How does this compare with the 18-105 in image quality? Can you notice the difference in photos?
907554
This lens is top quality like a primary lens. The image is brighter and with more detail. The telephoto range is broader of course. I found that I no longer need or use the kit lens 105MM that I ordered with my Nex5.
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.
848892
Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and... » Read More Yes, I own and use both the 15-85mm IS and 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lenses. The 17-55 produces excellent image quality while the 15-85mm offers very, very good image quality. While the 17-55 is optically superior, IMHO, the differences in IQ produced by the two lenses can be relatively small - virtually unnoticeable in small to medium-large prints - so I feel perhaps IQ shouldn't be THE deciding factor when choosing between the two lenses, rather, your intended use. For example, I use these lenses for very different purposes: the 17-55 is a fantastic standard zoom for low light situations and the 15-85 excels for travel. « Show Less
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
944474
its the DYNAMIC CONTRAST RATIO. the 757 is 10 million to 1, the 857 is 12 million to 1, and the 755 is 4 million to one. if you can afford it the 757 with 10 million to one will give you a far better picture then the 755 at 4 million.
1927592
I have the 18-135 and I love it. I've not used the 18-55 so I'm not sure about the quality being the same.
967393
The 24-105 is more versatile. The 135 is limiting but has gorgeous shallow depth of field.
625215
I am not sure but I do know the pictures r clearer and very sharper than my 16 50. I took some beautiful wedding pictures last month. I am a beginner.
608537
Since I don't have the 18-55 I can't compare. But let me say that the 23 is an excellent prime lens which, in daylight, autofocuses almost instantaneously. In dim light, such as twilight, it may (although not necessarily) hunt around in order to find focus. But that would occur just as well with other excellent lenses including Canon L which I also happen to have. In those situations, experienced amateurs will at once shift to manual focus without dropping a beat.
766815
Personally I wish I had gotten the 18-135 as the two DA L lenses are pretty poor quality in comparison, and you actually save money on the 18-135.
604837
Hi Jack - to be honest I've not had hands on with this lens. It was bought for my Son for his birthday. And from what I do know about it it is smaller and with the Macro capability - a more useful lens, also the 18-200 has less focal range then the newer Macro Lens. Seems to have pretty good reviews and as my son uses it for digital video - he's pretty happy thus far. Sorry I can't be of more help.Chuck
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
1835511
i use both the 105 and the 200 and my 200 is my go to every day lens. both are good but i just prefer the 200. hope this helps. distortion is equal on both lens so no real differences noted.
1886676
I find that the 18-135 lens is extremely sharp. It shows every hair, for example, on a dog. You may or may not think this is good enough.If you are in a static environment the 100 mm is excellent, but for outdoor use with a lot of movement, I prefer the 1-135 and I own both. I find I use the 18-135 the most as it has greater flexibility for framing your subject.
2068754
I bought the 24-105. IK am very happy with it because it has IS. I shoot videos sometimes and IS is a must in those occasions. Overall, pictures look GREAT!!!
501123
Congrats on the nice lens! I have the 17-85. It's better than my 18-55, but I would love to get the 17-55 someday. Heck, I'd like to get a lot of different lenses someday! But being completely new to dslr, I think what I have now will suffice until I get going.
660620
The difference for me was the group focus feature, it seemed to lock in focus quicker and track subjects better. Low light is just awesome I have always hesitated cranking up the ISO too high because of the noise potential. It is simply amazing how you can take clean shots in low light situations like bars, parties, sports arenas. If most of your shooting involve low light venues you will see a difference. Wether this is enough to drive an upgrade is up to you. Regarding general picture quality I can't say there is a significant difference other than low light situation I mentioned. I own a d800 as well and use it when picture quality is absolutely critical. These are the 2 cameras in my bag and handles every situation I am faced with. If pic quality is what you seek you can grab a used d800 for under 2k. You will not be disappointed. Just my opinion.