Just preordered this instead of 18-135 stm because this one has full time manual focusing. Is this a great deal???
1966850
It is a good lens, manual + auto-focus, image stabilization. It is not an exceptional lens (costing $1,500-2,000) but for $249 it is a good deal. It has become the lens of choice to "kit" a body, so lots are manufactured which might be the reason for a lower-than-expected price.
794475
I too am a novice, however, I did do some research before purchasing my Canon Rebel T4i with the 18-135mm lens. I found that for doing video, which is more of a priority for me, the auto focus with this lens is quiet, unlike the 18-55mm. That was enough to sell me on it.
1041292
I agree with the 35 F1.4 response. It is a very sharp lens and with the sale, it's priced great. WELL worth the $.
728065
I agree with the other two respondents. I think it's a bargain. I paid 160 for an excellent condition used one and feel I got my money's worth. I don't use it in low light much, but for outdoor sports it's SWEET. And the 1:2 "macro" quality is also very good.
1196709
I suppose it also really depends on what you budget is now vs later down the line. You really cannot go wrong with a kit lens - especially if you don't have any MAJOR plans for upgrading or spending too much more money down the line. However, I will forever speak highly of the 50mm and the 35mm. They're prime lenses, so they're not as user-friendly to somebody, if just starting - but in reality, that also teaches you more manual-techniques, while still being an amazing lens, in general. I might be bias, though, as I no long have a kit lens, and only primarily use my prime lenses. But, maybe that means something? That I've sold most of my other lenses, and truly use my 50mm & 35mm on a daily-basis, and more frequently than my other four lenses, combined. The Tamron Tom mentioned - it's a great lens. And with the price where it currently is, it's most cost-efficient, as well; considering all the GREAT use you'd get out of it. He also mentioned the 85mm - this is another lens I have, and I love it very much. I just do not have as much wiggle-room when it comes to distance-from-subject very often. If you do have that wiggle-room - I would also very much recommend the 85mm. So really, it depends on what you're wanting to do and spend; both now and in the long-run.
794476
I have the 18-135mm STM lens and if your planning to do any video shooting its a better buy hands down! I use this lens daily! I also have the 40mm STM lens the STM version is quiet and it seems to work best with the Canon DSLR's
298203
Thanks for all of the feedback. I bought the E-510 about month ago and it has been great. I am glad I went with the two lens kit for $650 on amazon. Its great to have both lenses. The E-510 is proving to be a great camera.
38402
First, please understand I am far from a pro so keep this in mind. To be certain I can answer as best I can and insure I do not missunderstand can you please explain the USM, USM & B piece? This lens is both auto or manual focus.
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
799760
Yes.... It was a great deal although, looking back I think that I would have gotten the body alone with the 18-200 lens instead of the two kit lenses. I ended up purchasing the 18-200 a few months later.... If you get this don't expect much from the bag. It is mediocre.... The rest is great...
1402682
It is a great lens. Focus can be touchy so i will switch to manual when photographing people so as to get exactly what I want crisp. The 1:4 gives gorgeous depth and beauty to the photos although with my profession ( newborn photography) I will try and shoot around a 2 to get a bit more in focus
1015518
Hello Brian. I've had this lens for four years now, and while my copy has been beset with build quality issues, I can't complain about autofocus. It's not as fast as some of the newest SSM lenses, but it tends to be quick and accurate. You can always check other reviews here: http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T*--DT-16-80-F3.5-4.5_review318.html
2120274
Well, "Mind Blowing" would be accurate to some. In reality, the sharpness is easily twice as good across the range, and more than that at the ends of the range than the "kit lens". The clarity or contrast is much improved over the "kit lens" too. It is much faster to focus. It is a solid unit. It has a snap focus ring that allows you to quickly switch from auto to manual focus (use the ring as a distance guide). Pull the ring back and push forward. If you have the money, this is worth it. But it will make you want a newer camera body too.
119682
I have also read that the 18-135 STM lens is a completely different optical design as well, with much higher edge to edge contrast, compared to the existing 18-135, which was a great all around piece of glass and definitely superior in quality to the kit lens. The 18-135 has also been called a good "walking around" lens in that it is very flexible in helping you get a wide range of shots.So if you want to do video and want the state of the art in 18-135, the STM is the way to go. As far as I can tell, the original 18-135 is NOT USM, so it is not a tradeoff in terms of STM/non-STM for this particular lens. If you were wanting a USM lens instead of STM or non-STM, that's another decision to make. I have also read that the 18-135 STM lens is a completely different optical design as well, with much higher edge to edge contrast, compared to the existing 18-135, which was a great all around piece of glass and definitely superior in quality to the kit lens. The 18-135 has also been called a good "walking around" lens in that it is very flexible in helping you get a wide range of shots.So if you want to do video and want the state of the art in 18-135, the STM is the way to go. As far as I can tell, the original 18-135 is NOT USM, so it is not a tradeoff in terms of... » Read More I have also read that the 18-135 STM lens is a completely different optical design as well, with much higher edge to edge contrast, compared to the existing 18-135, which was a great all around piece of glass and definitely superior in quality to the kit lens. The 18-135 has also been called a good "walking around" lens in that it is very flexible in helping you get a wide range of shots.So if you want to do video and want the state of the art in 18-135, the STM is the way to go. As far as I can tell, the original 18-135 is NOT USM, so it is not a tradeoff in terms of STM/non-STM for this particular lens. If you were wanting a USM lens instead of STM or non-STM, that's another decision to make. « Show Less
1298993
Quite happy. I had a K10D previously (still have it as backup) and have a pretty good complement of lenses because of that. I feel like I am getting more out of the other lenses because of the K-3. I was out shooting with the long lens (300-500mm zoom) last weekend, and saw the benefits. Still feel like I am on learning curve, but have no regrets.
1264580
Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's... » Read More Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! « Show Less
741519
If you're going to use it for mostly still subjects, portraits, etc, you would probably be fine. My only beef with manual focus lenses is that it usually takes me a lot longer to find my focus than with an AF lens - and when I'm trying to catch people interacting at a wedding reception, I lose the shot if I don't get it focused quickly. Since you've been using manuals for a long time, you're probably quicker at it than I am. A major part of the problem with using manuals on Nikon digital cameras is the "focus (not) assist" system. You don't have the same focus guide you do in most 35mm cameras; it's just a little green dot that flashes on when you're focused. Trying to get it focused can involve a lot of trial and error, and by the time you've got it, the shot is gone. I have a D70, and this may have changed for the D80, but I'm fairly certain it has not, as I've looked at one in the store and that would have been one of the first things I checked (and, had it been changed, I would have been so excited I would have remembered). If you're going to be doing much action work, I might consider getting an AF lens for it eventually, but you could probably survive for a while without them. Or, it seems like the kit lenses have a pretty good resale value if you wanted to try it and re-sell it later - they're going for around $300 on eBay. All that said, my favorite lens on my D70 is a circa-1970 50mm F/1.4 Nikkor (S series, I think) manual prime with the metal casing - it's absolutely crystal clear and the shots I get with it are positively stunning. Having difficulty trying to pick up its 28mm cousin though... everyone wants one!