Nikkor 18-135

[Pa]

Since buying a D40 for my wife, I have been surveying all AF-S Nikkor lenses to see what other choices there are. She likes the lightness of the 18-55 that came with it, but wants more reach. So what we seek is a "one-lens solution" that is light and compact and will autofocus on the D40. The 18-200VR would be ideal except for the weight.

Those criteria led me to the 18-135, which I believe was introduced as a kit lens for the D80. Does anyone have experience with this lens they would care to share? How does the image quality compare to the 18-200VR?

Thanks for responding.

 

[goofball]

I think it's a good lens for your wife and D40. It's not overly heavy, takes nice sharp pictures, though you do have to be aware of the deficiencies (vignetting wide open, distortion at wide angle).

I think it's got better IQ in terms of sharpness compared to the 18-200VR. Colour rendition is probably pretty close as well.

 

[kbaird]

I think it's a good lens for your wife and D40. It's not overly heavy, takes nice sharp pictures, though you do have to be aware of the deficiencies (vignetting wide open, distortion at wide angle).

I think it's got better IQ in terms of sharpness compared to the 18-200VR. Colour rendition is probably pretty close as well.

I would have to agree.

It came with my D200 and it's pretty nice.
It's very light and a good walk around lens that
takes good photos outdoors or indoors with flash.
I have not had the vignetting with mine.

 

[Pa]

Thanks, guys. Pretty much the responses I expected.

Baseballer, we already have an 18-200VR and she wants something lighter.

 

[goofball]

I'd definitely pair this with the SB-400 for her D40, since this lens is not very good indoors at all.

 

[Candidcameraman]

18-70 is what I would go with. You'd get a little extra reach without the weight of the 18-200.

 

[Philippe Roger]

Perhaps a 24-120/VR? Quite a bit smaller than the 18-200...

 

[kbaird]

I'd definitely pair this with the SB-400 for her D40, since this lens is not very good indoors at all.

I would have to agree, an external flash will really help.

I have had some very nice photos with the 18-135 + SB-600.

 

[eisbaer]

The 18-135 seems to be the right choice although review sites don't seem to be consistent about the IQ. How about the weight?

In my opinion:
the 18-200 with 560 gram is still pretty heavy.
the kitlens with 205 gram is pretty light.

The 18-135 is in between with 385 gram.
I guess you would have to hold the combo to be able to judge if it's acceptable.

 

[Pa]

Perhaps a 24-120/VR? Quite a bit smaller than the 18-200...

...but actually heavier: 575 gm vs. 560 .

I had thought of this one because of its good rep here, but the weight is a deal breaker.

 

[Pa]

The 18-135 seems to be the right choice although review sites don't seem to be consistent about the IQ. How about the weight?

In my opinion:
the 18-200 with 560 gram is still pretty heavy.
the kitlens with 205 gram is pretty light.

The 18-135 is in between with 385 gram.
I guess you would have to hold the combo to be able to judge if it's acceptable.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[headstand]

I don't know much about those lenses, but when i looked for a allround lens i also did find a sigma 18-125 that weights an 385 gram and that makes it the same weight as the 18-135 from nikkon.

Maybe that could also be an intresting lens, but i don't know how good it is, there is a website, http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html where you can look some things about different lenses.
but the sigma lens isn't in it.

Goodluck

Aernout.

 

[eisbaer]

Well, actually.. it is but it's tested on a canon body. It does also come with a nikon mount though.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18125_3556/index.htm

 

[Holmes]

Hi Jim,

I think the 18-135 is probably just the ticket for your wife and her D40. I prefer the 18-70 myself, but the versatility of the longer zoom cannot be overlooked for an all-arounder. The 18-200 VR is great but noticeably bulkier and heavier.

My only problem with the 18-135 is keeping things steady at the long end. During casual use, I have to remind myself I'm shooting a fairly long lens with the DX factor.

Have her practice good shooting technique with the 18-135 and I bet she'll love it. A great combo, to be sure!

 

[Phil Lee]

I have no experience of the lens myself. When I was in New Zealand on holiday last month I did speak to someone who had had the plastic lens mounting break on it just 2 weeks after buying it. You might also find this review useful:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_kit_lens_group_test/

In it the reviewer compares the 3 main Nikon kit lenses (18-55, 18-70 & 18-135) with the 18-200mm VR.

BTW I must declare an interest and say that I am a moderator on the site's forum. I've also met the reviewer in person when I was in New Zealand last month and thought he was a great bloke.

 

[Philippe Roger]

...but actually heavier: 575 gm vs. 560 .

I had thought of this one because of its good rep here, but the weight is a deal breaker.

Ouch! My bad... Perhaps it's more the size than the weight that is bothering your wife, particularly at full extension?... (No, I am not trying to sell a 24-120! :wink

It looks the 18-135 might fit the bill: it's a wider angle, more focal length coverage, but then you loose the VR, so it might be more difficult to use at times...

 

[Pa]

I have no experience of the lens myself. When I was in New Zealand on holiday last month I did speak to someone who had had the plastic lens mounting break on it just 2 weeks after buying it. You might also find this review useful:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_kit_lens_group_test/

In it the reviewer compares the 3 main Nikon kit lenses (18-55, 18-70 & 18-135) with the 18-200mm VR.

Thanks; that's an interesting and useful review. Too bad about the fragile lens mount, but I imagine the 18-55 which we have is no better!

 

[Pa]

It looks the 18-135 might fit the bill: it's a wider angle, more focal length coverage, but then you loose the VR, so it might be more difficult to use at times...

Yep, there's the rub. What we need is an 18-200VR that weighs 210 grams like the 18-55.

Those darn laws of physics...why can't we just repeal them! :wink:

 

[gadgetguy11]

I started my wife with the 24-120VR. It did a great job for her. She wanted more range, and became willing to accept a little more weight, so I bought her the 18-200. This is her favorite lens; it is considerably sharper than the 24-120.

I sold her 24-120, and bought her the 70-300. She really gets great results with this lens!

I'd get the 18-200. Only after she is willing to support a heavier lens would I get her the 70-300. Good luck!

 

[Pa]

I'd get the 18-200. Only after she is willing to support a heavier lens would I get her the 70-300. Good luck!

Note that I already have an 18-200VR. It is the weight of that lens that we are trying to get around.