- This topic is empty.
AF 18-135mm Lens or AF 18-70mm Lens ?
-
I am looking at upgrading to the Nikon D80. I was just about to buy it with the new AF 18-135mm Lens but I noticed that it is available with the AF 18-70mm Lens also and it costs about 50 euro more. Is the 18-70 a better lens or would I be better off getting the 18-135 for extra flexibility?
In every day use the real tester is the maximum fStop on each. I have the 18-70 and it’s a lovely lens (in the cupboard though now that I have the 18-200 VRII).
The 18-70 is f3.5-f4.5. and the 18-135 is f3.5-f5.6. The difference here means that towards the end of the zoom on each you will end up with a shallower depth of field on the 18-135.
On the other hand the reach of the 18-135 (in 135mm terms multiplying by the Nikon crop factor of 1.5 you get a 27-202mm lents) means that it’s a great all rounder and stops you having to change lenses too often, thus protecting your sensor from potential dust during lens changes.
I haven’t seen any comparative tests of them yet but you could check out DP Reviews Nikon D80 Forum here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1034
Dave
Can’t say I have any knowledge of Nikon lenses at all, but as a rule, the larger the zoom range, the lower the quality of the resulting shot. Reason being that you need different shaped glass for a wideangle lens, than a telephoto, and therefore any “all on one” lenses like the 18-135 will always be a compromise.
Really general answer, as for all I know the 18-70 is terrible compared to the 18-135, but hopefully you get my point!
Tim
earthairfire wrote:
Really general answer, as for all I know the 18-70 is terrible compared to the 18-135, but hopefully you get my point!
TimTim, what do you mean by “terrible”?
DaveI’m confused by the q…
I mean terrible, as in not as good, as in awful…
Did you read my post correctly? I said “for all I know”, as in “I have no idea if…”
Apologies if my post was ambiguous!
Tim
Tim, maybe you should go back to bed and see if you can find the right side :)
The original poster asked for advice, but opinons that can’t be backed just make things confusing.
So back to ‘terrible’, ‘awful’, ‘not good’…. why?
Dave
Dave…
The above post was written entirely tongue in cheek. I’m on the right side of my bed, skipping about in a puddle of happiness :D
I’m soooo confused. I doubt for one second that you can’t comprehend what the word terrible means, and therefore can only assume that the context in which I used it has been completely misinterpreted.
I’ll rephrase it here:
Generally lenses that have a lower focal range (i.e 17- 40 instead of 17-300) give better performance. Clearly if you’re using a top notch 17-300 lens, or a plastic 17-40 lens this may not be the case.
I have no idea regarding the relative performance of the 2 lenses in debate, but was merely giving the advice that most lenses with wide focal ranges that I have come across give poorer performance than their “narrow band” counterparts. For the same reasons, prime lenses will also NORMALLY give better performance than a zoom. The bigger the zoom range, the bigger the compromise.
Does this make sense to anyone here, or do I need to go for a lie down…. lol
Tim
Tim, thanks for the bed-time reading :) That’s very clear.
The points you make are absolutely right. Prime lenses will ALWAYS be better at it’s fixed focal length than any zoom, no matter how expensive the zoom. But if your bank balance and the size of your camera bag is not that big then zoom lenses are a good compromise.
As with all things in life choices mean compromise. I would prefer to drive a Merc SLK because it is great in some many ways and would enhance my life in so many ways :) :) . I drive a 10 year old car. It still gets me from A to B, no-one turns their head on my journey but I have to live with that :x
Also, quality is a relative thing. If you’re printing big (say A3 or above) or are getting A4 Cover’s to shoot on a regular basis then the expensive lenses are the way to go, but if you’re just printing out mostly 6×4’s and the odd 10×8, and you have no contract with a major magazine publisher then a zoom from a Major Manufacturer is good enough for most people.
Dave
Thanks for the info guys. I’m not sure what way to go now. I do want a good walk around lens but I really do want the best quality I can afford and I already have a 55-200 zoom. I think I might try to get the body only and look what I can afford. Any suggestions in the 300 euro range?
Honestly? In the 300 euro range, I think you’re better off sticking with the 18-70 or 18-135 if you want to stay under 300 euro. I don’t think you’re going to find anything as good as either of those lenses for that cheap. If you’ve already got the 55-200 zoom, you might want to stick with the 18-70, as from what I understand it’s a bit of a better quality lens than the 18-135. A couple of quick reviews of the 18-135 for you:
Ken Rockwell (I generally take his positive reviews with a grain of salt, as he tends to be WILD AND CRAZY about things unnecessarily… but a negative review seems to be a somewhat rare thing from him)
Thom HoganThe distortion seems to be quite high with the 18-135 at the extreme zoom side, so much so that Ken Rockwell couldn’t get rid of it all… On the other hand, it appears to be *extremely* sharp.
For a bit of counterpoint, here’s their reviews of the 18-70:
Ken Rockwell
Thom HoganNeither has anything particularly bad to say about it, and Thom even gushes a tiny bit about how it’s an exceedingly good lens for its price. But really, it comes down to you: do you think you’ll use the 70-135mm zoom range a lot? Enough so that you’re willing to sacrifice a bit of quality in the lens on the lower end? Or would you rather just swap out to your 55-200 when you want to zoom in a lot? *Or*, would you rather save your 50 euro and get the 18-135, and then use that 50 euro towards an 18-200VR when you can afford one? :)
I have never used the 18-135 lens, but did use the 18-70 on a daily basis and it is a fantastic lens for general use and is rated as probably the top kit lens available. It does have some flaws, but none serious enough to threaten it’s 5-star rating with most reviewers.
It has a little barrel distortion at the wide end, some slight pincushion at the tele end, and some users feel that the barrel is a little sloppy at full zoom. My paticular lens had all these flaws, but you really had to be very critical to notice them. I have since upgraded to the 17-55 f2.8, but at over 3 times the weight and almost 4 times the price I have to say it is difficult to justify the extra ?900 pounds
As one of the other posters pointed out a zoom lens is always a compromise, and the greater the zoom range, the greater is the compromise. That said, you will probably never see these imperfections unless you really go looking them, and as there is no prefect lens you will eventually find flaws in then all. Try both lens in the shop and pick the one you like best, take it home and enjoy using it. Forget all the reviews, tests, comparisons and just get on with enjoying you hobby
Les
Thanks guys, been very helpful. I think I’m either going to get the 18-70 or possibly sell my Epson P2000 and getting the 18-200VR.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
