Fujinon 18-135/3.5-5.6 looks disappointing

Started Jul 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Veducci Senior Member • Posts: 1,093
Re: Fujinon 18-135/3.5-5.6 looks disappointing

Les Lammers wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

There was a review published in photography blog, and the sample images look quite disappointing. I was hoping the lens would be close to 55-200/3.5-4.8 in image quality, but it doesn't look that way. It's not only soft, the contrast is low due to strong aberrations, which look worse than 16-50 and 18-55 zooms. The Sony 18-135/3.5-5.6 I used before looked definitely better and only at half the price. I doubt there will be many people willing to pay a premium price for a mediocre lens.

One 'review' is not sufficient to pan a lens.

Was it actually a bad review?

Here`s an excerpt from Dan Bailey`s review of this lens on his photoblog:

"In regards to quality, I was very impressed, especially in the shorter focal lengths. Although it’s not as wide as my much loved XF 14mm, I felt right at home when shooting in the close end. Sharpness and clarity were excellent and I’m extremely happy with the contrast and color of the photos I shot with this lens.

The XF 18-135 is built with 16 elements in 12 groups, and features 4 aspherical elements and 2 ED glass elements. When shooting directly towards the sun with backlit subjects, I saw no pronounced flare or loss in crispness in the photos."

It seems to me forpetessake is wrongly knocking Fuji lenses. In another recent post he has little good to say about the 16-50 or the 18-55.

Am I seeing a pattern here or is he just one unlucky guy getting all these bad lenses?

At $900 bucks though I won`t be looking to buy it .

 Veducci's gear list:Veducci's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Samsung Galaxy S6
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow