Nikon AF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6G ED DX Autofocus Zoom Lens

[Matt Ashmore]

Hi,

 

I'm considering getting a Nikon AF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6G ED DX Autofocus Zoom Lens.

I keep getting frustrated when my 18-55mm lens just doesn't zoom far enough for a shot that I've spotted. And it's a real faff to take out and change lens to my 55-200mm lens when normally 135mm worth of 'zoom' would suffice.

I am an 'enthusiastic amateur' and as such don't have megabucks to spend. But I was just wondering if people had used the aforementioned lens and if so if they found it OK? The other option that I was looking at is a 18-70mm lens but thought I might as well go for the lens which will go that little bit further.

 

Many Thanks,

Matt

[Gervais Montacute]

Do they still make that model? I would think it would be pretty good on a cropped frame Nikon. Maybe it's the 18-140 that has superseded it.  What camera will you put it on?

[Matt Ashmore]

Do they still make that model? I would think it would be pretty good on a cropped frame Nikon. Maybe it's the 18-140 that has superseded it.  What camera will you put it on?

 

No, I don't think they still make that model. I'd be buying second hand. There's a couple of reputable second hand dealers who I have bought from before and trust.

I have a Nikon D7000.

[Gervais Montacute]

Should be good. It effectively becomes 27-200 roughly on a crop, so should be good to go for just about any situation.

[Ace]

Have just bought a nikon 85mm 1.8 which gives me about 130mm on a crop body.

works a treat . Very nice lens. Plenty of reach. For stock it's a more discreet lens. Can shoot very sharp from 20 yards away.

[NYCat]

I shot these images with that lens (the 18-135) on a D80. A few of them have sold.

 

http://www.alamy.com/search.html?CreativeOn=1&adv=1&ag=0&all=1&creative=&et=0x000000000000000000000&vp=0&loc=0&qt=Paulette%20Sinclair%20Masai%20Village&qn=&lic=6&lic=1&archive=1&dtfr=&dtto=&hc=&selectdate=&size=0xFF&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=&gtype=0

 

I miss how nice and light it was. Everything keeps getting bigger and heavier for me with the wildlife photos.

 

Paulette

[Matt Ashmore]

I shot these images with that lens (the 18-135) on a D80. A few of them have sold.

 

http://www.alamy.com/search.html?CreativeOn=1&adv=1&ag=0&all=1&creative=&et=0x000000000000000000000&vp=0&loc=0&qt=Paulette%20Sinclair%20Masai%20Village&qn=&lic=6&lic=1&archive=1&dtfr=&dtto=&hc=&selectdate=&size=0xFF&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=&gtype=0

 

I miss how nice and light it was. Everything keeps getting bigger and heavier for me with the wildlife photos.

 

Paulette

 

Great pictures Paulette.. the fact that you've managed to sell a couple of these pictures also tells me that it's performance would be good enough for anything that I would want to use it for. :-)

[Betty LaRue]

I used this lens extensively for a number of years. D200, D300, D7000. I took it on a New England trip for autumn foliage, along with my new at the time, 24/70, which I expected to use 90% of the time. After the first day, it came off and the 18-135 stayed on the rest of our 3 week trip.

I loved that lens. My daughter now has it along with the D7000, after I got my D800. It does suffer some CA on limbs or roofs against a bright sky, but easily fixed with current software. Back then, I didn't have LR, and PS wasn't great at removing CA.

Betty

[fotoDogue]

My general experience with Nikon's variable aperture lenses has been disappointing. I received one as part of a package a number of years ago and was so distrubed by the distortion that I resold it on ebay within months.

Ken Rockwell seems to agree this lens is not the best

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-135.htm

 

EDIT: All of my lenses are Nikon f2.8 except my fisheye 10.5mm f4 and my 300mm f4. If you're serious about photography then buy the best lens you can afford that's pratical for your work. After years of use you'll find it's well worth the money.

[DHill]

From memory, it wasn't that great in the reviews - the 18-105 that superseded was apparently better. One thing to be aware of is that it was sold with cameras with much lower resolution than the D7000. I'd be looking carefully at resolution in the corners - that's where things tend to be weakest and unlike things like distortion and CA, can't be corrected for in post-production. Be aware also that if heavy distortion correction is needed, that will result in cropping, which may be an issue if you like the widest angles. 

 

Good places for lens reviews are slrgear.com, www.photozone.de, www.bythom.com and dxomark.com. Reading those should help a lot. 

[NYCat]

Yes, perhaps it is important that I was using it on a 10MP camera. I also am not often using wide angle shots. Probably depends a lot on what kind of shots you are taking. I am not a landscape photographer. It definitely served me well and didn't keep me from making sales.

 

Paulette

[Betty LaRue]

I've made sales with that lens. But that was with a D200 or 300. I did find that with the D7000, the images were softer. I attributed that to the camera, although it could have been from going from 12mp to 16.

 

Although it seemed all of the images with the D7000 seemed soft, no matter the lens. I think I had a bad copy of the camera. My husband's D7000 was sharper. Although he used a Tamron 18-270 with it, and I really liked the images he got with the Tamron. Just "might" be a better option.

 

Most of my fails came from the D7000. It wasn't technique, because I went to the D800 with no problem, other than I just don't like the color/look of the D800 compared to the D7000, which I loved. Too bad sharpness wasn't thrown in.

 

With my T1, I get sharp and beautiful color.

 

What I liked about the lens was it was light, and the range made it a perfect vacation lens. But if I were starting over, I'd choose the Tamron over the Nikon.

[Matt Ashmore]

Lots of useful comments so thank you everyone!

 

Based on people's suggestions and whet I've read in some other reviews, I'm now wondering about going for something like the Tamron 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 AF XR DI II lens instead.

[MDM]

The Tamron professional lenses are excellent (90 Macro, 24-70 VR lens etc) so Tamron do make good lenses, often just as good in terms of image quality as the Nikkors, which are usually much more expensive. Looking at  some reviews of the cheaper Tamron zoom lenses versus Nikkor, there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference so definitely worth considering as again they are cheaper.

 

However, looking at this thread, it seems like you are jumping all over the place. I think you need to ask yourself why you want a new lens. Looking at some of your portfolio, you seem to be doing a lot of walkabout photography. How often do you really need a 200mm lens (300mm FF equivalent) or even a 135?  If it is simply so you don't have to change lenses, then maybe an entry level second camera body would be a better solution than a megazoom which would probably come with reduced quality. The cheapest Nikon DSLR now comes in at under £300 new and it can be very useful to have a second body. Also if buying a new lens for walkabout, then vibration reduction (or control) is worth considering. It can make all the difference in getting a (sharp) shot or not.