Sony 18-200 vs 18-135—-Pros and Cons
Jun 20, 2019 10:23:31 #
I read good things about the 18-135 as a good walk-around/travel lens. It is about half the price of the 18-200. But that 18-200 lens could potentially eliminate the need for taking the 55-210 on a trip. And eliminate all the lens-changing! Interested in your thoughts.
Jun 20, 2019 10:40:17 #
The 18-135 is about half the price and about 20% lighter but the 18-200 gives you about 50% more zoom...tough decision, I would probably go for the extra zoom.
Jun 20, 2019 10:51:35 #
Jun 20, 2019 12:12:19 #
Okay, so I'm a troublemaker. I had a similar decision early last year.
Sony 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS vs Sony 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 vs Sony 18-105 F4 OSS with the intent of replacing my kit combination (18-55 & 55-210) for travel to avoid lens swapping (also your goal, I think).
Note that the 18-200 does not have OSS. I bought the 18-105 preferring the constant F4 over the increased range of the other variable aperture lenses. It can be found for only $50 more than the 18-135. For travel, it rarely comes off the camera. I also have the 50 f1.8, 10-18 f4, 18-55 f/variable, and 55-210 f/variable. For images that would benefit from the 55-210, if I have it with me, I swap, else I crop.
Sony 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS vs Sony 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 vs Sony 18-105 F4 OSS with the intent of replacing my kit combination (18-55 & 55-210) for travel to avoid lens swapping (also your goal, I think).
Note that the 18-200 does not have OSS. I bought the 18-105 preferring the constant F4 over the increased range of the other variable aperture lenses. It can be found for only $50 more than the 18-135. For travel, it rarely comes off the camera. I also have the 50 f1.8, 10-18 f4, 18-55 f/variable, and 55-210 f/variable. For images that would benefit from the 55-210, if I have it with me, I swap, else I crop.
Jun 21, 2019 06:55:43 #
I have both the 18-105 and the Hassalblad ( rebadged Sony) 18-200. They both have OSS. Both are sharp, but the 18-105 is much lighter at the expense of zoom.
Jun 21, 2019 11:00:57 #
Bob Locher
Loc: Southwest Oregon
I realize I can not offer any kind of information on a meaningful comparison. But I have the Sony 18-135 OSS zoom - and I will say this - within its obvious limitations it is a fantastic lens. I usually set ISO to 400 when using it, aperture priority, and shoot 2 stops below maximum aperture. I have some high quality fixed focal length lenses, and find in careful comparison testing at the different focal lengths that the 18-135 is very very close in terms of sharpness or any other measure, i.e. CA, distortion etc.
Also, the OSS works extremely well - it converted me from being a sceptic about image stabilization to a true believer. My shaky old hands get tack sharp images at 1/15th of a second - admittedly at the wide angle of the zoom, but there is no way I could hand hold for sharpness at such shutter speeds without OSS.
Needless to say at this point, I love this lens.
Cheers
Bob Locher
Also, the OSS works extremely well - it converted me from being a sceptic about image stabilization to a true believer. My shaky old hands get tack sharp images at 1/15th of a second - admittedly at the wide angle of the zoom, but there is no way I could hand hold for sharpness at such shutter speeds without OSS.
Needless to say at this point, I love this lens.
Cheers
Bob Locher
Jun 21, 2019 11:42:19 #
Jun 21, 2019 11:54:52 #
TomV
Loc: Annapolis, Maryland
Optical SteadyShot
Not all of the newer E bodies have IBIS (In Body Image Stabilization) so some of the lenses come with it.
Not all of the newer E bodies have IBIS (In Body Image Stabilization) so some of the lenses come with it.
Jun 21, 2019 12:31:06 #
n4jee
Loc: New Bern, NC
I just bought Sony 18-135 f3.5-5.6 over the Sony 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 or Sony 18-105 F4 OSS. Looking at the full frame equivalents: 27-157, 27-202 and 27-300. While I liked the fixed aperture on the 18-105, but I wanted a little more reach. This is my walk around camera while traveling and 300mm is a little long for me to hand hold. The 18-135 gave me the same max aperture as my 16-50 kit lens and extended the full frame equivalent from 24-75 to 27-202. It also has good reviews.
Jun 21, 2019 14:09:01 #
Jun 21, 2019 17:49:46 #
dbfalconer wrote:
I read good things about the 18-135 as a good walk-around/travel lens. It is about half the price of the 18-200. But that 18-200 lens could potentially eliminate the need for taking the 55-210 on a trip. And eliminate all the lens-changing! Interested in your thoughts.
Just use the CIZ with the 18-135 and you are done. - and have not spent a penny.
.
Jun 21, 2019 18:04:45 #
Bob Locher
Loc: Southwest Oregon
"Best to remember the golden rule of lenses: The greater the zoom range, the worse the image."
A genuine truism! And one further refinement - the smaller the sensor, the higher the resolution and greater the zoom range, all else being equal.
A genuine truism! And one further refinement - the smaller the sensor, the higher the resolution and greater the zoom range, all else being equal.
Jun 21, 2019 19:39:27 #
I own the 18-200 mm as my walk around. Yes slightly heavier but for walking around with one lens - it's perfect. If it's heavy to carry use an across the chest shoulder strap. Don't realize you have it. Using Lightroom for all Sony A6xxx cameras I owned ... I pulled some data from Meta ... (lenses used are 18-200; 50; 16-50). Now 75% taken with 18-200; Of the focal lengths used across all lenses, I shot ... only 10% were in range of 135 mm to 200 mm. I shoot primarily low-light landscape, street and architecture.
Based on that and if $$ are an issue 18-135 mm would be the decision. HOWEVER ... I have had situations where I needed to be distant from the subject or needed to compose with the camera - so the 18-200 fits the bill. To confuse you more, I just purchased Sigma 16 mm f/1.4 I love. So I load the 18-200 on the camera and carry the 16 mm in a small 10x5x6 padded bad with extra batteries, wipes, SD.
Based on that and if $$ are an issue 18-135 mm would be the decision. HOWEVER ... I have had situations where I needed to be distant from the subject or needed to compose with the camera - so the 18-200 fits the bill. To confuse you more, I just purchased Sigma 16 mm f/1.4 I love. So I load the 18-200 on the camera and carry the 16 mm in a small 10x5x6 padded bad with extra batteries, wipes, SD.
Jun 26, 2019 15:58:32 #
I have the 18-135, and I really like it as my walk around lens. Good zoom range and very sharp.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.