New camera with sel16-50 or 18-135?

leossmith · Apr 10, 2019

HI All. I am about to order my new a6400 as an upgrade from my a5000 (sel16-50). There is a very good price for getting it with a 18-135 instead of the 16-50.

If I choose to get the 18-135 combo, it is about 280€ more expensive. Does it really worth it? Is the lens sharper than the 16-50?

I mostly do travel photography, so ditching my current 16-50 and 55-210 looks like a good option.

JYPfoto · Apr 10, 2019

leossmith said:
HI All. I am about to order my new a6400 as an upgrade from my a5000 (sel16-50). There is a very good price for getting it with a 18-135 instead of the 16-50.
If I choose to get the 18-135 combo, it is about 280€ more expensive. Does it really worth it? Is the lens sharper than the 16-50?
I mostly do travel photography, so ditching my current 16-50 and 55-210 looks like a good option.

Yes, it is considerably better than the 16-50. Only real advantages the 16-50 has is that it starts at 16 and that it's compact. Otherwise the 18-135 is better in almost all other regards.

Another option is if you're planning on doing video a fair amount of the time is to look at the 18-105 f/4. Doesn't come in a kit package, but you may be able to get a used copy of the 18-105 for a fair price now.

leossmith · Apr 10, 2019

Thank you for your reply. I considered 18-105 for a while, but I don't do any video.

So most probably 18-135 is the way to go.

da_habakuk · Apr 10, 2019

i never liked the 16-55pz because of the powerzoom.

the 55-210 was okayish but nothing to write home about.

i bought the 18-135 and it replaced my 16-70 and also my 55-210.

it has good sharpness for landscapes at f8 but its also quite good wide open.

i sometimes miss the 16mm, but i have the 10-18 too so all good.

leossmith · Apr 10, 2019

da_habakuk said:
i never liked the 16-55pz because of the powerzoom.

the 55-210 was okayish but nothing to write home about.

i bought the 18-135 and it replaced my 16-70 and also my 55-210.

it has good sharpness for landscapes at f8 but its also quite good wide open.

i sometimes miss the 16mm, but i have the 10-18 too so all good.

I too have a 12mm prime for wider shoots. Does the 16mm vs 18mm feels like missing much?

The Ryantist · Apr 10, 2019

leossmith said:
da_habakuk said:

i never liked the 16-55pz because of the powerzoom.

the 55-210 was okayish but nothing to write home about.

i bought the 18-135 and it replaced my 16-70 and also my 55-210.

it has good sharpness for landscapes at f8 but its also quite good wide open.

i sometimes miss the 16mm, but i have the 10-18 too so all good.

Click to expand...

I too have a 12mm prime for wider shoots. Does the 16mm vs 18mm feels like missing much?

I agree with the others. The 18-135 is a better performer all around. The only reason I keep my 16-50 is when I need the tiny size. My 16-50 is actually pretty good up to about 30 mm, but the 18-135 smokes it at the longer range and takes good portraits too.

I bring the 10-18 when I travel, or when I know I'll want a wide angle shot. Otherwise I think 18 mm is fine for general use. The important thing is: I don't think I've ever missed a shot because I didn't have 16 mm.

leossmith · Apr 10, 2019

It is true that size scares me a little. What I loved about my a5000 (first camera) was the tiny size and small weight combined with 16-50.

da_habakuk · Apr 10, 2019

well, u have to switch if you want wider.. but 18mm is a good allaround FL on aps-c.

so its up to u if u need the focal range and can live with its size (compared to the 1650) - the size of the 18-135 is still really small for its type.

Suzatlarge · Apr 10, 2019

leossmith said:
It is true that size scares me a little. What I loved about my a5000 (first camera) was the tiny size and small weight combined with 16-50.

Yes, the 18-135 is bigger than the tiny 16-50, but so is pretty much any other lens.

I bought the 18-135 almost on a whim a few months ago. It was a splurge because I shoot more with my A7R2 these days than my a6000. But oh my goodness, the 18-135 is SO small and lightweight, I sometimes still marvel that it has such a range of focal length. As soon as I picked it up (I was in my local camera store), I had to pop it onto my a6000 and try it out. And decided on the spot to buy it, and have not regretted it.

The a6000 with the 18-135 is a compact and lightweight kit. It's usually in my daily carry tote bag - wrapped for protection against scratches and bumps.

(Soon after I brought the 18-135 lens home, I sold my old favorite 18-105 f4 lens to help cushion the blow of my extravagance. I loved that 18-105 lens, but it's a lot heavier than the 18-135.)

If you've handled the 18-135 and think it's too big, then of course you shouldn't get it. But if you haven't yet met it in person, I recommend you give it a try.

Jpm888 · Apr 10, 2019

I have both the 18-135 and 16-50 but the 18-135 is much better

I domt use the 16-50 anymore but I’ll keep it as a pancake option. If you already have the a5000 with a 16-50, you can resuse that lens

You can sell your 55-210 to cushion the cost

PhotoFactor · Apr 10, 2019

The 18-135 is sharper AND has better color and contrast than the 1650.

If you want small size the 1650 is better.

If you want more reach and better optical quality, choose the 18-135.

Ray Maines · Apr 10, 2019

In my experience, with my camera and my lenses, the 18-135 goes wide to about 17mm as compared to my 16-70 or 16-50 lens. In other words, I'm not giving up too much wide angle with this lens. I really like it. Unless you have a really good reason to choose a different lens, this is the one I recommend.

Mark K · Apr 10, 2019

leossmith said:
HI All. I am about to order my new a6400 as an upgrade from my a5000 (sel16-50). There is a very good price for getting it with a 18-135 instead of the 16-50.
If I choose to get the 18-135 combo, it is about 280€ more expensive. Does it really worth it? Is the lens sharper than the 16-50?
I mostly do travel photography, so ditching my current 16-50 and 55-210 looks like a good option.

It is no brainer...just go and grab the kit. 18-135 is much more expensive to buy on its own and to me 16-50 is near useless.

JohnNEX · Apr 10, 2019

Most forum folk prioritise image quality over size, which is fine, but the 16-50 is an excellent lens if your primary concern is size, and you can take nice photos with it as some here can show.

That said, I would be going with the 18-135, particularly for travel photography.

skanter · Apr 10, 2019

leossmith said:
HI All. I am about to order my new a6400 as an upgrade from my a5000 (sel16-50). There is a very good price for getting it with a 18-135 instead of the 16-50.
If I choose to get the 18-135 combo, it is about 280€ more expensive. Does it really worth it? Is the lens sharper than the 16-50?
I mostly do travel photography, so ditching my current 16-50 and 55-210 looks like a good option.

You alresdy have the 16-50, so of course you should get the bundle deal for the 18-135. It’s good to have both.

I have both, and use the 16-50 more because it is uniquely small and light, I use 16mm quite often, and has quite decent image quality. The 18-135 is somewhat sharper, has better color and contrast for JPG shooters, more reach (but not as wide) and is considerably bigger and heavier.

Use the 16-50 when you want a tiny, pocketable camera (great for street photography) the 18-135 when ultimate IQ and more reach is a priority.

--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos

mcslsk · Apr 10, 2019

leossmith said:
HI All. I am about to order my new a6400 as an upgrade from my a5000 (sel16-50). There is a very good price for getting it with a 18-135 instead of the 16-50.
If I choose to get the 18-135 combo, it is about 280€ more expensive. Does it really worth it? Is the lens sharper than the 16-50?
I mostly do travel photography, so ditching my current 16-50 and 55-210 looks like a good option.

18135, no question. More IQ, more reach, good size.

leossmith · Apr 11, 2019

From the looks of it, I should probably keep the 16-50 I already have and just sell the body a5000, just to have the compact pancake.

Unfortunately I haven't seen the 18135 in person, or used it.

seuadr · Apr 11, 2019

I vote 18-135 also. I ditched both the 16-50 and 18-200LE for it. obviously both of those lenses have their own benefits, but the 18-135 has better quality in the range it offers and is sharper in the range it offers. plus a single lens solution for walking around is nice.

BrentSchumer · Apr 11, 2019

18-135mm is still quite small, but it brings better quality and a LOT more reach. You won't be disappointed.

leossmith · Apr 11, 2019

So it looks that all people like the 18-135 and the quality

Unfortunately I can't try it in any shop in my country, so I will just go with it. After all it is in a great price.

I will keep my 16-50 and just sell the a5000 body and order the 6400+18135 kit.

Thank you guys

New camera with sel16-50 or 18-135?

Member

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

mcslsk

Guest

Member

seuadr

Guest

Senior Member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts