Nikon 18mm - 135mm Opinions?

K_Pugh · Dec 3, 2008

I've got a couple of older lenses here, which i'm looking to sell to get another more usable lens. My older tamron back focuses, and my sigma is poor.

What's your opinions on the Nikon 18mm-135mm lens? I think it's DX? Any photos or anything like that would be appreciated. Lens distortion? fringing? anything.

Thanks.

sabbath999 · Dec 3, 2008

IMHO it is very overpriced for what it is... for that money it should have VR on it.

I have shot it on a friend's camera, and I don't have any images to share, but here is what I know about it.

It is very sharp, there is a boatload of distortion at the 18 end and color fringing is pretty bad.

I would MUCH rather spend just a few dollars more and get the 18-105 which is a MUCH better lens with VR on it... OR... even better than that, buy the excellent 18-55 VR and the 55-200 VR and get better lenses across the board. The 55-200 is (within its limitations) as good picture-quality-wise as my $1600 70-200 VR at one eighth of the price.

K_Pugh · Dec 3, 2008

Thanks.. Yeah I've had a look at some samples with the 18-135mm, fringing is very bad! so I don't think I'll go for it.

My Tamron 20-40mm SP optically is brilliant! I can't fault it apart from the fact it back focuses quite badly with my Nikon bodies - It's a shame because it does autofocus very quickly and very well in low light, but it just doesn't do it properly :lol:

I'll have a look at the 18-105mm you mentioned.

I'll also have a look at the Tamron SP 28-75mm F2.8.. think this one is designed for digital so shouldn't have any focusing issues.

sabbath999 · Dec 3, 2008

K_Pugh said:
My Tamron 20-40mm SP optically is brilliant! I can't fault it apart from the fact it back focuses quite badly with my Nikon bodies - It's a shame because it does autofocus very quickly and very well in low light, but it just doesn't do it properly

How about getting the Tamron repaired?

iflynething · Dec 3, 2008

I'm using it on my D80. It's a nice lens at wide angle, but vinetting (sp?) is horrible (my opinion) at 135 expecially photographing things in the sky. Some pictures were ruined photographing some remonte control planes over the summer.

If you can go past that, I don't mind it. The 7.5x zoom is great. You have the zoom AND decent wide angle. Sure do wish it was a 12-135. I haven't seen any major fringing. If you're a pixel peeper, then that migiht be a problem with this lens.

I'll give a plus on the 18-105, mainly becuase it has the VR. There were some times where I wish I had VR on a lens like this. Most people say, you don't need VR on a lens under 200mm, I say anything over around 80, it can be benefecial

~Michael~

K_Pugh · Dec 3, 2008

sabbath999 said:
How about getting the Tamron repaired?

It's not a fault with the lens, works fine on my 35mm SLR. It's a common problem using older 3rd party lenses on newer bodies apparently.

K_Pugh · Dec 3, 2008

I've also had a look at the 55-200 VR as recommended, I'm going tomorrow to try find one.. might even trade in the tamron and then buy the 18-55 VR at a later date. I have a 35-80 i can use for 'wider' angles in the meantime.

iflynething · Dec 3, 2008

If you MEANT to put get the 18-55, don't waste your money. I don't think VR is needed for that lens, at all

~Michael~

K_Pugh · Dec 3, 2008

Yeah I've never been fussed about VR myself before. I've heard good things bout the 55-200VR though, especially for the price. A good wide zoom at a later date i can think about it's just, as said above, the 18-55 seems like an obvious choice.

passerby · Dec 3, 2008

I think the 16-85 VR is the cream of entry level zoom now. If the focal length is suits you, you can have a good look on it. But it is not cheap, almost the price of 18-200.

iflynething · Dec 3, 2008

That's why I was saying save the money. That 18-55 VR is way to expensive. Unless it's really, really, REALLy low light, I do not see a point in VR in a 18-55mm lens.

Also, there's about a $550 difference between the 18-55 VR and 18-200. I assume you meant the 55-200? (which sells for $199 from Wolf Camera)

~Michael~

K_Pugh · Dec 4, 2008

Well I'm just back home with..

The 55-200 VR.

Initial thoughts: Glad I got it! I can see even from the LCD that it's a sharper lens than my Sigma 70-300 was. It is a bit slow to AF but the Sigma used to hunt so it's come and go type of thing. Seems like a solid little lens, more compact than I expected.

K_Pugh · Dec 4, 2008

Here's a photo I took when i sat on a bench to try it out for the first time.

ISO800, F5.6, 1/20th, 200mm, VR off.

Wee bugger kept jumping about every time he heard the shutter. I didn't have VR on but for that shutter speed at 200mm wide open it's quite sharp.

sabbath999 · Dec 4, 2008

Very cool little lens, isn't it?

That's pretty sharp for 200mm handheld 1/20th of a second.

I find the sweet spot to be (not surprisingly) F/11

K_Pugh · Dec 4, 2008

yup, there's most definitely a little camera shake on that pic, overlooking that though i think the lens optics will prove to be really good.

If i had taken a shot with my Sigma wide open it would be softer than that no matter what you did.

I'll need to get a good play with it tomorrow. I notice the AF is fast with the AF assist lamps from my SB600.. I dare say it's faster in good light, I've only played with it in lowish light so far.

Anyway thanks for the info and advice guys, I think i will be pleased with the lens.