Mình đã từng dùng nhiều lens thiên hạ đồn thổi như thần.
Kết quả thấy bọn nó ko có 1 điểm gì đáng so với giá tiền hay lời đồn thổi.
Có những lens rẻ như bèo, lại là những ống mình kiếm đc rất nhiều $ khi dùng, và thật sự nó rất tốt.
NY cũ mình đã từng vứt nguyên bộ 24-70 + 70-200 vs 1 máy FF ở nhà, chỉ để cầm đi 1 crop + 18-200 chỉ vì muốn tiện. Lúc đầu mình rất khó chịu, nhưng khi nó đi chơi về và mình xem ảnh, so sánh với nhiều người trong đoàn, mình lại thấy bản thân thật ngớ ngẩn khi từ đầu không nghĩ thông đc như nó.
Thiên hạ nói là chuyện thiên hạ nói. Rất nhiều người nói Canon chụp đẹp hơn Nikon, nhiều người khác nói điều ngược lại, một số người cho rằng Sony chụp ngon nhất, số khác lại cho rằng Fuji có chất ảnh tuyệt vời nhất. Vậy ai đúng?
Cá nhân mình cho rằng 18-200 là 1 ống tốt và đáng dùng.
Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
1
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
Other than the constant f4, what would I have to lose? I'd like to travel with as few lenses as possible, ideally the 18-200, along with my 10-18mm and 35mm/1.8 (all Sony)
I'll be posting my (well taken care of) lenses for sale in the appropriate section soon (including a Rokinon 10mm ultra wide rectilinear and a Sony 55-210mm)
Thanks!
JC2K's gear list:JC2K's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 20mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
2
In my case not having to change lenses is usually great.
But then I am more into images and content than pure image quality on its own, so in my case image content is king. Want to bring good images back home and am not overly sensitive to technical flaws (have been into photography since the 70s and even worked professionally in the buisiness for a while).
So in my case the 18-200 win (versatility over sheer technical image quality).
When travelling this summer the 10-18mm and 35mm lens (just in case) will assist my workhorse 18-200mm lens (will leave my FF kit back home).
Point is: travelling light and always bringing the camera around open far more photo opportunities ... and in my case that is the A6300 + 18-200mm as a workhorse combo.
That said the 18-105mm lens seems to be a very beloved lens.
Others might have different opinions...
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
1
JC2K wrote:
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
The 18-105 also has OSS. Personally, I'm not a fan of CIZ.
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
rjjr wrote:
JC2K wrote:
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
The 18-105 also has OSS. Personally, I'm not a fan of CIZ.
The 18-200 also has OSS. Have to agree with the CIZ statement, no fan...
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
1
Trollmannx wrote:
rjjr wrote:
JC2K wrote:
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
The 18-105 also has OSS. Personally, I'm not a fan of CIZ.
The 18-200 also has OSS. Have to agree with the CIZ statement, no fan...
I know, which is why I said "also"
The OP seemed to imply the 18-105 doesn't have OSS, which is odd since they say they have the 18-105.
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
JC2K wrote:
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
Other than the constant f4, what would I have to lose? I'd like to travel with as few lenses as possible, ideally the 18-200, along with my 10-18mm and 35mm/1.8 (all Sony)
I'll be posting my (well taken care of) lenses for sale in the appropriate section soon (including a Rokinon 10mm ultra wide rectilinear and a Sony 55-210mm)
Thanks!
Your kit sounds similar to mine. Personally, I don't think it's worth the tradeoff. I'm headed to Europe later this summer and my kit will be the 18-105, 10-18 and 28/2. I think the versatility of the 18-105 as a great photo lens and an excellent video lens far outweighs the extra reach of the 18-200. I just don't think I'd use the extra reach all that much and besides, after the trip is over, I'd still prefer to own the 18-108 as my standard zoom lens.
I also own the 55-210. This lens has the advantage of being very small and lightweight. I may throw this lens in the bag if I feel I'd use it, but chances are it'll stay home.
For the record, the 18-105 has OSS (an excellent implementation of it as well) and is capable of CIZ in a more natural way because CIZ is incorporated into the power zoom whereas on the 18-200 you'll have to engage it via menus / buttons on the camera.
rlyons's gear list:rlyons's gear list
Sony a6400 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sigma 19mm F2.8 DN | A +6 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
8
JC2K wrote:
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
Other than the constant f4, what would I have to lose? I'd like to travel with as few lenses as possible, ideally the 18-200, along with my 10-18mm and 35mm/1.8 (all Sony)
I'll be posting my (well taken care of) lenses for sale in the appropriate section soon (including a Rokinon 10mm ultra wide rectilinear and a Sony 55-210mm)
Thanks!
The E18200 is 100gr heavier, but has slightly smaller dimensions overall, when collapsed.
//www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-E-PZ-18-105mm-F4-G-OSS-on-Sony-A6000-versus-E18-200mm-F3-5-6-3-on-Sony-A6000-versus-Sony-E-35mm-F18-on-Sony-A6000__1215_942_274_942_1083_942
In terms of IQ, these two zoom lenses fall way short when e.g. compared to a prime lens, but be careful about DxOmark's scoring map, which tends to ding zoom lenses more than it should.
Stay away from the E18200LE, this is a weaker lens.
The main difference between the E18105G, aside from reach and powerzoom, is that the E18105G is optimized for f/4 (to f/8) performance, whereas the E18200 does best around f/8 (to f/11). In addition, wide open corner performance is better in the E18105G. The center area performance is rather similar between the two.
Having the extra reach is very nice, but only if you really need/want it.
You have the E55210, this lens renders very similar to the E18200, to give you an idea. You can compare the E55210 and E18105G for yourself.
In good light, these zooms render rather similarly.
Don't let the DxOmark slides bias you too much. The JPG corrections, both in-camera and from RAW, bring these lenses closer than the scores might suggest.
Lastly, once you hit wide-open aperture and see ISO going up, it is better to switch to a faster prime lens, rather than arguing which zoom lens is better.
For travel, why not add the E1650 - it is similar to either E18105G and E18200 at mid focal and mid apertures. You could then bring the E55210, in case you'd want reach.
As to OSS, these mentioned lenses all have OSS. The E18200 was made famous as a video lens, as it has a larger OSS compensation range than the other lenses, which was done for video (not stills). A benefit thereof is that the EVF is absolutely stable when you half-press the shutter, making the lens more pleasant to work with.
As a single (daytime) travel lens, the E18200 (and FE24240 for FF) is very good in what it does, and is perhaps among the best in its range.
The E18105G never interested me, I'd prefer the E1670Z (which I tried), but ended up using the E1650 for daytime snaps.
CIZ is decent, but it forces you to JPG format, and may or may not be ahead of smart post edit image up-scalers, which not every has access to. I think that average users will enjoy it, whereas advanced users may harp at it. It surely beats digital zoom (which is same as cropping in post edit).
If you want reach, the FE18300G lens will perform better than the E55210 and E18200 at around 200mm, but this lens is much larger (although still collapsible design) and heavier. I think that the E18200 is a much better trade-off (size/reach/IQ/price/weight).
A travel setup with the E1018, E18200, and E35 is small, practical, and versatile. I'd like to add the E1650 to this, just for compactness, and the lens takes little space/weight.
Like you said, you got little to lose against the E18105G, if you add in a prime for low light scenes.
Then again, the E1018, E35, E1650, E55210 as a set does require you to change lenses more often (for reach) but will cost only $150 (to add the E1650). This way, you can keep your CV10 and E18105G. Why not go this route instead?
-- hide signature --
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
2
I would just keep my 18-105. A move to the 18-200 is a side grade at best. You get better range but more uneven performance.
val1's gear list:val1's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +13 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
3
JC2K wrote:
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
If I were you - I would stay with your existing combo.
I own the SEL18-200 for 6 years now, I like it very much and It`s my main travel working horse - I can near instantly change subjects from, for example, church interior to one, most famous, church icon or from the whole building site to old tower clock with birds on it... and so on. So I don`t think about changing it for anything else. There are situations (for example, concert shots) where it simply cannot be substituted by anything else.
So SEL18-200 is a great lens per se.
And - yes - I also like to travel light.
From other hand, SONY A6500 has 24Mp, so you always can to crop your foto and mimic telephoto. Sure, you will lose some quality, but I must admit - SEL18-200 also not that great at it`s long end. Plus you will lose the whole stop at 105 mm, and then you can use your SELP18-105 as a portret lens (because of F4 at 105mm) while 18-200 mm is not so good for this. And AFAIK SELP18-105 has faster AF too. So, if you have not special needs for long-distant shot - SELP18-105 is good enough.
Other than the constant f4, what would I have to lose? I'd like to travel with as few lenses as possible, ideally the 18-200, along with my 10-18mm and 35mm/1.8 (all Sony)
Money. If you ever want to return to SELP18-200 - it will cost you as much, as changing to SEL18-200 now.
I'll be posting my (well taken care of) lenses for sale in the appropriate section soon (including a Rokinon 10mm ultra wide rectilinear and a Sony 55-210mm)
I would NOT recommend to sell Rokinon 10 mm - it can be very useful in travel, especially in Europe. You will regret if you do.
Thanks!
Good luck!
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
3
Thanks for all the very thorough replies!
It seems that keeping the 18-105mm is my best option, considering the cost of the better 18-200mm (original silver model = $850+) and the other minor compromises I'd be making. I'm still going to post some lenses for sale on this site, but if they don't sell and I cant get the 18-200mm before I go, I wont be too disappointed.
As @Trollmannx mentioned, content wins over technicalities so I'm still interested in getting the 18-200 eventually.
As I have already purchased and played with the 10-18mm and I like it's auto-focus capabilities, OSS, compatibility (lens data recorded in the RAW files) and it's so much smaller compared to the Rokinon. (I cant even find -or afford- any filters for that HUGE Rokinon lens, whereas, I bought a 62-72 step-up adapter so I can share a variable ND filter between the 18-105 & 10-18mm lenses)
So my travel kit will be:
• 18-105mm (main lens + CIZ, only if absolutely required)• 10-18mm (landscapes and astrophotography)• 35mm/1.8 (= "nifty 50", for night & indoor portraits)
• 20mm/2.0 (discreet/candid street shooting)
Thanks everyone!
JC2K's gear list:JC2K's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 20mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
i use the sony 18-105mm and 55-210mm white the sony a6300
i'm very satisfied
for travel i use the tamron 18-270mm with the mc11 adapter it's much cheaper
from the sony 18-200 more versatility and the results very good (but iq of curse less then the 18-105 or 55-210 mm)
the mc11 adapter allow me to use more good and cheep canon mount lenses like the canon 85mm/1.8
jango's gear list:jango's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a6300 Sony a7 III Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS +4 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
I have the Sony 18-200 and before that the Tamron 18-200 which is similar to the Sony 18-200le. The Sony 18-200 is much sharper and c-af works on the entire sensor.
I was thinking about changing the 18-200 for the 18-105. However, everything is a trade-off and I hate motor-zooms (very personal of course). I would however buy the 18-105 without hesitation if you also zoom manually.
The trade-off is between reach and a faster aperture. I think in both cases keeping the existing lens is the best option. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Since I often go on holiday to sandy and dusty countries, not having to switch lenses too often is always welcome.
In the past I went on holidays with a Sony 16-50/f2,8 (still own it) or the 16-70Za ( a long time ago) and a dedicated 70-300. During those holidays I had the best in terms of sharpness and versatility. However, often something happened and I always had the wrong lens on the camera.
Later I switched to the amount 18-200 (which I demolished by accident) and was less satisfied with the sharpness but I didn't miss any shots.
Now in emount I have the 18-200 which is rather nice in versatility but less stellar on iq. I also take my Samyang 12/2 and probably the 35/1,8.
-- hide signature --
No life without a camera.
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
jango wrote:
i use the sony 18-105mm and 55-210mm white the sony a6300
i'm very satisfied
from the sony 18-200 more versatility and the results very good (but iq of curse less then the 18-105 or 55-210 mm)
This right here- this will make me want to keep my lenses...and just add the 18-200 to my slowly growing colection! lol
It seems everyone loves this lens, but have reservations about recommending it! :-/
I realize there's a trade off with either lens, but the main reason for wanting this lens is to lighten my travel inventory and require fewer lens changes when "in the wild".
Thanks for the reply!
JC2K's gear list:JC2K's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 20mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
JC2K wrote:
I realize there's a trade off with either lens, but the main reason for wanting this lens is to lighten my travel inventory and require fewer lens changes when "in the wild".
When I really want to have a minimal kit for casual snapshots I just use my LG G4.
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
PieterB wrote:
I have the Sony 18-200 and before that the Tamron 18-200 which is similar to the Sony 18-200le. The Sony 18-200 is much sharper and c-af works on the entire sensor.
I found a 18-200, first edition (silver, not le), used for $500+
I was thinking about changing the 18-200 for the 18-105. However, everything is a trade-off and I hate motor-zooms (very personal of course). I would however buy the 18-105 without hesitation if you also zoom manually.
You can also manually zoom- I've only used the power zoom by mistake! I guess it's more for video recording?
The trade-off is between reach and a faster aperture. I think in both cases keeping the existing lens is the best option.
Boom. I've come to the same conclusion! Gonna keep the 18-105, and ADD the 18-200 for travel.
Both have strengths and weaknesses. Since I often go on holiday to sandy and dusty countries, not having to switch lenses too often is always welcome.
In the past I went on holidays with a Sony 16-50/f2,8 (still own it) or the 16-70Za ( a long time ago) and a dedicated 70-300. During those holidays I had the best in terms of sharpness and versatility. However, often something happened and I always had the wrong lens on the camera.
Exactly!
Later I switched to the amount 18-200 (which I demolished by accident) and was less satisfied with the sharpness but I didn't miss any shots.
Now in emount I have the 18-200 which is rather nice in versatility but less stellar on iq. I also take my Samyang 12/2 and probably the 35/1,8.
-- hide signature --
No life without a camera.
or tough decisions!
Thanks for the reply!
JC2K's gear list:JC2K's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 20mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
rjjr wrote:
JC2K wrote:
I realize there's a trade off with either lens, but the main reason for wanting this lens is to lighten my travel inventory and require fewer lens changes when "in the wild".
When I really want to have a minimal kit for casual snapshots I just use my LG G4.
I use my iPhone 7+ for shooting from the hip...
JC2K's gear list:JC2K's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 20mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
JC2K wrote:
rjjr wrote:
JC2K wrote:
I realize there's a trade off with either lens, but the main reason for wanting this lens is to lighten my travel inventory and require fewer lens changes when "in the wild".
When I really want to have a minimal kit for casual snapshots I just use my LG G4.
I use my iPhone 7+ for shooting from the hip...
I will take the a6300 with 35/1,8.
It's nice to have a camera in your phone but I suck at taking pictures with my phone.
-- hide signature --
No life without a camera.
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
JC2K wrote:
rjjr wrote:
JC2K wrote:
I realize there's a trade off with either lens, but the main reason for wanting this lens is to lighten my travel inventory and require fewer lens changes when "in the wild".
When I really want to have a minimal kit for casual snapshots I just use my LG G4.
I use my iPhone 7+ for shooting from the hip...
How's the digital zoom on that phamera?
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
Agree on the message do not sell the Rok 10mm as perfect for Eu and also 18-200 being slower on autofocus than the 18-105. That is my impression as well, especially on tele side and for sure in lower light.
I am in Amsterdam now and found the 18-200 and Rokinon 12mm a really nice combo for cities. Love the Rokinon over the 10-18mm due to f2.0 vs 4.0. In day not much difference. At night makes a difference. 10-18 is a great lens but Sony must think people do not take pictures in low light. The 18mm of the 10-18 does not add that much value over a 12mm.
Only downside to Rok is lack of Exif for aperature. Lack of AF did not make a difference as with focus peaking easy to get focus and for UWA normally at infinity for landscapes.
I wish i had the 18-200 when in hawaii. Switching between 18-105 and 55-210 when need more zoom not necessary with the 18-200. When hiking on mountains, it is harder to change a lens and harder to foot zoom.
I think I could have gotten away with 18-105 in the city. In fact, the ROK and 35mm might be all needed if do not want a zoom.
The other think to consider is I find the 18-105 easier to carry all day as not as bulky. Of course the 16-50 or the 35mm would be even better for all day carry around.
Sorry no samples yet, I have not download the picts yet as still on camera.
Bolshevik wrote:
JC2K wrote:
I'm going on vacation in a month with my a6500 and I'm considering the Sony 18-200mm, because it's smaller (and lighter?) than the 18-105mm and has more zoom. But in order for this to happen I'll have to sell a few of my existing lenses, including the my Sony 18-105mm.
Is it a worthy trade off? the 18-105mm has a constant f4, whereas the 18-200 is variable... but it has a greater zoom (plus ClearImage zoom!) and OSS.
If I were you - I would stay with your existing combo.
I own the SEL18-200 for 6 years now, I like it very much and It`s my main travel working horse - I can near instantly change subjects from, for example, church interior to one, most famous, church icon or from the whole building site to old tower clock with birds on it... and so on. So I don`t think about changing it for anything else. There are situations (for example, concert shots) where it simply cannot be substituted by anything else.
So SEL18-200 is a great lens per se.
And - yes - I also like to travel light.
From other hand, SONY A6500 has 24Mp, so you always can to crop your foto and mimic telephoto. Sure, you will lose some quality, but I must admit - SEL18-200 also not that great at it`s long end. Plus you will lose the whole stop at 105 mm, and then you can use your SELP18-105 as a portret lens (because of F4 at 105mm) while 18-200 mm is not so good for this. And AFAIK SELP18-105 has faster AF too. So, if you have not special needs for long-distant shot - SELP18-105 is good enough.
Other than the constant f4, what would I have to lose? I'd like to travel with as few lenses as possible, ideally the 18-200, along with my 10-18mm and 35mm/1.8 (all Sony)
Money. If you ever want to return to SELP18-200 - it will cost you as much, as changing to SEL18-200 now.
I'll be posting my (well taken care of) lenses for sale in the appropriate section soon (including a Rokinon 10mm ultra wide rectilinear and a Sony 55-210mm)
I would NOT recommend to sell Rokinon 10 mm - it can be very useful in travel, especially in Europe. You will regret if you do.
Thanks!
Good luck!
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain
Re: Sony 18-105mm vs 18-200mm - if you could only have one...
rjjr wrote:
JC2K wrote:
rjjr wrote:
JC2K wrote:
I realize there's a trade off with either lens, but the main reason for wanting this lens is to lighten my travel inventory and require fewer lens changes when "in the wild".
When I really want to have a minimal kit for casual snapshots I just use my LG G4.
I use my iPhone 7+ for shooting from the hip...
How's the digital zoom on that phamera?
Meh... rarely use it, at least not for anything requiring the best quality image, that is, from a phone.
JC2K's gear list:JC2K's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 20mm F2.8 +2 more
Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain