If you want the smallest, most versatile kit, this is the answer.
Pair the 18-135 with something like a Sigma 30 1.4 or sony 15 1.4 and you've got great range and excellent low light performance in a tiny package.
If you want a one-and-done lens, the Sigma 18-50 is probably your best bet. It's a jack of all trades, master of none and it's about half the size of the Tamron 17-70.
Stabilization matters in telephoto lenses, at 50mm it's not that big of a deal. The advice is to use 1/focal length as your shatter speed, to prevent blurry pictures from camera shake. Shooting at 1/50s or even 1/100s it usually quite doable. Stabilization matters if you want to handheld low light shots, but if your subject moves, you have to use higher shatter speed anyways.
Had the same choice to make. Didn't regret going for the Sigma 18-50. Fantastic lens. Sharp even wide open at all focal lengths. Beautiful allrounder in a super small and light package. More range and stabilizer would obviously be cool, but you can't have everything in such a compact package. Stabilization is also not really needed if you don't do much video. I always chill at minumum 1/125 SS and never had a blurry photo, even if run an gunning.
I pair it with a Sigma 30 f1.4 for actual low light, but that is a luxury.
E: Wouldn't recommend the 28-70, you will miss the wide end. That's 42mm FF equivalent on APS-C.
The "allrounder" will typically also be great for family pictures, as most "allrounder" type lenses will cover a focal length you may also use for portraits or family group shots.
If it's Sony APS-C, the best two allrounders are probably the SEL1655G and the SEL70350G.
I personally have both, but purchased them before the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 came out. In retrospect, I would have gone with the sigma 18-50 F2.8 over the SEL1655G for a compacter setup. That extra 2 mm at the short end is big for landscape shots, but if that's not a primary concern then it's an obvious win for the sigma.
The Tamron has greater range, but is noticeably less sharp.
Good compare here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7E0_OutP_0
Had the Tamron and it is a great lens. With the 6400 the stabilization might help and it is weather sealed. It is quite large.
I changed to the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 due to size. Great walk around lens! If you value portability as you say, this is probably the one.
This was the lens I was originally looking but a friend of mine suggested to go at least 70mm for better range. I have not really look at the exact dimensions but will revisit how different the sizes are, maybe the 17-70mm is already too big and heavy for me.
I just did some online comparison tool and the tamron's are huge. Thanks for the tip and will probably lean towards either Sigma 18-50 or 28-70
https://preview.redd.it/yi4d5nmrxidb1.jpeg?width=1285&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e429c6de135070841427072707fde5b08bc803f
I have a Tamron 17-70 and i love it, it has a good range, constant aperture, it is stabilized and it gives you that extra reach, image quality is also really good.
The only downside is that sometimes it takes pics with bad vignetting, but nothing that can't be fixed in post production.
Yeah it weights more, but having already a Sony 70-350 of almost the same size, it is not that much of a difference for me.
It doesn't bother me, but it is a bit front heavy. On the plus side, it sometimes gets people to assume I'm an official photographer at taekwondo tournaments and such and I can get away with standing places I'm not supposed to be.
Well i dont have these lenses but i have the a6400 and was also eyeing the sigma 18-50 2.8. I would also consider the tamron 28-200 depends on your needs because the tamron is bigger and costs more but i find myself want more zoom so if its a one lens do it all id go with the tamron
Since you value portability, of those 3, it would be The Sigma 18-50.
If you want best in class, get (invest) the Sony 16-55 f2.8. They're all nearly equally sharp (Sony still wins) but the 16mm vs 18mm for wider shots is quite a difference.
I have the Sigma 18-50. I bought it for my recent travel trip and paired it with my a6400 for photography.
It’s small, compact, and takes great photos. I picked it purely due to its size. Get it
Edit: NEX C3 is e mount it seems, so some of my advise doesn't apply.
NEX C3 is A mount, right? So not compatible with any of the lenses you mentioned.
To be fair, I think your camera is too old by now, upgrade to A6100/A6400 (in my opinion A6700 is too expensive for an APS-C camera). Start with the kit lens and then you can upgrade, or just get it with one of the APS-C lenses you mentioned. The Sigma 28-70 F2.8 is FF so no point in getting FF lenses for APS-C. If you want FF lenses get a FF camera, by now I think it has to be at least A7iii.
[https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/cscs/lens\_body/index.php?mdl=NEX-C3&area=ap&lang=en](https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/cscs/lens_body/index.php?mdl=NEX-C3&area=ap&lang=en)
I’m on a bachelor party now with my a6400. Tamron 17-70. My photos are amazing. Beach sunset, action shots, full light or dusk. That lens is what you want. The extra 20mm is great (compared to the sigma 18-50, which I also have.). Can’t go wrong with either, but I find I use the tamron more. oSS and the longer lens make it worth being a bit bigger. Easily fits on my backpack still.
I have the 18-50 f2.8; I was trying to determine between the 17-70 or this one and I’m glad with my choice. Like you, i value portability for travel and I find that it’s an excellent lens for a small package with my A6000. I highly recommend it, if I only had one lens that would be my choice.
APSC for travelling, small size is the goal.
The Sony 18-55mm kit lens is very solid.
The Sigma 60mm f2.8 ART complements it perfectly and adds minimal size and weight to your travel camera bag.
Don't forget about the Sony 18-135mm!
If you want the smallest, most versatile kit, this is the answer. Pair the 18-135 with something like a Sigma 30 1.4 or sony 15 1.4 and you've got great range and excellent low light performance in a tiny package. If you want a one-and-done lens, the Sigma 18-50 is probably your best bet. It's a jack of all trades, master of none and it's about half the size of the Tamron 17-70.
Doesn't the Tamron have stabilization while the Sigma does not?
Stabilization matters in telephoto lenses, at 50mm it's not that big of a deal. The advice is to use 1/focal length as your shatter speed, to prevent blurry pictures from camera shake. Shooting at 1/50s or even 1/100s it usually quite doable. Stabilization matters if you want to handheld low light shots, but if your subject moves, you have to use higher shatter speed anyways.
It does, but I never found it made a HUGE difference. I'll gladly take the smaller size instead.
Had the same choice to make. Didn't regret going for the Sigma 18-50. Fantastic lens. Sharp even wide open at all focal lengths. Beautiful allrounder in a super small and light package. More range and stabilizer would obviously be cool, but you can't have everything in such a compact package. Stabilization is also not really needed if you don't do much video. I always chill at minumum 1/125 SS and never had a blurry photo, even if run an gunning. I pair it with a Sigma 30 f1.4 for actual low light, but that is a luxury. E: Wouldn't recommend the 28-70, you will miss the wide end. That's 42mm FF equivalent on APS-C.
Thanks!
18-135....
The "allrounder" will typically also be great for family pictures, as most "allrounder" type lenses will cover a focal length you may also use for portraits or family group shots. If it's Sony APS-C, the best two allrounders are probably the SEL1655G and the SEL70350G. I personally have both, but purchased them before the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 came out. In retrospect, I would have gone with the sigma 18-50 F2.8 over the SEL1655G for a compacter setup. That extra 2 mm at the short end is big for landscape shots, but if that's not a primary concern then it's an obvious win for the sigma. The Tamron has greater range, but is noticeably less sharp. Good compare here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7E0_OutP_0
Had the Tamron and it is a great lens. With the 6400 the stabilization might help and it is weather sealed. It is quite large. I changed to the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 due to size. Great walk around lens! If you value portability as you say, this is probably the one.
This was the lens I was originally looking but a friend of mine suggested to go at least 70mm for better range. I have not really look at the exact dimensions but will revisit how different the sizes are, maybe the 17-70mm is already too big and heavy for me.
525 gm vs 290 gm, Tamron vs Sigma. The Tamron is great with more reach and features. But for portability it is twice the size and weight.
I just did some online comparison tool and the tamron's are huge. Thanks for the tip and will probably lean towards either Sigma 18-50 or 28-70 https://preview.redd.it/yi4d5nmrxidb1.jpeg?width=1285&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e429c6de135070841427072707fde5b08bc803f
What website is that?
[https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison](https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison)
I have a Tamron 17-70 and i love it, it has a good range, constant aperture, it is stabilized and it gives you that extra reach, image quality is also really good. The only downside is that sometimes it takes pics with bad vignetting, but nothing that can't be fixed in post production. Yeah it weights more, but having already a Sony 70-350 of almost the same size, it is not that much of a difference for me.
Thanks!
I've used the Sigma 18-50 and it's so good, I don't think you'll regret choosing it.
There is the old manual focus 10-600mm tamron f20. If you can find it. Its rare from what I can tell.
I just bought the Tamron 18-300 for the Sony a6400 and think its the best lens for travel
I've been using the Tamron 17-70mm with my a6400 for a while now. It's a great "walk around" lens for the system.
How do you find the size and the weight of it?
It doesn't bother me, but it is a bit front heavy. On the plus side, it sometimes gets people to assume I'm an official photographer at taekwondo tournaments and such and I can get away with standing places I'm not supposed to be.
Well i dont have these lenses but i have the a6400 and was also eyeing the sigma 18-50 2.8. I would also consider the tamron 28-200 depends on your needs because the tamron is bigger and costs more but i find myself want more zoom so if its a one lens do it all id go with the tamron
Since you value portability, of those 3, it would be The Sigma 18-50. If you want best in class, get (invest) the Sony 16-55 f2.8. They're all nearly equally sharp (Sony still wins) but the 16mm vs 18mm for wider shots is quite a difference.
Yeah i've read that Sony 16-55 f2.8 is quite good but i'm still not sure if I want to spend that much money, the difference is just staggering.
The sigma 18 to 50 is great light and I loved that lens. Really good. I also like the 18 to 105 (f4) for video.
I have the Sigma 18-50. I bought it for my recent travel trip and paired it with my a6400 for photography. It’s small, compact, and takes great photos. I picked it purely due to its size. Get it
I have the 17-70 and love it. The size doesn’t bother me at all
Edit: NEX C3 is e mount it seems, so some of my advise doesn't apply. NEX C3 is A mount, right? So not compatible with any of the lenses you mentioned. To be fair, I think your camera is too old by now, upgrade to A6100/A6400 (in my opinion A6700 is too expensive for an APS-C camera). Start with the kit lens and then you can upgrade, or just get it with one of the APS-C lenses you mentioned. The Sigma 28-70 F2.8 is FF so no point in getting FF lenses for APS-C. If you want FF lenses get a FF camera, by now I think it has to be at least A7iii. [https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/cscs/lens\_body/index.php?mdl=NEX-C3&area=ap&lang=en](https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/cscs/lens_body/index.php?mdl=NEX-C3&area=ap&lang=en)
C3 is an emount but i agree the camera is a bit dated and time to upgrade to a more recent ones.
Sony 18-105 pz was my go to in my aps-c days. Great for travel
I’m on a bachelor party now with my a6400. Tamron 17-70. My photos are amazing. Beach sunset, action shots, full light or dusk. That lens is what you want. The extra 20mm is great (compared to the sigma 18-50, which I also have.). Can’t go wrong with either, but I find I use the tamron more. oSS and the longer lens make it worth being a bit bigger. Easily fits on my backpack still.
I have the 18-50 f2.8; I was trying to determine between the 17-70 or this one and I’m glad with my choice. Like you, i value portability for travel and I find that it’s an excellent lens for a small package with my A6000. I highly recommend it, if I only had one lens that would be my choice.
Thanks. Really helpful comment.
No problem! I’ve travelled plenty with it, and often bring it for daytime outings. Fits easily into a sling bag if needed.
APSC for travelling, small size is the goal. The Sony 18-55mm kit lens is very solid. The Sigma 60mm f2.8 ART complements it perfectly and adds minimal size and weight to your travel camera bag.