18-70MM or 18-135MM

[Richard Linton]

I've searched the forums but I would like an opinion on wheter i should replace my 18-135MM with a 18-70. Im looking to do mostly portrait photography, indoor and outdoor. Im okay with giving up the zoom, i'll replace it will a telephoto lense later.

is the sharpness of the 18-70 that much better than that of the 18-135mm? Is it enough to give uyp the additional zoom of the 18-70? If you have samples of your 18-70mm lense, it would be most apprecaited.

--
Whats the purpose of Life? Live life with purpose

 

[gmosc]

Keep your 18-135 and add a 35-70/2.8.
You could even get an 85/1.8 to go all the way to a large aperture.

I use my 18-135 for walk around outdoor pictures or indoor with flash. Non flash pictures need the larger apertures so I use my 2.8 or f1.8 lenses there.

Even though the f4.5 of the 18-70 is a little better, keep in mind that f4.5 is not going to make night and day differences in your pictures.

If you are hung up on metal mounts like so many people are here, remember that the 35-70 and the 85 have metal mounts.

I think that a lot of 18-70 owners really researched their purchase when thy bought their camera and lens, but times have changed since then. Even Nikon hasn't kept the f4.5 aperture that they tried with the 18-70. It would have been nice if more lenses were built with that spec, but they have found that people simply want more zoom or they will switch to more "pro" f2.8 lenses or to primes.

Guy Moscoso

 

[Patco]

Guy, the OP seems to have a D40. The lenses you suggest will not AF.

Keep your 18-135 and add a 35-70/2.8.
You could even get an 85/1.8 to go all the way to a large aperture.
I use my 18-135 for walk around outdoor pictures or indoor with
flash. Non flash pictures need the larger apertures so I use my 2.8
or f1.8 lenses there.
Even though the f4.5 of the 18-70 is a little better, keep in mind
that f4.5 is not going to make night and day differences in your
pictures.
If you are hung up on metal mounts like so many people are here,
remember that the 35-70 and the 85 have metal mounts.

I think that a lot of 18-70 owners really researched their purchase
when thy bought their camera and lens, but times have changed since
then. Even Nikon hasn't kept the f4.5 aperture that they tried with
the 18-70. It would have been nice if more lenses were built with
that spec, but they have found that people simply want more zoom or
they will switch to more "pro" f2.8 lenses or to primes.

Guy Moscoso

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

 

[gmosc]

Patco,
Yes you're right. I checked his history, too.

I sort of dreaded this D40 development. I basically have nothig to offer in terms of advice anymore. Ah, that's OK, I could tell people were getting tired of me anyway.

Guy

 

[Patco]

Don't despair, Guy! There are plenty of people who still use other models, who find your advice very worthwhile!

I sort of dreaded this D40 development. I basically have nothig to
offer in terms of advice anymore. Ah, that's OK, I could tell
people were getting tired of me anyway.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

 

[raymondox]

The 18-70 will not add much over the 18-135 for the purpose you've mentioned.

The best Nikon lens for what you want to use it for is the 28-70 AFS f2.8 zoom.

This is a very good portrait lens, will give you narrow depth of filed and is AFS so will auto focus.

It costs more than the 18-70 though.
--
Bluenose

 

[Richard Linton]

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I picked it up. I know it wont AF on the D40. Im not sure what all the banter above is all about.
--
Whats the purpose of Life? Live life with purpose

 

[Gethin]

The 18-70 will not add much over the 18-135 for the purpose you've
mentioned.

The best Nikon lens for what you want to use it for is the 28-70
AFS f2.8 zoom.

This is a very good portrait lens, will give you narrow depth of
filed and is AFS so will auto focus.

It costs more than the 18-70 though.

That's an understatement. In the uk it costs 5 times as much as the 18-70. £1000 vs £200

--
Bluenose

--
Gethin Lane
----------------
Nikon D 8 0

 

[lucky pierre]

In another thread, someone suggested the Sigma 50-150 2.8, which will AF on the D40/D40x. Reviews seem pretty good- if it goes wide enough for you it might work OK for your needs, and you could keep the 18-135 for a walk around lens.

 

[Tianium]

I've searched the forums but I would like an opinion on wheter i
should replace my 18-135MM with a 18-70. Im looking to do mostly
portrait photography, indoor and outdoor. Im okay with giving up
the zoom, i'll replace it will a telephoto lense later.

is the sharpness of the 18-70 that much better than that of the
18-135mm? Is it enough to give uyp the additional zoom of the
18-70? If you have samples of your 18-70mm lense, it would be most
apprecaited.

I only have the 18-135, But from all of the reviews that I have read the 18-135 is probably actually sharper than the 18-70, but probably has slightly more distortion and CA. I think they are really quite similar in performance overall.

You are probably best to stick with the 18-135 and get a specialist lens for your portraits.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4HSM maybe (if its long enough), or one of the many manual focus only (on the D40) Nikon primes.

Cheers Darin

 

[gmosc]

Richard,

Be more polite and mention that you have a D40 when asking about lenses. It will prevent people from answering incorrectly (I wouldn't have suggested those two lenses if I had known).

Also someone else mentioned the 28-70 AF-S and your next post said that you picked "it" up.

My guess is that you didn't pick up the 28-70 that he suggested or the two useless lenses I suggested and that you were refering to your own original post and you picked up an 18-70.

Since this an international forum it helps to be clearer. Your topic was a useful, often asked question and you are not alone in wondering about it. When someone searches for the same info later and they come across this thread you started, they won't come away with anything useful if you didn't add what you bought and a simple why, too. (better build, metal mount, etc). These threads are saved for quite a while and it becomes a knowledge base, not just a simple Q&A board.

I hope I'm not sounding too impolite, I biked my kid to school and tried to think of a way to answer your post and my ideas ranged from insulting to helpful and I hope I landed back on the "helpful" side.

Guy Moscoso

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I picked it up. I know it wont AF on the D40. Im not sure what all
the banter above is all about.
--
Whats the purpose of Life? Live life with purpose

 

[jkjond]

I only have the 18-135, But from all of the reviews that I have
read the 18-135 is probably actually sharper than the 18-70, but
probably has slightly more distortion and CA.

Yes, I doubt I'd be tempted to swap between these two lenses in either direction. I have the 18-70, good range, pleased enough with it, though can't hold a candle to my 105 sigma for sharpness. I thought the 18-135 would be a bigger compromise, but it reviews quite well. The distortions should be correctable in ps, so I'd live with it.

If I wanted a better lens for portraits I'd consider the 17-35 http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1735_28/index.htm - though I doubt I'd see the investment worthwhile so would still stick with what you have.

 

[mschira]

a big big pitty, most large aperture lenses won't autofocus on the D40 so the 18-70 is probably the best you can get.

I am not sure if the improvement compared to the 18-135 is that much, unfortunatly.

The Sigma 30, f1.4 is probably the best thing you can get and it sure is a great lens. It is a bit restricting with the short focal length - I would say it is at the short end for portrait - but it is not necesary too short. If your "studio" is small this might even be a good thing. You have to get close to your subjects, that is for sure.

Nikon should move their A* and shelfe out some decent primes that work on the D40, seriously this situation is a shame.
M.

 

[Tianium]

Nikon should move their A* and shelfe out some decent primes that
work on the D40, seriously this situation is a shame.

Exactly.....

Cmon Nikon...You appear to be making a shift to all AF-S lenses (all the new ones lately are)...
So where are the primes.

Darin

 

[accw]

I bought my D70 with the kitlens.
I never liked it.
When I sold my D70 I was glad to sell the 18-70 as well.

But I kept my tamron 28-300 which I liked much better. Not for range, because I miss the 17mm for indoor shots. But it is sharper and even lighting looks better. It does have it disadvantages of a large zoom lens, but you can't have it al.

Ofcourse this lens doens do AF on the D40 as all derivatives (eg 18-200).

It is a pitty you can't use the cheap but very good 50 1,8 which gives best pictures for the money..

I would say, keep the 18-135, use most of the middle range 30-80 and stop the aperture a bit down (2 stops???)

--
grt,
Alex
http://www.fotolex.nl

 

[BasilG]

The best Nikon lens for what you want to use it for is the 28-70
AFS f2.8 zoom.

This is a very good portrait lens, will give you narrow depth of
filed and is AFS so will auto focus.

It costs more than the 18-70 though.

You're kidding, right? You suggest the beast to a D40 owner?

BG

 

[Richard Linton]

Thats a pretty arogant statement. Are you better than someone else because you own a better camera?

Boys and there toys.
--
Whats the purpose of Life? Live life with purpose

 

[Tianium]

BasilG wrote
"You're kidding, right? You suggest the beast to a D40 owner? "

Thats a pretty arogant statement. Are you better than someone else
because you own a better camera?

Yes .... sadly there appears to be a number of members on this forum who have the opinion that the D40 is just a toy and D40 owners are just Soccer Mums...(their words not mine). :-(

Darin

 

[MIC37]

I believe the 18-55 is the best choice as a kit lens (quality vs price)compare to both 18-70 and 18-135. I did tried all of them.

18-55 is reasonably sharp in the center and on edges.

18-70 is softer compare to the 18-55.

18-135 is sharp in the center, soft on edges. Reasonable sharpness could be achieved only after aperture 9. In addition there is a problem with auto focus in low light conditions and pretty often you may have an error F - - so you have to reinstall the lens.

 

[Patco]

a big big pitty, most large aperture lenses won't autofocus on the
D40 so the 18-70 is probably the best you can get.

I am not sure if the improvement compared to the 18-135 is that
much, unfortunatly.

The Sigma 30, f1.4 is probably the best thing you can get and it
sure is a great lens. It is a bit restricting with the short focal
length - I would say it is at the short end for portrait - but it
is not necesary too short. If your "studio" is small this might
even be a good thing. You have to get close to your subjects, that
is for sure.

Nikon should move their A* and shelfe out some decent primes that
work on the D40, seriously this situation is a shame.
M.

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels