PDA

View Full Version : A100H or A100W



dracula385
08-29-2007, 07:09 AM
i'm wondering is the better choise

Sony Alpha A100H (Sony Alpha A100 + DT 18-200 - f/3.5-6.3 62mm)
or
Sony Alpha A100W (Sony Alpha A100 + DT 18-70 - f/3.5-5.6 + DT 75-300 - f/4.5-5.6 55mm)

i can live with 100mm less if the 18-200 is the better lense.... (better maximum aperture etc.)
where i can find some compraration chart for max aperture for 18-200 and 75-300
a readed earlier post with comparation chart 18-200 and 18-70 that donschap wrote but is 18-200 also better over 75-300 at range from 75-200 regarding max aperture.....

here in croatia A100H costs around 200$ more than A100W so i'm in dilemma so please hel me understand wich lense is better...

also don't know huw much 62 mm from 18-200 helps max aperture over 55mm at 18-70 or 75-300

i hope you will understand because my english is .....Croatianed heh

coldrain
08-29-2007, 08:14 AM
Neither of the lens options are impressive, lens wise.
The Sony cheaper lenses just do not perform stellar... I do not know which option would be wisest.

If I would look at a Sony DSLR with consumer lenses, I would consider the Tamron(does Sony carry this under their own label?) 18-250mm.
A lot better than the 18-200 and the 18-70...

dracula385
08-30-2007, 05:29 AM
come on DonSchap :p can u tell me is 18-200 at 200mm/6.3 better than 75-300 at 200mm/5.6 (or less if it can go lower at that focus lenght)?
does 62mm filter size on 18-200 matter over 75-300 at 55mm?

Rooz
08-30-2007, 06:37 AM
can u tell me is 18-200 at 200mm/6.3 better than 75-300 at 200mm/5.6 ?

almost all lens' without exception perform worse at their extreme focal ranges and max apertures. so all things being equal, the 75-300 will perform better at 200mm than the 18-200 will at 200mm.

DonSchap
08-30-2007, 07:16 AM
The 18-200mm is a good, all-around lens ... it compromises a bit at the wide-angle and the telephoto, but if it is all you can carry with you ... there is just nothing else close when it comes to convenience. That's why I use it, when I'm traveling or just moving fast. The aperture curve is shallower on the 18-200 than the 18-70, which makes it a "brighter" lens at the wider focal lengths. That helps indoors, to be sure.

Obviously, if you can sport a 17-50mm f/2.8 and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6, that would provide better results, because the gap is broken up and the one lens does not have to do it all. Both lens are "brighter", overall, which improves your capability in low situations.

If you are looking for absolute sharpness at 200mm, with a SONY-mounted lens ... only a 70-200mm f/2.8 or fixed focal length lens currently is capable of that ... such as the SONY AF 70-200mm f/2.8 G. It is a pricey beggar, though ... but returns a most excellent shot.

28111

TAMRON is releasing their own AF70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD which should get you into the ballpark with a little less admission fee. It's not out quite yet, but I have been assured it is coming.

28110

So ... at 200mm ... the 75-300 may be sharper and brighter, but it'll never see the light of day at 40mm or 18mm, for that matter. ;)

Filter size is not going to make much difference ... except possibly in cost. You can use a 62mmm on a 55mm filter-ring, via use of a filter-ring converter or adapter. They aren't that much and simplify matters in that regard, allowing you to use both lens without a problem, other than not being able to use the lens hood that goes around the 55mm filter-ring.

dracula385
08-30-2007, 01:39 PM
what i mean by filter size....i tought that if the filter size is 62 mm and not 55mm that the lens is "bigger" and brighter and releases more light through! or the diameter is greater so that range of 18-200 could be acomplished...i think i will go for kit with 18-200 witch is 200$ more for my wallet.....and go for hunting on older minolta AF lenses. does all minolta af lenses perform well with a100. maybe you have some suggestion for minolta af lenses that are chaeap and with brighter than kit 17-80 and 75-300! thank you for your support donschap.

btw where did you dig out this chart (you made it yourself or i can find similar charts somewhere)
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23112&d=1176489690

DonSchap
08-30-2007, 05:17 PM
btw where did you dig out this chart (you made it yourself or i can find similar charts somewhere)
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23112&d=1176489690

The chart was simply a real time test result from work I did at home. I figured it could clearly demonstrate the aperture comparison between the 18-70 and the 18-200 lenses.

Here's a graphic I whipped up to depict the same thing:

28126

You can clearly see the 18-70 is already at f/5.6 while the 18-200 is still only at f/4. One full stop of light ... makes the decision rather simple.

While the SONY 18-200 may be okay for a kit ... I recommend just buying the A100 body and getting the TAMRON AF18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) (Sony/Minolta-mount) separately.

28129

It is a better lens than the 18-200, doing relatively the same thing. You get a little more reach to the lens and better performance. I've got one ... for that reason. If you are buying new, get the best bang for your buck ... you're going to be using it for a while.