very recently i bought the a6600 and switched from canon. Got this as the kit and only lens at the moment. One thing you didn't mention and i found really fascinating is that the lens has absolutely no focus breathing issues. Love your reviews. Literally the best on youtube when it comes to lenses.
I am going on a weekend trip to Washington DC (it's a Honor Flight for Vietnam Veterans). Photography is not the main intent of this trip but, I do want to document my experiences. I want to carry only my A6600 and a single lens as an easy to carry combination. I purchased this 18-135mm lens because of its size and weight and fairly decent image quality. I am bringing a small flash for low light conditions. I purchased the lens used at a good price with the rationale that I can buy it, use it for the trip and then resell it, without losing too much money...
best review i've seen. All the facts straight forward. I like to see the wide angle type view and then a full zoom so I can see the entire sweep. Thanks.
a smart way to buy this is as a kit with A6500 , you get it for about 25% of the stand alone price in Australia it's A$2158 Body + lens vs $1899 body + $899 kens
Chris can you tell me your feelings on this lens sharpness vs the full frame Sony supplied 28-70 which I have for my A9 which I can also use on my a6100?
I think they need both. Other systems also have 18-135, this one is smaller than the 18-105, has no power zoom, has a smaller filter diameter (bonus: 55mm is quite common for Sony and Minolta lenses) and an AF switch. Despite the price, I think about buying one before traveling the next time.
@@jochenkraus7016 I was traveling and needed something in this class. Visited 5 camera shops in Bath, UK and not one had the 18-135mm reviewed here. It was my first choice. Ended up getting the 18-105mm. Despite the "G" rating and higher price tag, I feel I settled. I'd rather have the AF/MF switch over the Power Zoom , the longer reach and the better form factor (size and weight) for a walking around lens. Don't get me wrong, the 18-105mm delivered and I used it a LOT. Still, though, I believe I'll be purchasing an 18-135mm before my next trip.
Hi Christoper, your reviews speak to me, unintimidating, approachable to people of all skill levels and most of all you still use the A5100 in your tests. I hope that you keep doing so as I expect to have my A5100 for more years to come. I use my camera for holiday photos 99% of the time and social occasions for the rest. I have the 1650 kit lens and i recently acquired the 35f18 and 11f18. Could you please suggest one more lens to round out my kit. I am currently looking at the sony e 18-135. It just seems that a zoom lens is what i'm missing. The 18-135 is just about the limit of my budget and i would like to stick to sony glass. My knowledge is sub-intermediate at best, i would value your opinion and am open to alternatives. Thank you
this is the only video that crist didn't said "overall i was xxx dissapointed with this images quality" despite this is one of the most expensive lenses than other Multi purpose lense and low contrast. Good thing the macro peformance cover the weakness.
Owain O'Neill-Turner Yeah, I was pretty sick when I recorded this one! But I thought maybe my hoarse voice might inadvertently sound good (like when Phoebe in Friends got sick heh heh - ah, whatever)
Apparently the lens has a fast enough focus motor for it to take full advantage of the faster and significantly improved auto focus systems on newer Sony cameras such as the A6400 for example! :)
The price of this 18-135 zoom lens is quite expensive for the quality it has. It only compensates for its compact size by buying it in kit with the A6500 or A6400. In my experience I observe that everything is plastic (except the E mount) and the internal friction of the zoom ring is large and the noise it makes is recorded on video. The feeling is of a € 300 lens. The problems with the poor APS-C coverage and low light AF behavior can be seen in your video. Thanks.
Great review as usual. I'm in the position where I may switch to Fuji XT30 or Sony A6400. Between each system's native 18-135mm lens, which comes out on top? thanks
@@Avdarmaly hi! I actually stayed with my Panasonic G9 in the end! But if I ever change it'll be back to Fujifilm. I used them before and miss the colour science and handling.
Hey Chris, I hope you didn't have a cold while filming this video! If you were sick, I hope you're feeling better now. Your channel is awesome, the content you put out is very informative and useful! Have you ever considered reviewing the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm f/4? I'd be very curious to see how it compares to the 18-135mm you reviewed here. If nothing else, perhaps a review by you could help put to rest the rather controversial reputation that the 16-70mm seems to have on the internet :).
Good review Christopher, I'm looking for a mid-range zoom lens for my sony a6000, I saw your review of Sigma 17-70mm, would this lens be better with the sigma adapter MC-11 or sony 18-135mm?
I was thinking about that combo also although I have the Sony a6300 you can find some test footage on youtube with this combo but be aware not every adapter can handle that lens, I would advise you to buy the sony 18-105 though if you don't want to risk it
I like your reviews, but one thing is missing- comparisons :), for example in this review you sad that it is not the sharpest- but compare to which lenses? There is no such thing as superzoom with sharp corners as far as I know and this lens is generally sharper than Canon and Nikon options (which are much older and from positive side- cheaper :) ). Maybe another small thing is putting facts into perspective- Sony decided to put the small front element to keep the lens as compact as possible, the tradeoff is a huge distortion at the wide end. In my personal opinion, it is a very good call. It matches the size of the bodies and is potentially great for travel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this lens is perfect- it should be cheaper for sure xd
I know what you mean. Generally, I don't do big comparison because all my tests are standardised - so, if you take a look at my reviews of similar lenses, you'll see the comparative results :-)
Sure, big comparisons are also boring ;) and are a magnet for haters. What I'm trying to say is you can simply mention during reviews different lenses, something like "This performance is significantly better than XXX, you can check my full review with the link below"- it will be more informative and can create more traffic for your older videos.
@@taufik5232 I can't remember what happened here - I think I might have been shooting with the a7R II in crop mode - either that, or the image you see of my RAW Therapee workflow is taken from another review. Either way, the results are exactly the same: what you see at 6:10 is the RAW result on an APS-C camera.
I just bought and received a used copy of this lens based your excellent review. The lens doesn't display its focal local in the evf. It is a useful feature that is in my only other zoom lens, the 16-50mm kit lens? I would like to have it if it's not broken on my copy. Do you recall seeing that displayed in your copy? Thank you.
When you do these reviews and show your test result screen, are you showing that screen at a full 100% zoom? I ask because on my kit lens, the center is sharp but as soon as I move away to the edges, it becomes very blurry. I have tried at every distance and f-stop to no avail. If I resize the image in Photoshop to 50%, it is very sharp edge to edge. I hear all the fairly good reviews of this lens and just wonder if I am the only one looking at my photos zoomed to 100% when trying to determine image quality. Thanks for any advice, and I enjoy your videos.
You may have a lemon if your results are not in the ballpark of what you see here. And yes the test view would be looked at 100%. You can check w/ the place you bought it about an exchange or bring you sd card to a best buy or similar and shoot a few pics w/ one of their cams w/ the 18-135 and compare with your camera.
Hi Christopher, Thanks a lot. Still have some questions in mind' - How is 18-135 on APSC compared to 24-105 on fullframe? - Heard that 18-135 had a much worse stabilisation to 18-105 - How is it compared to 16-70
Since you review this, can you review the cheaper and bigger the sony 18-105mm APSC lens? I would like to know is the corner sharpness is better than 18-135mm
May I add my vote for a review (and comparison) of the 18-105. I have the 18-105 and would be interested to know if I should stick with that or pick up the 18-135. Thanks for the review.
Bear in mind that the 18-105mm lens has a constant maximum aperture of f/4 and a sophisticated electronic zoom design. This is why it costs a little more.
@Christopher Really amazing and informative video. Thank you very much. How do you compare its image quality with the Canon EF-M 18-150mm? I saw your review on that as well but wanted to know your personal experience. Thank you again. God bless.
Thank you very much for your opinion. As my previous Canon 500D stopped working, I am looking for a mirrorless camera now. I have planned to go for Sony a6300 or Canon M50 with the superzoom kit. The latter option is a lot cheaper (as in Germany) and I am hoping there is not much compromise in terms of image quality. Canon system also fits better with my budget for future lens collection. Thanks to your channel for fantastic reviews of lenses.
Joel Flores The 18-135mm should be sharper in the center and mid portions of the frame, but it’s a lot slower than the Sigma, and a full stop slower than the Zony when zoomed in. The Sigma, like always, gives you a lot more for your money, but if you need a constant aperture zoom, or you need the long telephoto range, you might be stuck with the Sony-Zony combo. I see it’s been 10 months since you asked this... Did you go with any of those three lenses?
agree, but I already have R3, and superzoom is great for walking around as a tourist. my question was in terms of image quality, do you think 18-135 will be the same in apsc mode as 24-240 on FF. Sony 24-240 is quite soft - it certainly not using FF resolution.
same predicament here. I have an a7ii with a 24-240mm and im wondering if the image quality is better than an a6400 with 18-135mm. Is the 24-240mm any good on an apsc camera?
Think of it like your pupils. The lower the number the more open, wider the lens’s iris. When you stop down, you iris is letting in less light. The 3.5-5.6 variable aperture lenses are the lowest. So at 135mm the widest the aperture can open (pupil dilate) is 5.6. At 135mm, you can’t go to 3.5 which is letting in more light. You can go from 5.6 to usually 22. Stopping down, the f number goes up Widening, the number goes down Variable aperture lenses iris changes throughout the zoom ranges. This helps with affordability. It’s called a slow lens. You will need to slow down your shutter to allow light to strike the sensor for a longer period since the lens doesn’t let in as much. When you zoom from 18 to 135mm, the image gets darker because less light is getting to the sensor. Fixed aperture lenses that are fast, f/2.8 and lower f/1.4, let in more light throughout the entire zoom range.
I have both and am debating which one to get rid of. Leaning towards Sony in terms of weight, size, and FF option, but my love of Fuji has me torn. You have used both systems a lot so if you have a preference for one I'd love to hear it.
I tried Fuji for a bit, but I never tried the 18-135mm lens. If you'd like to know a little more on my opinions about cameras, take a look on my channel for my video about my experience of three different camera systems
Hi to everyone! I’m looking for some advice, I’ve got a Sony a6000 and I am looking for a lens that is good for traveling and can cover multiple focal lengths like the one in this video, but to be honest I’m still lost in which one would be better for me. I’m thinking in the Sony 18-105 f4, the Sony 18-135, the Tamron 28-200 or the or the Sony 18-200 (I haven’t found a lot of info about the Sony 18-200). Thanks guys for your comments, opinions and advice, if you think in another lens that could work for me please tell me!!! Again, thanks!!!
Hi. The 18-200 is too soft for me, so i ruled that one out. I have no experience with the Tamron. Between the 18-105 & 18-135, it’s a bit of a toss up. Both are very comparable in terms of IQ. The 18-105 wins in terms of faster to set (constant aperture), internal zooming, and slightly better bokeh. The 18-135 wins in terms of size, weight, faster to zoom, and slightly sharper in the centre. I personally liked the 18-105 more, but the heft does become annoying after a long day of shooting.
Yeah, I was pretty sick when I recorded this one! But I thought maybe my hoarse voice might inadvertently sound good (like when Phoebe in Friends got sick heh heh - ah, whatever)
You are too concerned about uncorrected results - they do not matter at all, the corrected end result is all what matters! That said, a valuable review, as ever … :-)
I´d like to see a test ot the new APS-C E mount 70-350 zoom lens. I fear that we will found the same problems that in the 18-135 ; poor quality construction, limited APS coverage and low light AF performance. We will see...
6:00 I totally understand what you mean, but honestly, this is the same story for many zoom lenses (even expensive lenses) but I don't know anyone that would ever start out editing a raw file with no lens profiles automatically applied (like you get in any respectable editing software like Lightroom and Capture One). It's interesting to see the uncorrected image, but in the end I think all it does is freak out those lesser experienced photographers that don't know any better ;-) I never ever see major distortion in any of my raw files (I don't shoot JPG) since Lightroom gives me the corrected version starting out. No worries :-)
I discard this lens, but youtubers recommend the Sigma 17-70mm + sigma MC11, with this adapter has better performance, but Christofer reviewed it in 2014 and it did not look so good that time, has anyone tried it?
This is bad performance for the price Sony is asking IMHO. This looks very much like a kit lens. The IS is not magic bullet either. I have no experience with superzooms, are they supposed ot be bad?
Cannot get the corners sharp at f/5.6, vignetting and distortions hidden by in camera corrections. You can get a set of primes for the price that will do a much better job.
Corners at this price for a zoom is not going to have sharp corners. Also to keep the lenses small and work with the flange distance the camera need to do corrections. It is designed that way as a system. If you want better than get Full Frame lenses then and pay the price.
Yeah a set of primes is always going to perform better, but that's not the point. Have fun fiddling switching lenses while the moment passes and you miss the shot.
You have a good point about the flange distance. If you look at the OP you can read "I have no experience with superzooms, are they supposed ot be bad?". I think the answer is "yes". They are bad compared to cheaper ordinary zoom lenses like the Sony 24-70, also featured on this channel.
Christopher Frost Photography Yes, Sir thanks. I have already checked your review. Please also review 18-105 if possible. And Sir thank you for your most valuable reviews. 🙂
Thanks for reviewing this in detail; I had no choice as the camera came with the lens. I was surprised by the distortion, barrel effect, etc. Until I'm able to save up for a prime lens, this will have to do for now. LoL!!
Christopher Frost Photography i read 750 g, so...pretty damn light for what it is, compared to say the samyang 85 1.2. but its using the advantages of a short flange distance maybe. id guess its not made to be perfect, similiar to the mitakon 50, which would be the better case, and in worst case 0.95 looks like maybe the handevision(or so) 0.85 , which as far Google took me seems not worth using at 0.85
Shang-Hsien Yang I was surprised too. Seems to me like Sony said “design something and if it doesn’t work out…meh, use software” I’m still using my old EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS (the crappiest of the bunch) and it’s not as bad as this one. I really like when a manufacturer puts attention to details.
Are you not well?? You sound a bit out of breadth. Take some rest. As always good review. Shocked to see the distortion and vignetting from a sony lens.
I took tens of thousands of shots with the 18-105 and it’s very good. Unfortunately Sony refuse to offer anything better for apsc. Better off with a7 and the incredible 24-105 G
It's the only way to keep size down (apart from using special glass elements, which they wont do in such a "cheap" lens). Sony SAM 18-135mm had 62mm filter thread (I loved this lens, it has a really great performance), Fujinon XF 18-135 is even bigger and heavier, with not so good performance. So they did the same thing as with the Sony 24-105 at the wide end, which is the one that really makes things complicated, they just made a lens way wider than 18mm at the APSC, and 24mm at the FF lens, and they just correct it by software. The difference is that the 24-105mm has a great performance, but obvioulsy is way bigger than this one.
Like the majority of there lenses cheap to expensive just crap overpriced ridiculous electronics such a shame freaking tamron 18 200 is amazing for only $220 bucks. The biggest issue is the flange distance that causing these problems definitely you should get to review Sony 18 105 and Sony 16 70. Feel better you don't sound too well first time I've heard you this sick god bless you.
This dude is the Bob Ross of photography review.
Your videos are the gold standard of lens reviews as far as I’m concerned. Thorough and consistent 👌🏼
The consistency is the best part. So easy to compare between lenses since he has so many reviews across camera platforms!
very recently i bought the a6600 and switched from canon. Got this as the kit and only lens at the moment. One thing you didn't mention and i found really fascinating is that the lens has absolutely no focus breathing issues.
Love your reviews. Literally the best on youtube when it comes to lenses.
how responsive is its eye AF on the A6600 with real time eye AF?
You make the best reviews about the lenses, you made me knew everything I need to know about every lens I’m looking for, thank you so much 😊 🙏🙏
I am going on a weekend trip to Washington DC (it's a Honor Flight for Vietnam Veterans). Photography is not the main intent of this trip but, I do want to document my experiences. I want to carry only my A6600 and a single lens as an easy to carry combination. I purchased this 18-135mm lens because of its size and weight and fairly decent image quality. I am bringing a small flash for low light conditions. I purchased the lens used at a good price with the rationale that I can buy it, use it for the trip and then resell it, without losing too much money...
Your reviews are great. You concentrate on the actual photo results and don't go confusing people with weird facts.
best review i've seen. All the facts straight forward. I like to see the wide angle type view and then a full zoom so I can see the entire sweep. Thanks.
I picked one up used for around 350$ and for that price it makes a great replacement for 90% of what I shoot with the kit lenses
a smart way to buy this is as a kit with A6500 , you get it for about 25% of the stand alone price in Australia it's A$2158 Body + lens vs $1899 body + $899 kens
Would u recommend this for nature photos or racing events from afar ?
If you’re outside on a sunny day then you’re good. In doors in a dark arena, not so much. Time index for the video 1:35
Hey, think you could get your hands on a Sigma 50-150 OS and review it?
Nah, they're just too rare, Sigma only made a few of the last version. Barely anyone would bother watching the review
Chris can you tell me your feelings on this lens sharpness vs the full frame Sony supplied 28-70 which I have for my A9 which I can also use on my a6100?
0:48 I thought this was a picture XD this penguins are good models
What Sony needs is a F2.8 standard zoom already for apsc e-mount. Not this.
Agreed...
Only to have 'em slap a GMaster on it and now no one except Kai could ever hope to afford it.
I think they need both. Other systems also have 18-135, this one is smaller than the 18-105, has no power zoom, has a smaller filter diameter (bonus: 55mm is quite common for Sony and Minolta lenses) and an AF switch.
Despite the price, I think about buying one before traveling the next time.
@@jochenkraus7016 I was traveling and needed something in this class. Visited 5 camera shops in Bath, UK and not one had the 18-135mm reviewed here. It was my first choice. Ended up getting the 18-105mm. Despite the "G" rating and higher price tag, I feel I settled. I'd rather have the AF/MF switch over the Power Zoom , the longer reach and the better form factor (size and weight) for a walking around lens. Don't get me wrong, the 18-105mm delivered and I used it a LOT. Still, though, I believe I'll be purchasing an 18-135mm before my next trip.
Done!
Just bought this for my A6000 for 400€ to replace the Kit Lense for that it is really great value i think.
Hi Christoper, your reviews speak to me, unintimidating, approachable to people of all skill levels and most of all you still use the A5100 in your tests. I hope that you keep doing so as I expect to have my A5100 for more years to come. I use my camera for holiday photos 99% of the time and social occasions for the rest.
I have the 1650 kit lens and i recently acquired the 35f18 and 11f18. Could you please suggest one more lens to round out my kit. I am currently looking at the sony e 18-135. It just seems that a zoom lens is what i'm missing. The 18-135 is just about the limit of my budget and i would like to stick to sony glass.
My knowledge is sub-intermediate at best, i would value your opinion and am open to alternatives.
Thank you
What is the best Sony E-Mount Superzoom lens you can recommend for about 400-600€
The usual excellent practical review from Chris.
I would say the lens was dammed with faint, if that, praise and really a touch of criticism.
this is the only video that crist didn't said "overall i was xxx dissapointed with this images quality" despite this is one of the most expensive lenses than other Multi purpose lense and low contrast. Good thing the macro peformance cover the weakness.
You sound rough mate, hope all is well.
Owain O'Neill-Turner Yeah, I was pretty sick when I recorded this one! But I thought maybe my hoarse voice might inadvertently sound good (like when Phoebe in Friends got sick heh heh - ah, whatever)
Yeah, I heard that too. Hope you're better soon. Thanks for another review.
..Joe
Apparently the lens has a fast enough focus motor for it to take full advantage of the faster and significantly improved auto focus systems on newer Sony cameras such as the A6400 for example! :)
I think I can confirm that, although it does sometimes struggle with low light.
@@noscopesallowed8128
Yup that’s also something I can confirm as the lens in general isn’t exactly the best when it comes to low light! :)
I know this is a 3 year old video, but since then the price has gone down. Now its 360, not 540 p . Do you think it's value is better now?
The price of this 18-135 zoom lens is quite expensive for the quality it has. It only compensates for its compact size by buying it in kit with the A6500 or A6400. In my experience I observe that everything is plastic (except the E mount) and the internal friction of the zoom ring is large and the noise it makes is recorded on video. The feeling is of a € 300 lens. The problems with the poor APS-C coverage and low light AF behavior can be seen in your video. Thanks.
Great review as usual. I'm in the position where I may switch to Fuji XT30 or Sony A6400. Between each system's native 18-135mm lens, which comes out on top? thanks
which one did you chose in the end?
@@Avdarmaly hi! I actually stayed with my Panasonic G9 in the end! But if I ever change it'll be back to Fujifilm. I used them before and miss the colour science and handling.
How do you compare this to 18-105 f4, what are you thoughts on the two? I'm deciding between the two for still photography landscapes. Any advice.
Check out my review of the 18-105 to see my thoughts on it :-)
Great video, thanks. I bought this lens with the Sony a6600. What lens would you recommend for low light?
The sigma prime lens like the 16mm, 23mm, 30mm, or the 56mm f 1.4-8 depending on your needs and preferences.
Love you channel! thank you for so many awesome reviews!
Hey Chris, I hope you didn't have a cold while filming this video! If you were sick, I hope you're feeling better now. Your channel is awesome, the content you put out is very informative and useful! Have you ever considered reviewing the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm f/4? I'd be very curious to see how it compares to the 18-135mm you reviewed here. If nothing else, perhaps a review by you could help put to rest the rather controversial reputation that the 16-70mm seems to have on the internet :).
I'm making a review of that particular lens. My findings so far have not been great
Interesting, I'll look forward to seeing that review!
how is its eye AF on the newer APC A6100 & A6600 with real time eye AF?
Good review Christopher, I'm looking for a mid-range zoom lens for my sony
a6000, I saw your review of Sigma 17-70mm, would this lens be better with the sigma adapter MC-11 or sony 18-135mm?
I was thinking about that combo also although I have the Sony a6300
you can find some test footage on youtube with this combo but be aware not every adapter can handle that lens, I would advise you to buy the sony 18-105 though if you don't want to risk it
Very useful review, as always.
Any chances of seeing Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS soon?
This is the first of your videos I see. I thought the review was really good and useful. Thanks for that!
what were the other lenses you tested with better stabilization. this is really important to me at zoom for video. thx
I like your reviews, but one thing is missing- comparisons :), for example in this review you sad that it is not the sharpest- but compare to which lenses? There is no such thing as superzoom with sharp corners as far as I know and this lens is generally sharper than Canon and Nikon options (which are much older and from positive side- cheaper :) ).
Maybe another small thing is putting facts into perspective- Sony decided to put the small front element to keep the lens as compact as possible, the tradeoff is a huge distortion at the wide end. In my personal opinion, it is a very good call. It matches the size of the bodies and is potentially great for travel.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this lens is perfect- it should be cheaper for sure xd
I know what you mean. Generally, I don't do big comparison because all my tests are standardised - so, if you take a look at my reviews of similar lenses, you'll see the comparative results :-)
Sure, big comparisons are also boring ;) and are a magnet for haters. What I'm trying to say is you can simply mention during reviews different lenses, something like "This performance is significantly better than XXX, you can check my full review with the link below"- it will be more informative and can create more traffic for your older videos.
I think Chris produced images with huge distortion and vignetting at 18 mm by A7RII, not by an APS-C camera as I see it at 6:00. Is that right, Chris?
@@taufik5232 I can't remember what happened here - I think I might have been shooting with the a7R II in crop mode - either that, or the image you see of my RAW Therapee workflow is taken from another review. Either way, the results are exactly the same: what you see at 6:10 is the RAW result on an APS-C camera.
Actually, there is a super zoom sharp in the corners. Look at his review of the Sony 70-350! I own it and it's amazing!
I just bought and received a used copy of this lens based your excellent review. The lens doesn't display its focal local in the evf. It is a useful feature that is in my only other zoom lens, the 16-50mm kit lens? I would like to have it if it's not broken on my copy. Do you recall seeing that displayed in your copy? Thank you.
I think Sony only show the focal range with there power zoom lens (like the 18-105) and the kit lens
@@phuocdoann Thank you.
@@evenatienzaart no problem
Which is the best Lens Sony E 55-210mm or Sony 18-135mm...?
When you do these reviews and show your test result screen, are you showing that screen at a full 100% zoom? I ask because on my kit lens, the center is sharp but as soon as I move away to the edges, it becomes very blurry. I have tried at every distance and f-stop to no avail. If I resize the image in Photoshop to 50%, it is very sharp edge to edge. I hear all the fairly good reviews of this lens and just wonder if I am the only one looking at my photos zoomed to 100% when trying to determine image quality. Thanks for any advice, and I enjoy your videos.
You may have a lemon if your results are not in the ballpark of what you see here. And yes the test view would be looked at 100%. You can check w/ the place you bought it about an exchange or bring you sd card to a best buy or similar and shoot a few pics w/ one of their cams w/ the 18-135 and compare with your camera.
Sounds like you may have a decentered lens - could be worth sending it back for re-alignment
Hi Christopher, Thanks a lot. Still have some questions in mind'
- How is 18-135 on APSC compared to 24-105 on fullframe?
- Heard that 18-135 had a much worse stabilisation to 18-105
- How is it compared to 16-70
Like a mosquito in a nudist beach, I don't really know where to start with that first question. As for the other two lenses, I haven't tested them yet
Is there an adapter that would allow full zoom at closer range?
Since you review this, can you review the cheaper and bigger the sony 18-105mm APSC lens? I would like to know is the corner sharpness is better than 18-135mm
May I add my vote for a review (and comparison) of the 18-105. I have the 18-105 and would be interested to know if I should stick with that or pick up the 18-135. Thanks for the review.
Now that I've covered most the Canon lenses there are a LOT that I'm aiming to review on Sony :-) (I'm still doing DSLR lens reviews too, though)
They are referring to the Sony 18-105 F4. But that in the US is $50 more expensive than the 18-135. Is the 18-105 cheaper over in the UK?
Bear in mind that the 18-105mm lens has a constant maximum aperture of f/4 and a sophisticated electronic zoom design. This is why it costs a little more.
Yes Christopher please review the Sony selp18105g as an alternative comparison to this sel18135.
Recommended, always sharp in the center in the edges you have to stop down. Impressed on full frame, not so much on apsc sensors.
Can i buy a6600 with this 18-135 kit lens for 1350 AED?..it is worth or not?
You can do anything you want! Seems like a reasonable price
So this lens fits both APS-C and FF Sony cameras?
@@christianhassjensen1718 Ok, well, let's say it's made for APS-C's but can fit on FF's too.
@Christopher Really amazing and informative video. Thank you very much. How do you compare its image quality with the Canon EF-M 18-150mm? I saw your review on that as well but wanted to know your personal experience. Thank you again. God bless.
They're really similar in terms of optics, although the Canon lens has far less distortion. The Sony lens has nicer build quality, though
Thank you very much for your opinion. As my previous Canon 500D stopped working, I am looking for a mirrorless camera now. I have planned to go for Sony a6300 or Canon M50 with the superzoom kit. The latter option is a lot cheaper (as in Germany) and I am hoping there is not much compromise in terms of image quality. Canon system also fits better with my budget for future lens collection. Thanks to your channel for fantastic reviews of lenses.
The M50 is great, although the 4k video on the Sony camera will be much better if that's important for you
Thanks for your comment. 4K video does not important for me at all.
How bad this lens, Will it be better Sigma 17-70mm + Sigma MC11, or Sony Carl Zeiss 16-70mm?
Results are mentioning the quality is better then the 16-70mm Zeiss.
thank claude
Joel Flores The 18-135mm should be sharper in the center and mid portions of the frame, but it’s a lot slower than the Sigma, and a full stop slower than the Zony when zoomed in. The Sigma, like always, gives you a lot more for your money, but if you need a constant aperture zoom, or you need the long telephoto range, you might be stuck with the Sony-Zony combo. I see it’s been 10 months since you asked this... Did you go with any of those three lenses?
@@dasaauto2024 What is Sony-Zony?
Do you think it is good alternative to Sony 24-240 on A7RIII?
Well the 24-240 if a full-frame lens so if you get the 18-135 then you might as well just downgrade your camera to an APS-C model
agree, but I already have R3, and superzoom is great for walking around as a tourist. my question was in terms of image quality, do you think 18-135 will be the same in apsc mode as 24-240 on FF. Sony 24-240 is quite soft - it certainly not using FF resolution.
This is a good question. I'm still trying to determine this as well. LMK if you found anything that helped your decision.
same predicament here. I have an a7ii with a 24-240mm and im wondering if the image quality is better than an a6400 with 18-135mm. Is the 24-240mm any good on an apsc camera?
Can you compare this lens with 18-200?
How can you drop to f8 if the lens can only do f3.5 to f5.6 ???? Someone plz explain im confused
Think of it like your pupils. The lower the number the more open, wider the lens’s iris. When you stop down, you iris is letting in less light. The 3.5-5.6 variable aperture lenses are the lowest. So at 135mm the widest the aperture can open (pupil dilate) is 5.6. At 135mm, you can’t go to 3.5 which is letting in more light. You can go from 5.6 to usually 22.
Stopping down, the f number goes up
Widening, the number goes down
Variable aperture lenses iris changes throughout the zoom ranges. This helps with affordability. It’s called a slow lens. You will need to slow down your shutter to allow light to strike the sensor for a longer period since the lens doesn’t let in as much. When you zoom from 18 to 135mm, the image gets darker because less light is getting to the sensor.
Fixed aperture lenses that are fast, f/2.8 and lower f/1.4, let in more light throughout the entire zoom range.
Thanks for the review. Deciding between this and the Fuji XF 18-135mm is proving a tough choice for me.
Well, that would depend on your camera system
I have both and am debating which one to get rid of. Leaning towards Sony in terms of weight, size, and FF option, but my love of Fuji has me torn. You have used both systems a lot so if you have a preference for one I'd love to hear it.
I tried Fuji for a bit, but I never tried the 18-135mm lens. If you'd like to know a little more on my opinions about cameras, take a look on my channel for my video about my experience of three different camera systems
your reviews are the best :)
please review 16-35 f4 and f2.8 for sony fe - i cant decide
I wonder if you would do a review of the older Fuji 18-135mm WR OIS? It would be much appreciated!
A review will come (eventually)
Get well soon, and great video btw.
Hello Christopher, can you make a review of the Sony 10-18? I will be the perfect match for this lens. Thanks
Hi to everyone! I’m looking for some advice, I’ve got a Sony a6000 and I am looking for a lens that is good for traveling and can cover multiple focal lengths like the one in this video, but to be honest I’m still lost in which one would be better for me. I’m thinking in the Sony 18-105 f4, the Sony 18-135, the Tamron 28-200 or the or the Sony 18-200 (I haven’t found a lot of info about the Sony 18-200). Thanks guys for your comments, opinions and advice, if you think in another lens that could work for me please tell me!!! Again, thanks!!!
Hi. The 18-200 is too soft for me, so i ruled that one out. I have no experience with the Tamron. Between the 18-105 & 18-135, it’s a bit of a toss up. Both are very comparable in terms of IQ. The 18-105 wins in terms of faster to set (constant aperture), internal zooming, and slightly better bokeh. The 18-135 wins in terms of size, weight, faster to zoom, and slightly sharper in the centre. I personally liked the 18-105 more, but the heft does become annoying after a long day of shooting.
Nice technical review, thank you!
Your voice is sounding a little scratchy. I hope you're feeling ok!
"The Barrel Distortion is quite noticeable on this voice, which, is a bit of a shame really".
Yeah, I was pretty sick when I recorded this one! But I thought maybe my hoarse voice might inadvertently sound good (like when Phoebe in Friends got sick heh heh - ah, whatever)
Another excellent review, mate. Get well.
can i use this lens on yi m1 mirrorless?
Always find a way to recommend :D
Compare with the 18-105mm f/4 is about the same price
Thanks for this-I won't trading in my 18-105 f.4 for this newer offering!
You are too concerned about uncorrected results - they do not matter at all, the corrected end result is all what matters! That said, a valuable review, as ever … :-)
Don't watch that bit of the review :-)
I´d like to see a test ot the new APS-C E mount 70-350 zoom lens. I fear that we will found the same problems that in the 18-135 ; poor quality construction, limited APS coverage and low light AF performance. We will see...
Hi Chris, please review Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 Di III. I think many people are interested in this lens. Kind regards!
Love your videos. Keep it up.
I bought this for 380 dollars used. I was pretty happy
The previous owner is happier! 🤭
do u have lowlight photos
i hope you can compare this to a 24-240mm on an a7 body.
What is the better lens for videos?
The 18-105 f/4
6:00 I totally understand what you mean, but honestly, this is the same story for many zoom lenses (even expensive lenses) but I don't know anyone that would ever start out editing a raw file with no lens profiles automatically applied (like you get in any respectable editing software like Lightroom and Capture One). It's interesting to see the uncorrected image, but in the end I think all it does is freak out those lesser experienced photographers that don't know any better ;-) I never ever see major distortion in any of my raw files (I don't shoot JPG) since Lightroom gives me the corrected version starting out. No worries :-)
great video, and i hope you get well early
Sony cheating on the lens capability again.
Can you review the old Sony E 18-55 OSS kit lens? Will the bigger size make it perform better?
Apparently it's very poor on a 24mp sensor
I discard this lens, but youtubers recommend the Sigma 17-70mm + sigma MC11, with this adapter has better performance, but Christofer reviewed it in 2014 and it did not look so good that time, has anyone tried it?
Seems like a better lens compared to canon offering haha
Thank you 😊
This is bad performance for the price Sony is asking IMHO. This looks very much like a kit lens. The IS is not magic bullet either.
I have no experience with superzooms, are they supposed ot be bad?
How is it bad performing?
Cannot get the corners sharp at f/5.6, vignetting and distortions hidden by in camera corrections.
You can get a set of primes for the price that will do a much better job.
Corners at this price for a zoom is not going to have sharp corners. Also to keep the lenses small and work with the flange distance the camera need to do corrections. It is designed that way as a system. If you want better than get Full Frame lenses then and pay the price.
Yeah a set of primes is always going to perform better, but that's not the point. Have fun fiddling switching lenses while the moment passes and you miss the shot.
You have a good point about the flange distance.
If you look at the OP you can read "I have no experience with superzooms, are they supposed ot be bad?".
I think the answer is "yes". They are bad compared to cheaper ordinary zoom lenses like the Sony 24-70, also featured on this channel.
Is it a good lens for a6300 ?
Why would it be different on an a6300 to how it it performs on an a5100?
Christopher Frost Photography I am looking for a new lens, so thinking 18-105 is the right or 18-135 or both are not good enough.
What you say ?
I haven't tested the 18-105. As for my thoughts on this 18-135 lens...watch the review :-)
Christopher Frost Photography Yes, Sir thanks. I have already checked your review. Please also review 18-105 if possible. And Sir thank you for your most valuable reviews. 🙂
Wow!! I love Sony
Thank you!
Christopher, you sound as if you have a cold. I hope you start feeling better.
Great thanks
Thanks for reviewing this in detail; I had no choice as the camera came with the lens. I was surprised by the distortion, barrel effect, etc. Until I'm able to save up for a prime lens, this will have to do for now. LoL!!
18-105mm is better zoom
Have you finished reading 'Foxe's Book of Martyrs then?
It didn't feature In the clock close-up this time. : -)
There are a lot of books I'm half way through reading ;-)
Need you to review 18-105 mm F/4 sony G lens
A review is coming - I''ve been handling that particular lens
Please review the Sony FE 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 :))
A review of that lens is coming
I thought Sony abondoned E-mount, but apparently it's not :) happy to watch your video, but take care yourself! Your voice makes me sad.
How would the abandon E mount? It is their only mount for all their cameras. you must be thinking A-mount.
Chris Barr I mean they focused so much on FE mount and it seemed like they didn't care about their crop sensor camera.
3:45 wait, Sony a5100 has only 20 MP! , a6000 has 24
finally after 4 years of not making any new lenses sony made a new lens! it even has a mf/af button wow!
Meyer Optik Görlitz announced a 75 mm 0.95 :0 would be nice if you try and borrow one:)
I don't know...tempting...but I've heard its optics are made of only 5 glass elements, a bit worrying
Christopher Frost Photography i read 750 g, so...pretty damn light for what it is, compared to say the samyang 85 1.2. but its using the advantages of a short flange distance maybe. id guess its not made to be perfect, similiar to the mitakon 50, which would be the better case, and in worst case 0.95 looks like maybe the handevision(or so) 0.85 , which as far Google took me seems not worth using at 0.85
The most confusing review EVER! he talked down on this lens big time then recommended it.....
Wow, this lens is so bad when it comes to vignetting and distortion! This is so bad!
Shang-Hsien Yang I was surprised too. Seems to me like Sony said “design something and if it doesn’t work out…meh, use software”
I’m still using my old EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS (the crappiest of the bunch) and it’s not as bad as this one.
I really like when a manufacturer puts attention to details.
Honestly, why does it matter? It got corrected anyway even if you shoot raw it is literally 3 seconds to correct in LR.
🎬 1 📽 🎞 🗣 🎙 🤔 🧐 ❤❤❤❤❤ Outstanding, thank you so much for sharing. 🌎🌍🌏 You are a Good teacher ✅✅✅✅✅
Where is that lovely place you live?
I currently live in Ceredigion, Wales, UK
Penguin looked tired of people's shit
Just too expensive. The Sigma range is good but you can’t buy a telephoto lens for Sony a6000. So I’m selling mine
Are you not well?? You sound a bit out of breadth. Take some rest. As always good review.
Shocked to see the distortion and vignetting from a sony lens.
You should see my review of the Sony 16-50
5:43 Sony a6300 Camera
I would rather buy the 18-105 f4 OSS than this
I took tens of thousands of shots with the 18-105 and it’s very good. Unfortunately Sony refuse to offer anything better for apsc. Better off with a7 and the incredible 24-105 G
@Adam Craig you name a way and it's better. Professional level IQ.
WTF Sony that distortion is horrible this is why I shoot Samyang.
I did not know Samyang had a Zoom lenses.
Enable digital correction…
Chris Barr they Don't. Enable digital correction. Nah I would rather use a better lens.
It's the only way to keep size down (apart from using special glass elements, which they wont do in such a "cheap" lens). Sony SAM 18-135mm had 62mm filter thread (I loved this lens, it has a really great performance), Fujinon XF 18-135 is even bigger and heavier, with not so good performance. So they did the same thing as with the Sony 24-105 at the wide end, which is the one that really makes things complicated, they just made a lens way wider than 18mm at the APSC, and 24mm at the FF lens, and they just correct it by software. The difference is that the 24-105mm has a great performance, but obvioulsy is way bigger than this one.
Like the majority of there lenses cheap to expensive just crap overpriced ridiculous electronics such a shame freaking tamron 18 200 is amazing for only $220 bucks. The biggest issue is the flange distance that causing these problems definitely you should get to review Sony 18 105 and Sony 16 70. Feel better you don't sound too well first time I've heard you this sick god bless you.