I have a pentax 18-135. Is here any value in using he 16-45 over the 18-135? Want to use the lens for museums and car shows.
1548206
Not really. It has a miniscule more amount of wide angle and a slighter wider aperture, but not enough to make it worth purchasing when you have the 18-135mm.
1253004
I have the exact same question. Please do post your findings. I am confused too. Apparently 18-200 is supposed to have larger zoom but I want to make sure that the quality of 18-200 matches to 18-135 at the least upto 135 mm. If so i will go with 18-200 for sure.
784056
Is the 18-105 worth buying over the 18-55mm any day. Especially you going to use with D5200. If you more money why not go for 18-200mm VRII or 18-300mm VRII. They are all around lenses. Good luck!
1385131
Off hand I'm not sure. Go to the Pextax website and check. I love the 18-135 mm lens that came with mine. I just made a trip to Yellowstone and of course it was raining. No Problem. Most of the pictures came out great and the one that didn't were operator error. If you can upgrade to the 18-135 I think you will be happy. It's a do all len.
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
1703577
Thanks Michael for sharing your experience. I myself ended up buying a 60d with 18-135 lens kit about a week ago from amazon and I am very happy both with the body as well as the Lens. I had a T2i with 18-55mm before this purchase, and I am not a pro but so far i haven't seen any degradation on the image quality between the two lenses. I like the 18-135 for its decent quality and a very practical zoom range. Not to mention that 60D is a far better body than T2i.
173418
Hi, I was faced with the same dilemma last year. I chose 14-45. It is a sharp lens with good auto focus and stabilization. I use it mainly as a travel lens and photograph historical monuments.Prakash
364836
The difference is in the scope of the shots you take. The 18-55 will take a wider to somewhat narrow view while the extra distance the 135 gives you allow not only the distance but an even narrower yet view. The lens of the 135 is longer and a little heavier . In summation , if you budget shopping and have no need to take many long distance shots buy the 55. If your not as much on a budget and need the distance shots or narrower shots buy the 135
2227374
Since this is your first DSLR I will recomend the Canon 18-135 as a good all around lens. Overtime you may find the need or desire for other lenses like primes and L but to get you started the 18-135 will do a good job.
1111390
I would just buy the 18-140 as it is the one you would use the most. Later you could consider what additional lenses you would like to buy. A 50mm is a mild telephoto on a DX body so you might be better off buying the 35mm f1.8 instead. The 70-300mm VR is a better lens and there is less overlap with the 18-140. You see quite a few good used 70-300mm VR's for sale at reasonable prices because a lot of people buy them and then later discover they don't have much need for a lens that long.
1150131
I'll settle this. The 135 being compared to the 200mm 2.8 is laughable. It's different leagues. Different caliber of glass. The 135 is the sharpest production lens made.. With the single exception of, the 200mm F/2 canon. I'm in rolling stone every week...Us weekly every week..People every week. This is the best answer you'll get.www.instagram.com/ZornPhoto
608745
I have both for my Pentax K-5iis. The 17-70mm practically stays on my camera as I find I need it for its macro abilities as well as the extra reach. I suggested it to a friend who owns a Nikon when she was ready to upgrade from her kit lens and she loves it. I don't feel like f/4 at the longer end of the 17-70mm is limiting for most of my images. I use it outdoors shooting various subjects and indoors at concerts every week. I use the 17-50mm mainly during school classroom events because of its f/2.8, but always wish it had more zoom.
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?
410989
Thanks for the information. I was using a Canon 28-135 IS USM as my walk around travel lens and loved it until it got stolen in an airport! :-( Now I'm in the market for a new lens and I'm leaning towards the Tamron. I've used their lens in my past photography life with my old AE-1 Program and I'd LOVE the 18-270 if I can swing the $$$. I'm hunting eBay as well, as that's where I got my 28-135 and had NO problems with it at all!
820534
Hi Enrique, I wish I had a clear cur answer. I use some new lenses and some 'E" series lenses made by Nikon. The adapters are different on each. The E series lenses were made in the early 1980's and are a GREAT value however their mounts are different than the 18-55. Sorry I cannot be of more help. Maybe go the B&H photo and see if they have a close-up of your lens and compare that with the 18-55? Best, Haji Mahmood