Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Nikon 18-105 or Nikon 18-135

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    c7fnt
    c7fnt  2 United Kingdom
    28 Apr 2013 - 2:28 PM

    Hi,

    I am looking for a mid-zoom lens to use when on holiday. I currently have the stock 18-55 and a Tamron 70-300 but want something to leave on the camera when I go away.

    Anyone got experience of both lenses and which would they go for?

    Cheers
    Chris

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    28 Apr 2013 - 2:28 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    JonnyNI
    JonnyNI e2 Member 3611 forum postsJonnyNI vcard
    28 Apr 2013 - 3:41 PM

    I haven't any experience of the 18-135 but have an 18-105 and think its a fantastic wee lens for the money. I also think the 18-135 lacks VR.

    ste_p0270
    ste_p0270  363 forum posts England
    28 Apr 2013 - 7:21 PM

    ^+1 for the 18-105

    the 18-105 has the VR switch which comes in very handy at longer focal lengths. the 18-200 VRII is even better but another
    200 minimum on top of what you'll pay for a new 18-105.

    Ste

    Stillbase
    Stillbase  260 forum posts Wales
    29 Apr 2013 - 8:44 AM

    I've had the 18-135 for about 6 years and have "replaced" it several times, but it always seems to find its way back onto my camera when I am wandering around (especially after my wife "stole" my 16-85). It does not have VR and I very rarely use it above 100mm - I don't like pushing lenses to their extreme - but its very sharp . Having said that I'm not convinced there is much difference between that and the 18-105 in terms of magnification at the high end - take a look at the lens comparator tool on the Nikon UK website and you will probably find the difference marginal. But if VR is important to you go for the 18-105.

    seahawk
    seahawk e2 Member 7540 forum postsseahawk vcard United Kingdom
    29 Apr 2013 - 10:03 AM

    The 18-105 has a plastic mount which may not be quite as robust but if you are going to leave it on the camera as a do-it-all lens that may not matter much; and it will be lighter in weight and it does have VR. I'd go for the 18-105. Alternatively look at a Tamron 18-270 or recapture the 18-65 from the boss!

    c7fnt
    c7fnt  2 United Kingdom
    29 Apr 2013 - 6:38 PM

    Not sure if VR is that important. None of my current lenses have VR and so would I a.) notice the difference or b.) miss it if I went 18-135?

    ste_p0270
    ste_p0270  363 forum posts England
    29 Apr 2013 - 7:52 PM

    doesn't your 18-55 have VR? mine did, but then again, i only bought the camera during august last year, so maybe yours is
    one of the older types?

    i also owned a tamron 70-300, the DI macro jobbie (not sure if it's the same as yours?) and tbh, i struggled to use it without
    a tripod, especially towards the 300mm end.

    i'd still recommend the 18-105 though, at least you can turn VR off if not needed. Smile

    c7fnt
    c7fnt  2 United Kingdom
    29 Apr 2013 - 8:04 PM

    No my 18-55 came with my D40.

    In an ideal world I would like to upgrade my body to a D7000.

    Tend to use the Tamron for wildlife and have got some decent results.

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.