|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
5
|
23317
|
July 23, 2008
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Purchase
|
|
80% of reviewers
|
$101.00
|
|
|
Construction Quality
|
Image Quality
|
Overall Rating
|
|
6.00
|
7.00
|
6.60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
badger_packer_fan
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: July 23, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $63.00| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
compact, light, decent performance
|
|
Cons:
|
not exceptional at anything
|
|
Contrary to what was stated in the review notes section, this was NOT designed for a full frame camera, hence it won't work perfectly with the A900. It vignettes badly at 18mm and doesn't clear up until 24mm or so, at least on my Maxxum 7.
The lens performs as expected for this type. It's a little sharper than I expected, stopping down helps. It covers a nice range, though I also own a Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 which stays on my camera most of the time.
For the average person, this lens is great and even for an artist, it could be made to work.
|
|
Verde
Registered: June 2008
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: June 21, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $90.00| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good focal range, good value
|
|
Cons:
|
Solid results if you stay within it's capability
|
|
I've had this lense since January '08 and have been getting good results. It really helps too stop down from wide open and never go past f/16.
Review states the lense is designed for full frame, but it does not cover full frame on my 35mm bodies near 18mm. No biggie, I don't shoot film...
I have Minolta 28-85 and 70-210 lenses. Recently shooting at 210mm, F/5.6, and handheld, the 70-210 blew away the IQ of the 18-70 DT (making me realize this lense is not as good as I thought), so I've updated my post. (downgraded my rating of this lense)
Overall a solid lense for the price, still think it's a good place to start, but now I'm going to upgrade 
|
|
Focus
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: May 11, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $150.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light, sharp, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels cheap
|
|
This lens is very under rated, that's why I gave it a 10 for all. After all, you need to compare the price against the quality and I don't think a 16-80 CZ, which costs 5 times more, will give a 5 x better picture.
I can compare it with the 18-70, 18-135 of Nikon with the D300 and the Canon 17-85 IS with the 40D. In no way I feel this lens is any worse or the others better. Sharpness is good and the colors are great with the A350. Possibly the 16-80 has even more sharpness, but then again, it's not an honest comparison.
|
|
trix13
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: December 2, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
build quality is not what you expect from sony.
|
|
this lens comes as kit part with Sony A100 camera, or you can buy it for $200 ( msrp) ,
good lens for the price , but if you have extra $ get somthing beter.
comes with lens hood and caps.
|
|
glock9
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: November 16, 2006
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, sharp across the zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
slow from around 40mm, very cheap feeling
|
|
I have used this one and the Nikon 18-70 f.3.5-4.5 this in my opnion is just as sharp if not just a little sharper however it is slow compared to the nikon and the nikon focuses alot faster.
All be said a very good kit lens and definately a must include if you don't have any other lens (i.e. don't buy body only)
|
|
|
|
|
|
