you really don't need the extra wide angle of view, the 16mm f/2.8 Wide-Angle Lens provide much of an advantage over the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens. Plus, the 18-55 is stabilized while the 16/2.8 isn't.

(See the rest reports for the Sony E 16mm f/2.8 (NEX) and the Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS (NEX) at PhotoZone.de)

The 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens has an angle of view of from 76° to 8°. It has less distortion, less vignetting, and while the center isn't asa sharp, the edges and corners are at least as sharp and usually sharper, and it has less chromatic aberration. The 18-200 is also stabilized.

(See the rest report for the Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS (NEX) at PhotoZone.de)

There isn't much of an advantage to having the 16/2.8 in addition to either of the other two. And if you're going to get the 18-200, it outperforms the 18-55, so there's no reason to keep both.

The 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens is available at SonyStyle.com.

mikeb33 · Dec 26, 2010, 1:49 PM

Thanks a lot, that makes it easy to understand. I do see that it is in stock at Sony now. I imagine it will be quite a while before it comes down in price.
So once I have the 18-200mm, I might as well sell the other two to recoup some costs?

Tullio · Dec 27, 2010, 9:46 AM

That's a good option. Personally I don't believe the extra 2mm (actually 3mm with the 1.5x sensor crop) and lack of reach is worth the investment, despite the fact that the lens may be slightly sharper than the 18-55mm. If the 18-200mm performs well, then it certainly does not make any sense to keep the 18-55mm so selling the two kit lenses you bought is the way to go.

amazingthailand · Jan 8, 2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tullio

That's a good option. Personally I don't believe the extra 2mm (actually 3mm with the 1.5x sensor crop) and lack of reach is worth the investment, despite the fact that the lens may be slightly sharper than the 18-55mm. If the 18-200mm performs well, then it certainly does not make any sense to keep the 18-55mm so selling the two kit lenses you bought is the way to go.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The 16mm is an f2.8 lens (faster than any of the zooms) and very small (it is a pancake lens) so is better in low light and very good if you want to keep the package nice and small.

The 18-55 range is covered in the 18-200 range, so the 18-55 might make the most sense to get rid of, except, it is most likely quite a bit smaller than the 18-200. So again, portability must be considered.

Either way, the 16mm f2.8 is a definate keeper.

One other thing to think on. With the 18-200 you will most likely need the flash extender Sony sells. Otherwise, the lens will partially block the light from the flash.

TCav · Jan 9, 2011, 4:18 AM

Yes, the 16/2.8 is smaller and lighter, but the difference between 16/2.8 and 18/3.5 (the wide end of the 18-55 and 18-200) isn't very much, about 9% in angle of view and 2/3 f-stop.

The pancake has less distortion, but more vignetting. They're about equally sharp, and have about as much chromatic aberration. So there isn't much that distinguishes them, except size and weight.

mikeb33 · Jan 9, 2011, 7:45 AM

Thanks for all the replies. though it is irrelevant for me now. I returned the NEX-3.

After spending $650 and contemplating another $800 for a zoom lens, it doesn't make sense. Certainly for $1,450 there are some other good ways to go. I wanted smaller, cheaper and easier than a DSLR, but that lens and that price is neither.

Dec 26, 2010, 11:53 AM	#1
mikeb33 Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 12	NEX-3 Lenses I bought a NEX-3 kit at Best Buy with the 16mm and 18-55mm lenses, case and 4GB card. 3X zoom isn't enough so I want the new 18-200mm zoom lens, even though it is $800 and can't be found anywhere. I am new to anything but a point and shoot so I have a few questions. With my current lens that starts at 18mm, is there any reason for the 16mm pancake one? In fact if I get the 18-200mm, do I need any other lense at all? Does the 18mm function the same on any lens? Last edited by mikeb33; Dec 26, 2010 at 11:56 AM.

Dec 26, 2010, 1:36 PM	#2
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,713	The 16mm f/2.8 Wide-Angle Lens has an angle of view of 83°, while the angle of view of the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens ranges from 76° at 18mm to 29° at 55mm. While both lenses are quite sharp in the center, the edges and corners aren't, and the difference intheir maximum apertures isn't much, so I'd say that, if you really don't need the extra wide angle of view, the 16mm f/2.8 Wide-Angle Lens provide much of an advantage over the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Zoom Lens. Plus, the 18-55 is stabilized while the 16/2.8 isn't. (See the rest reports for the Sony E 16mm f/2.8 (NEX) and the Sony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS (NEX) at PhotoZone.de) The 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens has an angle of view of from 76° to 8°. It has less distortion, less vignetting, and while the center isn't asa sharp, the edges and corners are at least as sharp and usually sharper, and it has less chromatic aberration. The 18-200 is also stabilized. (See the rest report for the Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS (NEX) at PhotoZone.de) There isn't much of an advantage to having the 16/2.8 in addition to either of the other two. And if you're going to get the 18-200, it outperforms the 18-55, so there's no reason to keep both. The 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens is available at SonyStyle.com. __________________ The lens is the thing. 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'. "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Dec 27, 2010, 9:46 AM	#4
Tullio Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,370	That's a good option. Personally I don't believe the extra 2mm (actually 3mm with the 1.5x sensor crop) and lack of reach is worth the investment, despite the fact that the lens may be slightly sharper than the 18-55mm. If the 18-200mm performs well, then it certainly does not make any sense to keep the 18-55mm so selling the two kit lenses you bought is the way to go. __________________ Tullio

Jan 9, 2011, 4:18 AM	#6
TCav Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland Posts: 13,713	Yes, the 16/2.8 is smaller and lighter, but the difference between 16/2.8 and 18/3.5 (the wide end of the 18-55 and 18-200) isn't very much, about 9% in angle of view and 2/3 f-stop. The pancake has less distortion, but more vignetting. They're about equally sharp, and have about as much chromatic aberration. So there isn't much that distinguishes them, except size and weight. __________________ The lens is the thing. 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'. "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot. Last edited by TCav; Jan 9, 2011 at 4:59 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Dec 26, 2010, 1:49 PM	#3
mikeb33 Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 12	Thanks a lot, that makes it easy to understand. I do see that it is in stock at Sony now. I imagine it will be quite a while before it comes down in price. So once I have the 18-200mm, I might as well sell the other two to recoup some costs?

Jan 9, 2011, 7:45 AM	#7
mikeb33 Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 12	Thanks for all the replies. though it is irrelevant for me now. I returned the NEX-3. After spending $650 and contemplating another $800 for a zoom lens, it doesn't make sense. Certainly for $1,450 there are some other good ways to go. I wanted smaller, cheaper and easier than a DSLR, but that lens and that price is neither.