Best Kit Lens for APS-C? | Sony 18-135mm | Sony a6000, a6300, a6500

[@that1cameraguy]

Would you consider grabbing the Sony 18-135 and at what price? Link to buy🔽🔽🔽🔽 AMZ: geni.us/Z3z4nv B&H: bhpho.to/2CXQarn Recommended Primes with this Lens Sony 35mm F1.8 AMZ: geni.us/oHQbsAL | B&H: geni.us/oHQbsAL Sigma 30mm F1.4 AMZ: geni.us/z2XThDT | B&H: bhpho.to/2hSZjLP

[@user-tn6jc6ve2u]

that1cameraguy 期待中文字幕版

[@lauannric]

I've prime lens mostly. 14mm, 30mm, 60mm, and I'm considering a zoom. Wonder if this would do good. Else, if there is any other choices. I'm on A6300.

[@CampersInternational]

When I ordered my 6400 I got this lens in my kit.

[@jonia368]

Sony 18-135mm Or Sony 18-105 mm Or Sigma 16mm What would you pick, if you only had the kit lens, the 55-210mm and are really unhappy of the kit one 🙈?

[@1859ddd]

@@jonia368 I think it depends on what you are shooting. If you shoot more landscape and architecture photography you'll probably want the sigma 16mm paired with an 18-105mm or the 18-135mm. If you dont mind manually focusing Rokinon has a wonderful budget friendly option with their wide angle 12mm f/2 prime lens that I use for landscapes and have had epic results with it. It's a surprisingly sharp prime lens for the money. If you take more portraits or pet photography you may want to consider a 50mm prime lens for a more defined shallow depth of field and sharpness. And as stated in this video if you just want an upgrade to the sony pancake 16-50mm lens then I recommend either of the 18-105mm or 135mm ya really cant go wrong with either of them if that is the state of mind you are in. As far as video goes I cant speak on that behalf because I dont ever take video only photos. Hope that helped. Take it easy!

[@kalef1234]

You're one of the few KZbin reviewers that don't forget all about a camera body (a6300 a6000) as soon as the newest comes out. I appreciate that.

[@DarknessAlchemist00]

After thinking about it for a while, I've decided to purchase the a6400 with this 18mm-135mm kit lens. This video helped a lot!

[@harijomk]

Your comment help me, too. I agree with that. Thanks a lot.

[@Gorondus]

Worth it? I'm also thinking about buying the A6400 with the 18-135mm kit lens.

[@user-ib5xz1os8t]

I just got the A6700 with the 18-135 mm lens. One advantage of that kit is that the lens itself is $100 less than it would be if you purchased it alone (total kit price: $1398 + $400 - $1798).

[@willbrink]

The 18-135 is a surprisingly good lens for the $, and the size makes it a win win. It's what I used 95% of the time. It's as close to a one and done lens as you can ask for really. I got an APC camera for the compact size, and putting full sized lenses on compact body makes little sense to me. The other 5% of the time, the excellent sony 1.8f 35mm fixed prime is the go to due to size and quality for me. Just ordered the 70-350mm to round off my lens needs. Those three lenses will cover it for me.

[@grimmfluence7094]

This is an outstanding review - the fact that you include amazing example footage, compare it to other lenses and recommend a good lens to pair with is outstanding. There is a great deal with this lens and the camera right now and you have sold me on it.

[@dialVforAwesome]

I rented the 18-135 and the 18-105 a couple weeks ago to compare them, and I definitely preferred the 18-135 for the extended range and quick zoom. I primarily shoot outdoors in good lighting so the variable aperture doesn't bother me very much. The price may not be ideal--$399 would be better--and I seem to be in the minority here, but I still want it. In only have the kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 currently, and I really want the added range.

[@larrykay6606]

I returned my 18-105mm as soon as I heard Sony announce the 18-135. I've been using it since I got it late last year. I love it! Sharp, light, compact. The cost didn't matter to me. Perfect as my one lens that I have on my A6000 when I go hiking and care about weight.

[@sip1981]

I NEVER leave KZbin comments but this video was so great that I had too. Thanks for the review that1camera guy, great video!

[@that1cameraguy]

Thanks Tyler

[@andrzejjaniak6849]

I'd take 18-105 f4 instead of this lens. First, it is f4, so the bokeh at 4-4.5 is super nice. Second, it looked sharper when I compared the two. Third, the difference beteeen 105-135 is negligible and you get f4. Finally, it is an oversimplification that 18-105 is for video only. It is great for stills. You do NOT have to use power zoom switch to zoom. You can zoom in a conventional way and you will be able to zoom fast. It might still be a fraction slower, but definitely it will NOT take 2-3 seconds.

[@Bampiss]

Andrzej Janiak why is that? The 18-135 also can go to f4 right? / f3.5 is better depth of field right? Sorry I'm new at this

[@AiurMedia]

the 18-135mm lens is variable aperture lens, at longer focal length the maximum aperture will drop from 3.5 to f5.6, which means the 18-105mm f4 lens has advantage at longer range.

[@charlespangilinan6351]

@@Bampiss let me put it this way. True, f3.5 produces better/shallower DoF than f4. But at 18mm, a wide angle, the difference is almost non-existent. Then for the rest of the zoom range, the 18-105mm has a bigger aperture of f4 than the f4.5 (and above) of the 18-135mm, which can produce a much shallower DoF.

[@Oncewasgolden]

Andrzej Janiak The 18-105 is not sharper. Do your research. This lens is sharper and currently cheaper.

[@charlespangilinan6351]

@@Oncewasgolden it is cheaper because it is not better. Yes, it's not sharper at the wide FLs. Look at TechnologyMafia's results at the mid- to telephoto end. The 18-105mm is sharper at the long end and it's better for videos. I, for one, wouldn't bother buying the 18-135mm. It has a variable aperture, therefore has less control on DoF. Yes, it's smaller, but it extends, making it a pain to work with gimbals. Also, my friends are a7sII users, but they all have the 18-105mm as their go-to.

[@GallaghersGrub]

Picked up this lens earlier this week. It's fantastic. Love the size, build quality, auto-focus, zoom range, oss, and image quality. Went with this instead of the 18-105 because I don't need the power zoom, but mostly because of the size. I don't see this coming off my a5100 anytime soon.

[@SideshowBob44]

Same, this lens is much better than the 16-50 kit lens.

[@TheFosterJourney]

I ordered my 6400 last week with the 18-135mm lens. Can't wait to get it this week, especially with your review. Very informative! And confirmed my thinking on a grabbing 50mm prime lens also. THANKS!

[@TheFosterJourney]

...and thanks for comparing to the Sigma G 18-105. I'm with you on the quick zooming feature of the 18-135mm. Actually, I love exploring the zoom blur with the quick zoom.

[@Asiaflyers]

I own Sony Zeiss 16-70 f4 and Sony 18-105mm f4 previously. I sold my 18-105mm last month and bought the Sony 18-135mm instead. After testing this new len for a while I'm very satisfied with the extra zone range, sharpness and colour. I will still use my Zeiss 16-70mm for low light situation and the 2mm extra wide angle when needed. Otherwise most of my travel nowadays I just need this new Sony 18-135mm and Zeiss 55mm f1.8 len. * I bought from B&H for $498.

[@LooseEnds]

I considered both this lens & the 18-105, but decided on the 18-105 in the end. No regrets! I love that lens. Constant F4 is great, build is nice. Better background blur than the 18-135, & better for video for sure. And bonus: imho it looks much cooler.

[@aronvamosi5292]

Isn't that power zoom annoying? I hate that in the 16-50 kit lens

[@charlespangilinan6351]

@@aronvamosi5292 it's nice to experience power zoom if you are used to a series of primes and if you want a specific focal length value.

[@SideshowBob44]

The 18-135 matches the new body's perfectly, the 18-105 doesn't at all.

[@isaacstroupe3199]

Just got home from work and my wife surprised me with a6700 and it came with this lens!

[@mitchgusat4677]

Excellent review: Porfessional, fair, honest, trustworthy. A pro who knows his trade.

[@clarification007]

Very good review, I recently bought that Sony 18-135mm for a trip. Wow! I love to work with it on a fast travel with very little time to make photos and certainly no time to change the lens. I also bought my Sigma 30mm f1.4 By chance I’ve had the fast lens for pictures in a very low light in a fantastic library in Dublin. Yes I also recommend that lens for travel. But one thing you didn’t mention is the use in manual focus. Lovely well made to match the Sony A series. Also the great quality of work in the stabilisation system.

[@fzesmokyy1594]

I am using the a6300 with the Sigma 16mm f1.4 and the Sony 18-105. Pretty happy with that. As you said one lens alone wouldn't quiet do it.

[@pablodoncor]

I bought this lens a couple of weeks ago. Took some pictures, and the results have been great so far. I bought it for 490. I needed different focal lengths, so I decided for this one. No regrets at all.

I have an a6000 with the kit 16-50 lens (hate it) which was replaced by a 16-70 which I absolutely LOVE, complemented with a 35 f1.8 and I think I have what I really need. I don't think I need something else to be honest. I really don't know if I need more range.

[@JonFFavale]

I have 4 or 5 prime lenses but this is the lense I always grab when I'm only bringing one.

[@drbastien]

Thank you for your review, I got like a month ago for $400 tax included in amazon, I’m loving the lens, super smooth, very sharp and not very heavy.

[@Photomeike]

12am uploads for the non sleepers!

[@bodarville6527]

I just bought this lens... picked it up used for $365... I use my a6000 as a B-cam, and for events i often need to set it up in an unobtrusive spot, which makes it difficult to know which focal lengths I will need. Because of this I have ended up using the kit lens often. for the most part the footage looks fine. If I can get a sharper image, great! What I am most excited about is the AF/MF switch! I'm usually in a hurry and if I forget to turn AF off, I get a pulsing image... and that just doesn't work for me, so I am most excited about that feature.

[@sebastianconstantin5176]

12:29 yeah man, good point. i want it for photo, and i watch reviews to decide wich one of these two to buy, 18-135 is for me.

[@lamiafarjana1990]

I bought A6600 with 18-135 kit for a good deal in my area. I wanna invest on sigma 56mm 1.4 as well.. is it good enough to cover all sorts of photography (travel, landscape, portraits)?

[@menion57]

Very good review, I have the sony a6000 with the Sony 35mm 1.,8. I recently bought that Sony 18-135mm. I love it! Sharp, light, compact.

[@Carlos_Spartacus]

If you had to pick one lens, which would you choose?

Hi. Does the your a6000 suport the automatic corrections for this lens ? The camera came out before the lens, and I haven't seen any firmaware update covering it :-(

[@slr7075]

Making a apsc specific 2.8 standard zoom is probably going to be too large and heavy for a6x00 cameras. Sony prefers and targets it's Aps-c e-mount cameras to be more travel friendly, small and lightweight so lenses like the 18-135 is a good example for photographers who don't want to change lenses often and pack light. I have the 18-105 and it's a bit bulky and heavy on a6x00 bodies. It serves me well but I can see the 18-135 slowly phasing out the 18-105 as a easier lens to travel with.

[@molohov3875]

Bought for $400 basically new on Craigslist. Very happy with the lens!

[@raymaines5721]

I think it's a near perfect half of a two lens travel system. Depending on where and how you travel it could be paired with a fast prime, a longer telephoto, or (my choice) the Sony 10-18 UWA.

[@protarget1]

Old Vid, but as in October 2023 I bought one from a UK dealer. 12 months warrantee, and sold as new. Cost, £340 GB ( $416 ) I love it 😊

[@met-2442]

18-105 or 18-135 which is better for Photography, Videography Sharpness, portraits, street photography and Have Better Image quality?

[@kenchiu1987]

i have the 18-105 G and is considering this and the 16-70 Z due to the size and weight of the G

[@martin9410]

I have the 18-135, 28-70 and at one time the 18-105. By far and away, the 18-135 has been the sharpest zoom lens I've used. I pretty much keep it on my Sony a6000 for zooming and travel, and use my Sony a7ii for all other uses, mostly using primes. I bought it used for about 500 a few months ago (even though then it was a fairly new lens). Almost sold it on Ebay today, but just couldn't part with it. I wonder if there are some copy variances, because the first 18-135 I sent back because it wasn't sharp enough, but this second copy is very sharp.

[@molohov3875]

I am borrowing the 28-70 FE from a friend for a while. Do you think the 18-135 is better overall on APSC?

[@Channel323]

I do the A6300 with the kit lens, and I just found that lens for 187. i will be def getting that and you are right APS-C is NOT DEAD!!!!!!!

[@maverickrodriguez7213]

@that1cameraguy Im looking for a medium zoom range. If you were to compare it to the tamron, would you still choose the sony? for photography wise. Or would you rather choose the 18-105 for pictures

[@UncleAlpha1]

I bought this lens for my a6000 on ebay brand new for $450 with the ebay 20% off promo a few months ago. I really like the lens for its sharpness and light for travel and built in 0SS. Would recommend this for apc user that needs a good all around zoom lens. Unfortunately i upgraded to the a7iii and sold it. This lens win over the 24-105 for me because the lens is newer, lighter, quick zoom.

[@efromadler1390]

I bought this lens instead of the kit lens. Totally agree with your comments. I also tried the 18-105 which I felt too heavy and bulky for a travel lens without any perceived benefit.

[@AlifBurger]

Love the detailed coverage of this!

[@GallaghersGrub]

Very solid review. I will be adding this to my kit very soon.

[@HanselOchoaMontero]

This is the video that finally helped me to decide to buy this lens. I just ordered it from eBay for $335. So excited to test it out!

[@thelastjourney2196]

New or old

[@HanselOchoaMontero]

@@thelastjourney2196 It was used, but in excellent condition. Now I've been used this lens for a few weeks and I'm completely satisfied with it.

[@thelastjourney2196]

@@HanselOchoaMontero is it okay for vlogging

[@thelastjourney2196]

What about sigma 16mm , which one is better

[@edc5338]

I use this lens most of the time.

[@NathanElcoate]

I have it. It's a bit weak and variable aperture is a PITA. Light and useful but I'd rather the 18-105 F4. You CAN get good results with it but can't beat a 2.8 lens.

[@jmrp111]

I have zeiss 16-70 , sony 18-105 and this, and the 18-135 ia the best. Compact, really sharp an stabilizet. The finish is te focal range, perfect for apsc

[@TravelMinds]

I am between those lens for my a6000! 18-135 is sharper than 16-70??

[@raymaines5721]

I've had all three lenses but not at the same time, and the 18-135 is my favorite. It's not sharper than the 16-70, but it's sharp enough to produce really good photos. In fact, the whole thing about this lens is that it's good enough. Seriously, it's good enough. Everybody in the world knows it could be wider, longer, faster, sharper, and cheaper, but for most of us, most of the time it's good enough. Buy it and go take pictures.

[@TravelMinds]

Thank you Ray! You didnt like the 18-105?

[@raymaines5721]

No, I really didn't. It was my least favorite of the three. The IQ was awesome, the constant F/4.0 is nice, it doesn't change size as it zooms, the size is reasonable, the PZ thing was OK although not ideal, but it weighed too much for me to feel comfortable with. It just never felt like a good match on the camera. The CZ 16-70 is a great lens (my wife and I have owned three and they were all pretty good). I love the extra wide angle of the CZ but all things considered, I like the 18-135 better.

[@TravelMinds]

Thank you again!!!

[@jackodon74]

Why they never released an 18-55 or 16-50 F2.8 is beyond me. Sony don't seem to care about the APSC line up any more, Fuji have the best APSC zoom in the 18-55 f2.8-4, a beautiful lens which makes a mockery of this, as does the Fuji 18-135. Sony could of sold tons more cameras with a better fast zoom. I was going to buy a second body an A6300 but didn't because of the lens line up. No regrets buying a Fuji XT20 it's a stellar performer with the 18-55 fujinon lens.

[@davidkurniawan3886]

jackodon74 sadly...agree with you on this matter...16-70 is the only one that can match 18-55 fuji...but very expensive....and f4 only...so...in that matter...fuji still win...and that make many jump to fuji....or maybe go up ff cause their apsc line like that

[@mattbite]

@leicanoct It isnt bigger and the grip in Sony is really small.

[@cdb5662]

The Fuji 18-55 is a $600 lens, and the Fuji 18-135 is an $800 lens. I bet you eat apples and think they’re oranges. Silly comparison.

[@juliadula]

Just ordered this lens and paid £499 and - ouch - yes that hurts. Can reduce by £50 under a cash back screen right now. This review tells me just what I want to know and this is the right lens for me. I had considered 19 - 105 mm but the weight and size went against that. I'm just turning to mirrorless from Pentax DSLR so seriously don't want to start getting any heavier kit than necessary. Lens arrives this week. Can't wait to try it.

[@samsargdong1135]

Hi,thanks for the review. I'll buy this lens as my kit lens for the new Sony A6400. I don"t agree with you that's only a travelling lens.I find it a perfect lens for every day use except for low light situations. The colour,contrast and sharpness of this lens are really good.Bye!

[@lawryyXD]

Will wait for your comparison between the 16-70 F4 and this 18-135!! Wanna know if is (and how much) sharper than the 16-70, since I read that 16-70 has bad QC? I went and got a 16-70 anyway, and its been sharp enough for me, but always considering options, especially since the longer range seems nice to have.

[@Jasan57]

Great info - focused and well argumented - hands on usable

[@sizzlemann]

I think if you're shooting mostly video (vlogging), then a constant f4 would be better. When you zoom in and out with that type of lens, there won't be a change in lighting. Using a zoom that changes aperture, the camera would have to adjust as well and it would be noticeable. For photos, it's pick your priority. Bokeh vs. zoom distance.

[@lohithrao1]

Dont get bokeh effect in 135?

[@MNadeem-vs7df]

I have bought the video camera Sony A6500 with 18-135 lenses but when I attached the lens to the camera body the auto focus was not working and an error occurred; (LENS NOT ATTACHED CORRECTLY OR IS NOT SUPPORTED) . I removed the lens, cleaned it with a dry cloth according to the instructions in the manual, and reconnected it around 3 & 4 times but I got the same message. Please let me know if there is a solution to this problem or should I return the kit? Thanks

[@catnapwat]

I just grabbed an A-mount version of this lens from eBay for £160 which I think is a pretty good price. For a travel lens I don't think it can be beaten for flexibility, and lugging around three lenses last time got old fast. Paired with an f/1.7 50mm prime, hopefully I've got all bases covered. Other reviewers noted that there is a sharpness issue at 24mm on this lens which is largely resolved by stopping down to f/8 or so.

[@mikaeelabdualwadood3168]

I just bought the a6400 with this lens for $1,299. That put the cost of lens at $400...I think a pretty good deal for its versatility and sharpness, especially since I bought mine in a state that doesn't charge state tax. Saved $90 which bought cost of lens to $310.Although it would be GREAT if Sony just charged $300.

[@bijosn]

Great review - comprehensive, useful and real

[@ChrisParayno]

I've been an nex shooter since back in the day. The 18-200 was almost $1000 back in the day. Now you can get it for under $300. I think it's a better value then the 18-135.

[@TVe200]

This is an one year old video. You said that the price have gone down from 599 US$ to 499, and that it should not cost more than 399. Where I live it still cost 599 (pluss tax) in september 2019.

[@shamrock5725]

Yeah lenses don't seem to go down in value very often at all.

[@KevinGian94]

I got this lens as a combo with the A6300 a few weeks ago for $800!

[@ScoutBobrman862]

Thanks bro! Will be getting this lens soon for my A6000! Done✅

[@MrMACornwell]

2:14 you mentioned the 18-200. Are you still going to test it? How does it compare to the 18-135?

[@MrLimelights]

yes please

[@MrLimelights]

@ that1cameraguy

[@subie0787]

How does this one compare to the canon version? I was impressed with the image quality of the canon version.

[@davide36923]

It is a very handy consumer grade kit zoom. If you do more than a little video the 18-105 f4.0 is great.

[@joelbenford9327]

I'm sure I could live with this lens. But variable aperture lenses irritate me, and the 18mm end is just a bit less wide than I'd like. The 18-105/4 has a power zoom, which irritates me more than variable aperture. I don't often want more than 100mm equiv for people; and when I do want more it's like 300mm for compressing architecture/cityscapes. So I'd get the 16-70/4. It's the zoom range I want, it's f/4 which helps for evening light, and it's a constant aperture mechanical zoom which won't irritate me all day. It's only adequately sharp, but I do like its bokeh/colour/contrast much better than the alternatives. The images *make me happy* in real world viewing. It's much more expensive new, but it's been around a while so you can get it used at almost-ok prices.

[@milkteaTreadway]

right on @that1cameraguy been looking for a good do it all lens for A6500 for travel Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III VC is so so, but it is not native, so have some minor issues especially focus hunt. Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 is a big and heavy lens, not quite the reach, slow zoom, and big distortion in raw image. so it does seem that the new Sony 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS is a good compromise. Just hoping and waiting that Sigma could have a 18-135mm F2.8 OS for the Sony E-mount. Fingers crossed.

[@DmitryBrodsky007]

I had 16-70 and 18-105. 16-70 was nice but it died after brief contact with water - zero water resistance. 18-105 G seems better build because it is "G" and "G" lenses are generally built well. In general between constant aperture and variable, always pick constant, because your exposure does not change as you zoom. Ultimately between 16-70 and 18-105 I would have picked 16-70 because for travel wide angle is usually more important than tele end, and it is more compact than 18-105. But because 16-70 construction sucks, it would be between 18-105 and 18-135.

[@davidkurniawan3886]

Dmitry Brodsky wait really? 16-70 died cause contact with water? I mean seriously? I use my kit 16-50 in rain and its work until now no problem....and 16-70 that much expensive died causw contact with water?

[@maf3695]

But the 18-105mm f4 stays the same size when you zoom in.

[@ckjl7704]

but its heavy and large

[@aspiziri]

And missing out on 105-135 coverage

[@jakubs.6817]

what is f4? F4 on APS-C is shit, i don't get the hype around 18-105. If it would be f2.8 ok.. but I don't see any difference between f4 and f 5,6. Anyway @ 135mm you will get more bokeh and isolation than @105mm f4

[@maf3695]

Jakub S. The 18-105mm when using it for video, the lens stays the same size. Whether it’s at 18 mm or 105 mm. Which is great when using any gimbals. At a constant f4 one does not have to worry about the image getting darker when zooming in

[@jakubs.6817]

maf36 who is zooming while filming? :D i guess its not a very profesional method. +The Lens stay the same length but the center of weight changes so actually its better to recalibrate the gimbal

[@6gwilliams]

Good review. A good choice for many. I already have the 18-105mm f4 for my A6500, so I feel no need to change. I have other wider and faster primes, and longer zooms. Cheers

[@faf.78]

This lens just obsoleted all of the APS-C zoom offerings from Sony, period. I bought with the A6500 kit...ends up costing $400 (since body only sells for $1100) and I have to say it is a no brainer. Excellent color, contrast & sharpness. At 18mm you need to stop down to F5.6-F8, but wide open from 24-135mm it is excellent!

[@SideshowBob44]

Yep, All you need is this and maybe 1 prime lens for low light.

[@GilbertTV]

good honest review ... no i would not pay 499 for this ...

[@sickeditsss]

Why

[@Tangierer]

I'm glad it seems as a complete noob I've bought a good first lens aside the 16-50 which came with the Kit yesterday. What prime lens do you recommend? Do I benefit for portraits with the 'cheap' 50 1.8f from sony? Or even into the area of 30-35? Thanks for your Video!

[@TheVideowise]

I purchased my a6400 with the 18-135 as a kit lens in the same box. The total price is $1300, so it's a $400 lens in that package. I'm been very happy with it, and I"m comparing it to my Nikon D750 full frame with the Nikon 28-300 lens. That Nikon lens cost more than the Sony camera and lens combined! I'm not as young as I used to be, and the smaller camera and lens is really great for travel for me. I agree a fast fixed FL would round out a travel package, but I purchased the Sony 10-18 lens for width landscapes and indoor shots. I just have to realize it's only an F4. I'll just have to get the right fast lens to round out my travel camera outfit! What one do you recommend?

[@evenatienzaart]

Hi: I recently bought a used copy of the 18-135mn lens based on your informative reviews. My copy does not show the focal distance setting on my a6000 evf or on the image exif data. (That information is available with my kit 16-50mm power zoom lens.) Does your copy show focal distance information? Thanks in advance (and keep up your good work).

[@evenatienzaart]

The section of your review that compared the video performance of this lens to the 18-105mm lens answered my question.

[@Bru946]

You should keep doing these aps-c videos. I just picked up a a6300

[@suesokoloski6644]

What does Be also a good lens for beginners, Second question are the lenses all made like this plastic with metal ring or are they metal that are not in a kit package?

[@jamesconraadtucker]

Nice review. I currently have a X-T1. As I started looking for a new camera, I was very impressed with the A6400 with 18-135mm lens. There are obvious auto focus benefits. What blew me away with this combination and range was focus speed. Even at 135mm, near to far and back focus was instant! My main reasoning for jumping to the A6400 is also size factor and shooting wildlife. I'm still keeping the Fuji, but the speed of the Sony and relative quality is outstanding! Thanks for the informative review! For new Sony camera buyers, the 18-135mm is under $300. I'd still buy it separately, after having tried it, and seeing it's performance. Soft corners at extremes on any longer range zoom is a given. This lens is dynamite. Just reinforcing. ; )

[@sreebasdutta4703]

How is the a6600+18-135 combo? I am a beginner. Or do I need to get a sigma 16mm too? Thanks for all the awesome videos!!!

[@stevenfrankel5905]

I guess Sony was listening. I just bought the Sony A6499/18-135 combo at Adorama for $1295, whereas the a6400 alone was $895. That's you $400 target price. The two reasons the 18-135mm was a better lens for me was weight and range. For wildlife and sports shooting, there's a BIG difference between 150mm and 200mm. And, since I just sold off my Sony a7 III with a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens, the size and weight advantages would be nearly eliminated if I had gone with Sony 24-105. Also, I think too big a deal is made over an f4 vs f5.6 aperture. It's only one stop, and that's easily taken care of through the lenses' "anti-shake" or the dynamic range of the sensor. On the other hand, going from the Tamron's constant 2.8 aperture to the 28-105's 5.6 aperture is a BIG deal. That's why I added a Sony Zeiss 24mm f2 to my purchase. Sure it added $1000 more to the package, but I made all of it back (and then some) by selling off my full-frame Sony kit of the camera and two lenses. Further, with the 24mm Sony/Zeiss lens, I have an alternative that Ken Rockwell calls "one of the best in the world and a match for the Leica equivalent at three times the price." I'm a hard-core travel photographer, and with the A6400, the 18-135, the 24mm, and a light camera bag or vest, I'll have a 4-pound kit that I can take anywhere in the world for as long as I'm gone, and never feel that I'm missing any gear I need.

[@joegolok]

I bought an a6500 + 18-135 kit on sale over the holidays. At the same time I also picked up the Sony 35 1.8 and I'm getting the Sigma 16 1.4 delivered tomorrow! For travel and family pics and video would you recommend bringing all 3 lenses or just sticking with the two primes? Thanks!

[@offroad5798]

When you zoom in on those pictures, are you twisting the lens itself to zoom or are you using the zoom feature digitally? Sorry, I'm extremely new to cameras

[@PatrickSchraner]

Would it be worth it to get the new A6700 with this as the kit lens along with it? I currently have an A7III, but the new A6700 has much better video specs, so I'm thinking of switching.

[@jakubs.6817]

I would prefer the 18-135. I guess the 18-105 with electrical zooming would give me this awful feel, like the kit lens. No point in spending 600$ on a electric, constant f4 lens for aps-c. Would rather have better feel and more range. How are they in comparision when it comes to sharpness?

[@MarlonKingShow]

I just bought the a6500 and got a 30mm f1.4. Thanks for the review, this seems way too expensive for a kit level type lense. £350 would be the price I consider it. I’m still not sure on the 18-105 . Didn’t know about the power zoom with no manual zoom... basically there is still no decent zoom lens for £500 or under

[@MyFrenchTube]

Nice review 👏 I have the Tamron 18-200 Di III VC and i would like to know wich lens is the most sharpen? This 18 - 135 or the Tamron 18-200? 🤔

[@luciana_nemes]

I have the same question. Did you find out which one is sharper?

[@Shambolicoholic]

With the recent Ebay coupons, you could have gotten it for sub-$400 (using a variety of discounts (i.e. Ebay + paypal). I ended up paying about $425 and I'm perfectly fine with that price because this is the perfect lens for _ME_. Me being a parent with 2 young kids so size, weight and flexibility are my top concerns. I don't want to carry multiple focal lengths/change lenses so I need a zoom lens that covers the most useful range in the smallest package and this fits the bill very well. People often compare it to the 18-105 and I'm sure that's a very good lens but this is smaller, lighter and cheaper with more reach. Image quality, like stated here, is very good. This decrease in size/weight/price does come w/ caveats, of course. At the longer distances you'll be up to f4 to f5.6 but I'm fine with this. I do most of my shooting during the day/outside so it's not a problem. I'm also not usually looking to blow out backgrounds for portraits. In a pinch, if I really wanted to take some portraits I'd be at 60-70mm wide open and separate my subjects from the background. So, all in all, if you want a great travel lens or kids' activity lens where size/weight are top concerns then you can't do much better than this, IMO. I love mine and it hardly comes off my a6300.

[@TravelMinds]

Nice review! I am between 16-70,18-105 and 18-135. Hard to decide. Ok 16-70 is to expensive but what about the other two lenses? Is 18-135 sharper than 18-105?

[@charlespangilinan6351]

Yes, most of the reviews say that the 18-135mm is sharper than the 18-105mm. But if you want a (slightly) better low-light performer and bokeh machine (lol) at the longer focal lengths, the 18-105 is the obvious choice.

[@donnydefenders]

Another good video chap, you are lucky over their with the pricing, the 18-135 is £569 in the UK.

[@zatiewanderer]

If money is not an issues... Which do you recommend for travel? 16-70mm f4 or 18-135mm?

[@Frank-zw6sq]

Should i get this one or Sigma 18-50?

[@davidshaffer834]

Excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@qdogg290]

Thanks for the excellent review. However, I'm curious why you (and others) say the 18-135 is a bit overpriced at $500? In the context of what lenses go for -- Sony lenses especially -- the 18-135 is reasonably priced. The prime you advise complementing the 18-135 with is $400 for a single focal length. And given that you found the lens sharp, compact and the focal range exceedingly versatile, why wouldn't this lens work for enthusiasts?

[@mml1426]

Is 18-135mm terrible for street photography? If I keep it at f/3.5 and 35mm?

[@ujjwalniskarsh9904]

I love both Sony and nasa (your t-shirt)

[@MrJrusselltx]

Be interesting to compare IQ on this lens to the Tamron 18-200 mm. I use this as my go to lens for the A-6500.

[@danilocruz5978]

Hi Thank u for the information you are sharing!! i would like to ask if there is a lens for sony a6000 17-50mm 2.8 im looking for it but everything is adapter needed is there a lens that doesnt need adapter on a6000?

[@AkalyptosUC]

18-135 mm len for sony a6400 is enough wide to show 2 people on the screen while i hold my stick close to me or i have to stretch a lot?

[@floatingrabbit3556]

This caption should read, best expensive lens for sony APS-C cameras. Just put that out there so the rest of us can just watch these videos with no plans of buying. If anyone here doesn't mind auto focus issues then i would recommend third party lenses like Tamron, Rokinnon and 7 artisans. They reproduce great results for a fraction of the price if you're into portraits and landscape. For video you're unfortunately going to have to spend on native lenses for auto focus superiority.

[@lorenzoocchipinti9120]

I'm purchasing a Sony a6400 as my first camera. I'll use it only for videos, especially for videos of tech objects, indoors, and also videos of my face as I talk to my desktop setup in background with the camera at 1.5 meter from me. I'm going to compose the a6400 with the lens kit, 16-60mm, and match it to the e35mm f1.8 lens as the prime lens, for low light videos, and for b-rolls etc. Is it a good combination for a newbie? Or should I opt for the 18-135mm bundle with the camera + 35mm f1.8, spending about 270 euros more (in total)? I'm using Premiere Pro for post production and editing.

[@Demmrir]

Given that the 18-135mm is now $400 as a kit lens with a new body, would you change your opinion to just flat recommending it as a replacement for the ($100 as kit) 16-50mm?

[@ismaeelyaghoubi1212]

what do you think about sony 18-200 compare to this lens ?

[@OutOfTheBoxThinker1]

Great review. Thanks buddy

[@davidgonzalez9113]

IMAGE QUALITY OF 18 135 VS 55 210 ... WORTH IT PAY THE DIFERENCE ? THANK YOU

[@POPOVRECORD]

help me choose the zoom. i used sigma. tired of changing them. I want one lens. I choose 16-55 2.8 g, tamron 17-28 18-105 g. I want a sharp lens. help me or advise your options