Just switched over to sony A 6000 body. Excited to take the camera out this weekend and try it out. I mostly shoot ski photos with landscape thrown in. I really like the idea of having one dedicated lens on the camera so I do not have to change often in the field. I have not heard good things about sony aps-c zoom lenses. I will purchase the 55-210 in the future but for right now I am looking for a lens that has a good wide end. I was excited to hear about the 18-135 but I really do not like what I am hearing and seeing with soft corners. I would like to have sharper photos. Is the 18-105 f 4 still the (best) aps-c zoom lens to have? Thanks for all responses.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is the 18-105 f4 still the winner for ski and mountain photography?
- Thread starter Pm77
- Start date
thejuanald
Active member
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 44
From everything I've seen, the 18-105 has corners that are much softer than the new 18-135.
I own the 18-105G and I was hoping for better than what I have with the new lens but I'm having my doubts.
Since neither lens has 16mm the 18mm is a very important focal length on these lenses because it's where landscape and travel photographers will take a lot of photos. The extreme vignetting of the 18-135 at 18mm is disturbing. You can see it here (scroll down). So, in addition to the barrel distortion you have very dark shading, the image circle does not cover the whole sensor. With the 18105G you get barrel distortion at 18 but the vignetting is significantly less (though not zero but much better). All of these corrections affect IQ.
At 135mm I haven't seen any images that are sharper or even as sharp as what I get from the 18-105 at 105mm. In fact, some of the 135mm images seem a bit disappointing.
Some of the images in the mid-zoom range of the 18135 seem excellent, however.
We still must wait for the lens be available and better reviews to surface to really make a final judgement. Though, IMO, it's not obvious which of the two is better sharpness wise. The 18135 may have an advantage because it'll be slightly smaller and more conducive for travel with a potential minor tradeoff in IQ to achieve the size benefit. You'll likely have to choose which tradeoff is more important to you.
For me, I'm not running out to buy the 18135 as I was originally thinking I might. I'll wait to see how the above concerns play out in real life images.
Since neither lens has 16mm the 18mm is a very important focal length on these lenses because it's where landscape and travel photographers will take a lot of photos. The extreme vignetting of the 18-135 at 18mm is disturbing. You can see it here (scroll down). So, in addition to the barrel distortion you have very dark shading, the image circle does not cover the whole sensor. With the 18105G you get barrel distortion at 18 but the vignetting is significantly less (though not zero but much better). All of these corrections affect IQ.
At 135mm I haven't seen any images that are sharper or even as sharp as what I get from the 18-105 at 105mm. In fact, some of the 135mm images seem a bit disappointing.
Some of the images in the mid-zoom range of the 18135 seem excellent, however.
We still must wait for the lens be available and better reviews to surface to really make a final judgement. Though, IMO, it's not obvious which of the two is better sharpness wise. The 18135 may have an advantage because it'll be slightly smaller and more conducive for travel with a potential minor tradeoff in IQ to achieve the size benefit. You'll likely have to choose which tradeoff is more important to you.
For me, I'm not running out to buy the 18135 as I was originally thinking I might. I'll wait to see how the above concerns play out in real life images.
Since most landscape photos are taken at stopped-down apertures for a deep depth of field, and more often than not corners and vignetting improve dramatically at stopped down apertures, I wouldn’t loose any sleep over corner concerns with any modern lens for landscape photos unless you’re currently employed at National Geographic.
I’d just ask myself the question: “Do I like the focal length of this lens?”
I’d just ask myself the question: “Do I like the focal length of this lens?”
Thanks for the replies. I think that I am going to wait and see how the 18-135 fairs when it is available . I finally have the sports camera Ive been craving, now if only I had the lens to go with it. 
As a side note, I switched over from Olympus and they cannot even come close with af-c. Sony wins hands down.
As a side note, I switched over from Olympus and they cannot even come close with af-c. Sony wins hands down.
MrMillett9
Well-known member
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 63
On advantage of the 18-105 is the internal zoom. The other zooms extend out. Not sure if that makes a diff for you.
Downside it is longer vs the others for transport, but it is light.
Also for skiing if shooting video, the 18-105 will be better with constant aperature.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum