NEX5 + Tamron 18-200

[hot]

NEX5 + Tamron 18-200, all freehand


pano

[hot]

[hot]

Panos NEX5

NEX5 + Sigma 18-200 OS


NEX5 + Sigma 18-200 OS


NEX5 + Tamron 18-200 VC


NEX5 + Tamron 18-200 VC

[Quentin_Bargate]

Which do you prefer? I imagine the Sigma would be a tad large on the NEX 5... Both look good at this size.

[hot]

Both are fine lenses, Sigma = € 300, Tokina = € 600

Sigma is for Canon (Lumix, Samsung, ..) works with NEX only manually.
But this is no problem. NEX has excellent focussing methods.

Sigma fits ALL cameras, Tamron only fits NEX.

[Quentin_Bargate]

One of the advantages of thre NEX system is the huge range of lenses that can be used via an adapter. We now have two of the Tamrons - one is for my wife and her NEX 5n. She loves it.

[hot]

That's true - I am using 28 lenses with my NEX5 (and within some days also with NEX7)

[woodmancy]

Originally Posted by Quentin_Bargate

One of the advantages of thre NEX system is the huge range of lenses that can be used via an adapter . . . . . .

Totally agree. I don't see too much from folks using m4/3 to Nex adapters - I have one and it works really well.

Keith

[Vivek]

I use a few lenses on the NEX-7..

[hot]

Originally Posted by woodmancy

Totally agree. I don't see too much from folks using m4/3 to Nex adapters - I have one and it works really well.

I even use Lumix 3D with nex

[pegelli]

Seems like a great lens (that 18-200 I mean). The 300 € extra vs. the Sigma buys you autofocus and a much smaller package (lighter, less thick and shorter, especially thinking the Sig still needs the adapter to fit) so it makes good sense with a Nex. Still a lot of money to think about so not everybody will think it's worth it.
Only thing that struck me was a lot of "jaggies" in the two shots of the rower (especially along the oar). Did you sharpen those extra in PP or did you use an extra sharpness setting in the camera? Or are they just downsizing artifacts? In none of the other shots it's so obvious.

[hot]

Photos are out of camera, only resized and (automatically) sharpened. No other postprocessing.
Of course Tamron 18-200 is "better" lens for NEX - automatic, smaller, less weight.

[pegelli]

Thanks hot, agree with you. I already have more than enough lenses, even for my Nex but this one is still tempting.

The other thing I noticed is how very precise the exif reading of the focal length setting is. My old Tammy 28-200 goes in steps of 5 mm at the short end and much larger at the long end. This one seems to even work first decimal numbers. Amazing.

[hot]

Depends on EXIF-program. One even doesn't show lens, an other shows

[pegelli]

I use FxIF in Firefox.

Of your series above it reports the following focal length:
--
28.1
19.4
41.2
200
200
59.3
107.8
71.5

This seems very precise, allthough I doubt it's fully accurate

[hot]

Last summer ... sniefff ... not -10° and cold wind





.

[Quentin_Bargate]

Nice fisheye shots, hot - but the weather looks cold, not hot

The EXIF reported focal length with the Tamron is very precise.

[hot]

Weather -10°C, very cold wind, icy streets.

But I am fit for NorthPole .. better than at Oimjakon/Russia,
-71.2°C (January 1926) and +34.6°C (June 2010)

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Originally Posted by woodmancy

Totally agree. I don't see too much from folks using m4/3 to Nex adapters - I have one and it works really well.

Keith

I am going to buy one right now!

Michiel