>>4215373I have 5 A-mount lenses
70-210 f/4 (in the pic) is solid optically and mechanically, but requires an adapter with built-in AF motor and has no stab. If you don't mind 1/3 — 4/3 stop smaller aperture and some chromatic aberrations then native 55-210 might be a better choise for you.
28-135 f/4-4.5 is awesome. Even without internal motor the focusing is lightning-fast, it covers a very convenient range (at least for me) and is very sharp for an ancient zoom. However it flares like a bitch, has no hood bayonet, so you'll have to screw one into filter thread or nig-rig a cardboard cup with duct tape and has MFD of 1.5m.
Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Di macro Sony A is ehh... It's tolerable optically, no horrific distortions or chromatic aberrations, has some spherochromatism. Mechanically, it's an average plastic garbage, both zoom and focus are external. The absolute worst part is AF operation. It requires an adapter with motor and has high gear ratio. It focuses VERY SLOWLY and misses constantly. I only use it in MF mode, usually for telemacro, for tele purposes the abovementioned beercan or 55-210 are better choises.
CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 is an ok wide-to-tele zoom lens. I took it together with the beercan on vacation and didn't miss out on anything. Doesn't have any scary distortions or other significant image defects. Body is plastic, but better than Tamron. If you don't need the 50-80 range or marginally better wide angle, stick with the kit.
Sony 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 SAM DT. I only bought it for ~5$ to test the adapter. It actually turned out to be a tolerable lens. Mechanically, it's garbage. It's plastic, mount included, it has annoying long-short-long inner barrel motion during zooming, the barrel itself is wobbling and rotates during focusing (also doubles as the focus ring in MF). Optically it turned out, IMHO, to be better than both of Sony E APS-C kits, mostly because it has less aberrations. Not good enough to choose it over kit tho.
