Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 vs Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS LE

On a full frame, a camera stop down to F 2.8 for an improvement and F 4 for bright corners. The lens is able to focus as closely as 45 centimeters the...

Sadly I was not impressed. Detail was missing and contrast was low especially above 100mm, 200mm was sad to look at. Stoping down to f7 or f8 did not help. I was worried that maybe my expectations were too high for a zoom lens so as a comparison I got the selp18105g

8 lens and am blown away by how much cleaner and crisper it is than the 18-45 kit lens. Now when I edit footage I can tell the difference in lighting and video quality from the two lenses. Everything is on a tripod for what I shoot so I don't need a zoom. Should I get a Canon 24mm 2

Yes, it's a lot more expensive, but at least then I'll be getting a lens that can do a decent range, great image quality, and it can do double-duty on my still image camera AND the FS100 using the Metabones EF adapter.

People are suggesting a 70-200 and that would be my recommendation for football or soccer, but for basketball usually you should put yourself courtside near the basket.

For one, it's large and heavy. In fact, it is as heavy if not slightly heavier than the camera body itself, meaning you will double the weight of the camera overall when using this lens. This is to be expected from a zoom lens with this focal length, but it's still something to mention. The other thing is that this lens definitely hunts for focus often

I am using it on a EOS T5 so the camera remains lightweight. The perfect walk around set-up.

No frivolous comment, I bought a NEX for its light weight. It gets a bit soft at 200mm but, it is only a walk around $800 lens! Mind you, it is not terribly soft either. It has a great balance in my NEX 7. Color matches the camera and NO, it does not look cheap at all

Nice fast lens. The autofocus is a bit slow and struggles in dimlighting, but then again, can’t beat the price compared to a USM lens. I’m just starting out and it’s perfect for me.

focussing is faster,and in video is smoother. Images are sharp across all focal lengths. Compared to the original Sony 18-200,certainly the image stabilization is much less effective in this one,only in video where I can notice my hands shaking even at 18mm,but for photos it works very well and focus is quicker

That's a bit closer than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($399.00 at Amazon)(Opens in a new window) , which focuses to about 18 inches.

If you're primarily a videographer, you'll want to think about the standard version or the Power Zoom variation, but photographers will be happy with the stabilization provided by the OSS LE.

From the moment I picked up the lens, I knew that it was a complete redesign from the old model, and it sure needed it. On the rear of the lens we now have a metallic mount, something I’m so glad to see. Moving up from the plastic mount has increased it’s weight slightly, but also hugely increases the longevity of this lens. On the front we’ve now got a 49mm filter thread, which is even smaller than the old 52mm thread

3 OSS LE is an update to the industrial design, not the optics, for the earlier E 18-200mm that remains in market. It does make one sacrifice for a smaller, lighter build, dropping the Active Shot video stabilization feature. If you're primarily a videographer, you'll want to think about the standard version or the Power Zoom variation, but photographers will be happy with the stabilization provided by the OSS LE.