Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Review

[@ChristopherBurress]

Get one for yourself here! : amzn.to/2GJjdzT Check out my instagram for sneak peeks on future videos: instagram.com/christopherburress/

[@doriandegroot4924]

Christopher Burress does it have autofocus?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Yes

[@doriandegroot4924]

Christopher Burress Thanks for responding!

[@AstroHBF]

Intro quality was great and the background in this vid was really nice. Stepping the production quality up and it’s not going unnoticed. Great vid as always

[@merlinsparks3367]

that intro was really satisfying to watch.

[@Samstrex]

Hey Chris! The quality of this video along with the amazing editing make it so exciting and fun to watch. You deserve wayy more subs

[@ChristopherBurress]

Well that's a great response! I'm going to try to incorporate more Cinematic stuff into my reviews, glad you like it! :D

[@manusk40]

I recently switched for canon to Sony so I'm on the lookout out for new lenses I think I've come to the right place 👌

[@BoyarsMedia]

You said it yourself. It's a remarkable travel lens. I wouldn't poo poo the optics because that's not the point. Besides KZbin compression will hide any differences between this and a Zeiss. Also kudos for being the first to publish a video with this lens :)

[@pwass3857]

I had the 18-105 and replaced it with this lens. I, personally, just don't like the power zoom. I find the 18-135 much more comfortable to use, providing longer reach. Only the constant F4 is lacking. I find the 18-135 a much better general purpose zoom for outdoor use.

[@clarification007]

Apparently the stabilisation is better then the 18-105mm! That will be a big plus also much smaller! Yesss!

[@12scarz9]

How about the af and sharpness?Are 18-135 better in this aspects?

[@vegita319]

Your production quality has improved a lot! Definitely can tell you leveled up your abilities for sure! Great video man! BTW, definitely shows based on how much your channel has grown already!

[@larrykay6606]

Thanks for the review. I received my copy a week ago and I love it. I returned my 18-105mm as soon as this lens was announced. In my testing the 18-135mm is a little sharper. Plus the weight and size savings are an asset. I don’t need PZ. Also, Light Room 7.2 now has the new lens profile.

[@rafai1281]

Barrel/lens hood shade at 18 isn’t a problem because on this level of distortion it needs correction anyway. On 24-70 GM you have great distortion control and image circle larger than FF sensor, but it is for a completely different audience. Booth size/weight and price point… In my opinion, this can be a very good lens for a lot of users, I don’t know if you ever tested Canon or Nikon versions- quite big and ekhem… IQ quite far from best in lens lineup. I think this lens has bad internet press just because everybody is annoyed from waiting for 16-50 2.8 (it even doesn’t matter that it will be far more expensive, bigger and for different users).

[@UltraFlynn]

Thanks for the review. Looking forward to the comparison with the 18-105.

[@clarification007]

Christopher, congratulations! After I’ve watched and read on few reviews about this lens (Sony 18-135mm APS-C), you are the first one to mention what I was hoping to hear: The quality and the advantage of this great manual zoom vs the Power Zoom (No use for me, I don’t shot video. But I think professional film maker would prefer that one because is manual! Also you mention the manual focus is very nice to work; finally, you are still the only one to mention the great stabilisation this lens have with demonstration. With your review, now I know what I want, the 18-135mm! Yessss! Travel with this with a Sigma 19mm, OR, Sigma 30mm f1,4 would fill my small camera bag Thanks again.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Well thank you, I'm glad my video could be such a good help!

[@neilninonavarra1235]

Liked before watching cos I'm quite interested with this lens. A lot of people are bashing this lens right away without even knowing its merits

[@camp0017]

Solid content, focus on facts and data. Good photo samples. That's what I like in reviews. Keep it up!

[@chryseass.5143]

Thanks Christopher, I just can't get exited about this one. ( shame about the focal length range). Wow, I was shocked at how tiny it is, though. I will be very interested in your comparison to the 18-105mm f.4 which is a great all rounder except for its size and weight! Right now, loving my new Sigma 16mm f1.4.......

[@JohnRMTurner]

Great review. Thanks! I am considering buying this lens to replace the 16-55 kit and 55-210 zoom. This 18-135 coupled with my sigma 30mm will be a great light weight travel combo. I just wish sony would make a good long zoom for apsc. I rented the FE 70-300 and got some great photos, but its so heavy on the a6500 body.

[@davidteer80]

i already own the 18-105 and love it. It's my main go to lens. It will take something very special to make me buy this. My FE 70-300 will be arriving on monday.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Nice! I have been looking at the 70-300 for a while now

[@davidteer80]

got is refurbished, $850 plus tax.

[@clarification007]

Video or pictures? The answer will be about your choice.

[@AkalyptosUC]

Does this len have optical stabilizer?

[@JonahSonner]

Hey this is one of your best videos so far!! Loving your new set

[@ChristopherBurress]

Thanks! Glad to hear the new setup is a hit!

[@Mr.Altavoz]

Great video, thanks. I bought this lens with the Sony a6600. What lens would you recommend for low light?

[@Ovidiu-Matei]

Question for all of lens nerds! I recently ordered a6400 with 18-135mm and I wonder if I did a mistake not taking the 18-105mm lens. I will shoot only in a studio, youtube videos, with a dark black background, with only one main source of a light and another as a lil effect, and on post I will try to darken all up. Filming will happen on a tripod, some sequences at 18mm, some others zoomed in, occasionally on a slider. No bokeh, no gimbals and only the center of the frame is important to me. Picking the 105mm was more expensive and honestly didn't see any enormous advantages regarding what I will create, with the exception of low light performance, which is my main concern, because I want also the sharpest footage I can get. Any thoughts? Did I make a mistake not spending more for the 105mm? I was going for the Sigma 16mm ofc, but I made up my mind considering the easier workflow of a zoom lens. A big thank you for investing a few seconds answering to me.

[@yubeie]

sigma 16mm would be the right choice in my opinion

[@bijosn]

if you plan to put a mic on your camera and sit in front of it rather get a 16mm sigma 1.4 prime as suggested above, particularly because of your low light setting

[@frankyvee1]

Great review! Looking forward to the 18-105 comparison video.

[@nightcoder5k]

Another great lens review. Thank you.

[@kian8382]

What a nicely done review, thanks for the information, subscribed.

[@kmiloz]

Great video.... Looking forward to see coming comparison...

[@GallaghersGrub]

Great review. Seems like a solid travel lens

[@j.r.regenold9094]

Zoom extending out is really only an issue for gimbal balance. Otherwise I don't see why it would be a problem. Thanks for the review ..Very good.

[@michaelburke4117]

Regarding the chromatic aberration, do you have the lens corrections turned off in the camera, ca correction and vignette correction are applied to the raw file. Your light room panel shows "built in lens correction applied" it might be why you aren't seeing any. (auto is the camera default)

[@rubbrdux]

Good review. Looking forward to a comparo to the 18-105. Would also be helpful to see suggestions for an alternative lens (in your opinion) which covers similar range but is much faster, price not withstanding, if such exists. Also interested in seeing a listing for your background music source, apparently the only item you don't have a link for below ! Thanks !

[@jrewillis]

Great initial review Chris. Thanks!

[@aidansoccer12]

Hey I was looking to get into videography with a little bit of photography. I saw this lens comes with a lot of the Sony a6 series as a bundle. I was just wondering for someone just starting out if it would be a good lens or is there a better lens for around the same price point? I know prime lenses can typically sharper but I’m on a budget. Maybe I’m wrong but I feel like a zoom lens for my first lens would be best to start off with.

[@boondoggling]

Very cool. As a travel lens, the size is compelling. Would like to see a comparison against the SEL18200LE or the Tamron 18200 B011 (essentially the same as the SEL18200LE). Subscribed and looking forward to the next one.

[@diegoacostasanmiguel8366]

hi, i´m watching you from colombia, geat videos, could you test this 18-135 head to head, with the 16-70mm???

[@chrisw443]

test the video auto focus between the 18 to 105 and this lens, i like how youve upped your production quality over the past year or so too!

[@ChristopherBurress]

I plan on doing that review! I'm glad you like the video improvements!

[@eriklifted3135]

Please make a detailed comparison with the 18-105G. Will base my purchase decision as well, I've been enjoying your reviews! Test for everything, sharpness, CA, and so on, also make sure to compare the OSS , cause I've read the 18-135 has far better OSS than the G lens. Wont mind even a 20 minute video comparison, choosing between both lenses is the hottest topic atm.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Will do!

[@eriklifted3135]

Christopher Burress awesome, thank you! Also would be nice if you can include minimum focus distance comparison cause there is significant difference in that too. Keep up the good content!

[@Reviews4fun1]

I’ve got the 18-200 LE Sony zoom lens and wondering if I should pick this up with a camera kit bundle. Would you prefer this lens?

[@channealpha]

Hey awesome videos!! planning on getting this as a nice travel lens, i have a 55-210, do you think i should keep it? some reviews suggest that although this has less reach its sharper and that makes up for it...

[@ChristopherBurress]

There isn't as big of a different as you would think between 135 and 210. I would sell the 55-210 because you probably won't ever reach for it again.

[@channealpha]

cool! such a quick reply! thanks Chris I love your channel and your videos have been getting better and better!

[@qdogg290]

Thank you for the insightful review, Chris! I had been eagerly awaiting your review. This may sound like an apples to oranges comparison, but how does this lens stack up to the Sigma 16? Maybe you can picture the Sigma 30 instead, since the 18-135 covers its range. I know the Sigma would be sharper, better in low light, and higher apertures bring about subject separation -- but when normally viewing a picture would there be any apparent differences. Is there more noticeable contrast, more realistic colors, more character (whatever the hell this would mean). I guess this is zoom vs prime sorta question. I continuously contemplate this. I have the Sigma 16 for landscapes/hiking but always crave the convenience of a zoom. Thanks!

[@clarification007]

My Sigma 19mm will take a better place quality wise then the 18mm on the zoom. So I’ll travel with the fixed 19mm Sigma with the 18-135mm. (I also got the Sigma 30mm f1,4 and the Sigma 60mm. Both are not practical for fast travel)

[@oliversteiner0815]

Thanks for another nice and helpful video! I just wonder what the corners will look like, in terms of sharpness, after distortion correction has stretched the hell out of the image, at the short end of the zoom range... :D

[@ChristopherBurress]

Good question! I'm really surprised to see the image go uncorrected like it is.

[@oliversteiner0815]

Me as well.. There's already a camera firmware update for in-camera correction but, as far as I know, this will again only be applied to JPEGs though..

[@BoyarsMedia]

It's a brand new lens. Lets just wait for the new ACR update :)

[@oliversteiner0815]

These distortion an vignetting patterns reminds me of the 16-50, tbh. However, the corners and edges can't turn out to be as bad, actually.. :D

[@Satsuto23]

Great video, thanks! You mentioned that this lens is a nice Kit Lense upgrade. Would you recommend to a future sony buyer to skip the 18-50 kit lense? i.e buy a camera (a6000 for argument sake) body only + the 18-135. Thanks a lot for your videos/reviews

[@ChristopherBurress]

I think that would be a good route to go to avoid dealing with the kit lens poor image quality as well as giving you a lot of additional focal length. And probably extend the amount of time before you think you need a replacement/additional lens.

[@Satsuto23]

Christopher Burress Thanks I appreciate the feedback! (At least before having a little chat w/ my wallet)

[@johnjgilchrist]

damien.ker the kit lens is pretty poor, I almost gave up on Sony because of this lens. Anything has got to be better.

[@BoyarsMedia]

Everyone likes to piss on the kit lens because it's so cheap. It's sharper than some LEICA prime lenses! I think it's a wonderful lens despite owning the legacy 18-55

[@chryseass.5143]

However, the 16-50mm kit lens is a nice tiny package - almost a pancake at the wide end-indeed, very portable. There is a lot to be said for that...... This new lens does not improve on the aperture side of things and is more expensive.

[@travelwithrado]

Does Sony 18-135 fit for Sony a7III?

[@dadejavusc]

Awesome. You pics are in Greenville. :)

[@samsargdong1135]

Thanks for your detailed and interesting review. I'd like to see a comparison with the Sony 18-105 mm lens because I'm planning to buy it.Bye!

[@thatchinaboi]

What do you think about this lens as a general all purpose main travel lens on the Sony A7iii for both photos and video? I can live with only 16MP resolution and the results should still be better than on an a6500 in terms of high ISO performance and DR due to the bigger/better pixels. (I wonder how autofocus is effected by APS-C mode on the A7iii.)

[@ChristopherBurress]

It's actually only 10mp with that camera in crop sensor mode. You have to square the crop factor because it is measuring the area of the sensor. So it would be like this (24/1.5)/1.5 which gives you about 10mp. The a7r2 has only 18mp from 42 so it's a bigger hit than you think.

[@thatchinaboi]

Christopher Burress That really sucks.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Yup...

[@GilbertTV]

Great review Chris...

[@travis.stevens]

Sub’d for the 18-135 vs 18-105 comparison. Will purchase based on your review. Thanks for the great content!

[@ChristopherBurress]

Glad you're liking the content! Ill get that comparison done as soon as I can

[@travis.stevens]

Christopher Burress Legend!

[@Mikesnav]

Christopher Burress status on that 18105g comparison?

[@Baracudus]

Got it for my new 6400. What should i say... My one is very good and sharp. Can recommend it!

[@Emmermacher]

Happy new year to you. What's your opinion after two years? Are you glad with the 18-135? Thanks in advance for your answer. Dirk Emmermacher

[@brainofrich]

how do you think of it compared to sel 16 70 zeiss lens?

[@iPhoneSpy]

Thanks for the great review. Please do your photo comparisons against the kit lens because that is who this lens is designed for, people’s who want to replace their kit lens, not high end lens.

[@charlottteke2912]

Andy Gippetti did you find any great videos or blogs for this? Just like you said, I’m looking for a lens to replace my kit lens with. Unfortunately, I find many negative reviews because the lens is compared to higher end lenses..

[@ChristopherBurress]

I just did a video comparing this to the kit. In a nutshell, this is a pretty big upgrade from the kit and for a everyday casual shooter will be a great lens.

[@DonCoqui321]

What program are you using on your pc?

[@ar_bal]

Thanks for review! Chirs, would you compare it with Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Lens.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Not right away, I've got a couple other comparisons that I want to do with the lenses I already have.

[@ar_bal]

Thank you! I'll wait for a new video )

[@TravelMinds]

18-135 or 18-105 for travel lens? 60% photos 40% video

[@VGScreens]

You probably already came to this conclusion but getting the 18135 is a no brainer. Unless you stumble across an insane bargain for the 18105, but you'll be looking at stolen prices for it to compete.

[@AiurMedia]

how come it has such heavy vignetting at 18mm 5:16

[@sourdough6800]

Is there a way to turn stabilization off? Such as when on tripod?

[@ChristopherBurress]

You can turn it off in the menus

[@clarification007]

Thanks Christopher, I’ve bought this great lens, a perfect small lens for travel and for low light, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 will be perfect! One thing I love is the fonction on manual focus, it is well made, smooth and very precise, very useful in film situation, if you’re not zooming in the same time.

[@uscfroadie]

Great review, but I have to be honest; the performance of this lens is nowhere near the initial claims. Can't wait to see how it performs against the 18-105.

[@clarification007]

Performance to do video or pictures mainly?

[@steveb8967]

Lens profile available in Adobe DNG 10.3....

[@ChristopherBurress]

I got the update the day I posted this video. Figures.

[@slr7075]

With the new A7III, the tempation to go FF is more relevent now. Sony doesn't seem to have a clue about good lenses for apsc.

[@Frank-zw6sq]

Should i get this one or sigma18-50?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Sigma, they have sharper glass usually and the constant 2.8 is nice on apsc. And it’s cheaper.

[@johnjgilchrist]

It's seems like a pretty good all round lens, but do you think it's worth the money, and maybe the price will drop soon? Thanks for another great video.

[@ChristopherBurress]

I think that it should probably be like 100 bucks cheaper then it would be super reasonable. If you want an all in one lens solution this one might be worth 600 bucks.

[@BoyarsMedia]

Let's not forget that a regular DSLR lens can have better performance while costing less than half the price. I think we are paying for compactness and a native mount

[@davidteer80]

This thing is priced at the same level of the 18-105 which is a G Series lens. I dont see any reason why this lens is at that price point. Once the initial surge of purchases dies down sony will probably drop the price.

[@miGz325]

Hey Chris, would you recommend this over the sony 18-105mm G? Thanks!

[@ChristopherBurress]

I'm not sure yet. But I'm going to do a head to head video soon.

[@miGz325]

Awesome! Thanks! Can't wait on the verdict!

[@JeffFallout]

Dam good review fam i was thinking about getting this camera also but ive decided to wait to see what the a7s3 can do 😢 but this is definitely a 🔥 camera!

[@VGScreens]

Wtf?? Your tossing up between an a6500 and an unreleased a7s iii designed for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT use/demographic/pricepoint, that makes no fucking sense. You're an idiot. I hope you've enjoyed waiting a year+. At least maybe it's given you time to save up twice the funds for the a7s iii body alone, or maybe this time has allowed you to consider ANY OTHER body from the Sony full frame offerings that make for a far more logical comparison to the a6500... u dum as fuck "fam"

[@joaopauloferreira2585]

Keep up the good work. Great videos. I raise the question. Is sony killing your APS-C a6xxx camera line? This is because Sony has not made new lens launches, except now made at 18-135mm. But a lens after 4 years I believe? Is sony wanting to force users to migrate to the a7 series? I believe lenses for the a7 series are close to 12. The question / reflection remains.

[@rujakandroid]

is the OSS work on FF? i own a7(mk1) & A6k, i use 18-55 on a7 the oss not work! (Su*ker) ... :(

[@ChristopherBurress]

I'll do a quick FF test video today.

[@rujakandroid]

awesome

[@supremo_mp4222]

What's your macro lens?

[@ChristopherBurress]

The close ups in this video were shot with the Minolta 28mm 2.8 macro.

[@supremo_mp4222]

thank you!

[@Mikesnav]

Status on the 18-105 compairson?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Finished it last night. It'll be up today

[@Mikesnav]

Christopher Burress looking forward to it, thank you!

[@NormanMosjos]

Dust and water resistant?

[@StaffViet2009]

Sadly, no

[@benjaminli4553]

Nice video ! Is this lens good for protrait I mean bokeh effect, because the 5.6 aptures worried me :/

[@thatchinaboi]

That terrible rolling shutter is on display in the autofocus test.

[@TRIPSTTR]

Why would anyone get this over the 18-105 F4?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Good question, especially at this price point. Hopefully my comparison video will shed some light on it all.

[@larrykay6606]

New lens is significantly lighter and smaller and has more reach. Also sharper in my testing. I don’t do much video so didn’t need the PZ. And I can live with the slightly slower speed.

[@AiurMedia]

nice review

[@MrCsComics]

I see your Zero Tolerance 0450. Nice choice.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Thanks! One of my favorites!

[@Jacob_Roberts]

Chris, zoom lenses on point and shoot cameras are listed by magnification, 5x or 10x for example. However, lenses for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are listed by length, 135 mm for example. Is there a reason for this?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Jacob Roberts because with point and shoots tiny tiny sensors they are like 3.5mm-11mm lenses and the crop factor is like 7-8x and that's just too much math for non camera geeks to care about, and even the camera geeks can be confused when it comes to 1/2.3" sensor sizes.

[@Jacob_Roberts]

Thanks, Christopher.

[@BoyarsMedia]

The reason is that many compact cameras have different size sensors meaning the focal length is a irrelevant figure. What matters most is having a lens with the reach you need and not too much. :)

[@Jacob_Roberts]

Thank you, David.

[@Thunderbird1337]

The reason is: The zoom factor used for point & shoot cameras is totally irrelevant. It's just the maximum focal length devided by the minimum focal length (so for this lens it's 135/18=7.5x). So this value doesn't tell you how large your objekt will be. For example if you had a 120-200mm lens, it would only be 1,67x zoom, but of course your object would be much larger as with a 16-70mm (4,4x zoom) lens. So the zoom factor that is used for point&shoot cameras is only marketing. Only the focal length (in combination with the crop factor, of course) matters. Therefor all cameras/ lenses usually have the full frame equivalent focal lenght written somewhere in the technical specs. This 18-135mm lens has a full frame equivalent focal length of 27-203mm.

[@stefpix]

That distortion llooks worse than the 16-50. Shouldn't a lens like this cost half it's retail price. What about the 16-70mm? For the price I'd expect more.

[@ChristopherBurress]

While the distortion is bad that's not 100% of a lens, it does other things well.

[@BoyarsMedia]

Honestly the MFT Olympus 12-40 is faster and sharper while being faster. That's the ultimate zoom lens IMO

[@stefpix]

yes, but the fact it does not cover the corners is bad. probably it is wider than 18mm, still. It means I need to get the Lightroom CC subscription to have the lens correction. Or improvise. For the price it should be better. I love the Sigma 16m and 30mm. but not having a zoom makes me miss some shots when traveling. I purchased a Sony RX10 m3 for travel, had this lens been better I'd considered buying it and selling the RX10iii. Very good review. I hope Sigma can produce a all around zoom with faster aperture.

[@BoyarsMedia]

stefano giovannini If you don’t like a subscription, Capture One offers Sony users a fantastic deal at only $50. With the discount I had enough money to buy me the Sigma F2.8 which I think is a fantastic little lens. I think so many people miss the point what matters with a camera because sharpness doesn’t even matter to me

[@clarification007]

I have the LR5 and it does a super job with a simple click.

[@Thunderbird1337]

Thanks for the video. But no comparison with the Sony Zeiss 16-70 f/4? I think this lens is still the better allrounder travel lens because 16mm is much better for landscapes and 70mm f/4 is much better for portraits than 70mm f/5.6. And the Zeiss has at least a very good center sharpness even at f/4. Ok, you have 135mm f/5.6 with this new lens, but for portraits that's not really an advantage compared to 70mm f/4.0, and for zooming wildlife etc. 135mm is not enough anyway. It's great that Sony brings something new for APS-C, but this lens is still no real improvement to the existing Zeiss in my opinion. A 16-70 / 16-85 f/2.8-4.0 with better corner sharpness than the Zeiss would have been the perfect allrounder travel lens.

[@StaffViet2009]

i just wish if this len weather seal - pentax user complain

[@MrPhilbautista]

For that price, I'd rather just get a Sigma 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 and pair it with an MC-11 adapter. Which is what i did. So, maybe I don't get the nice, compact form factor, but given the range it covers, the trade off is worth it. AF is pretty good, even on an a6000, and IQ is pretty much what you'd expect from a modern super zoom lens. It's light and compact enough and balances pretty well even when zoomed in which makes it a great travel companion. BTW great review of this lens and it pretty much confirms my suspicion of what to expect from this when it was first announced. I love how Sony is developing their FE lens lineup and I was kind of hoping they would do the same for their APS-C lenses as well. They should've looked at what Sigma was doing and taken notes. There's a reason the 18-35/1.8 is such a hit with the mirrorless crowd and it would have served Sony well to go in that direction in developing their upcoming lenses. Instead, they come up with this. This 18-135 lens just cannibalizes current lenses in their lineup like the 18-105/4 and the Zeiss 16-70/4 when they should focus more on matching up against lenses other companies are coming up with and grab a piece of those pies.

[@Johan759192]

Like the intro

[@maxshow7949]

Nice!

[@debanjanmondal]

By the title of this video, thought it's gonna be a great lens for my travel videos and my wedding projects.. but after watching the whole video, it's bad that sony made something so bad.vignetting in the side.. Really, sony? Are you mad?

[@e.g.sergio]

I am disappointed, but kind of expected these results from it. One of my first decisions when I got a Sony camera was to get a Metabones because I could get a sharper, better-built all-in-one lens for way less than any Sony I could get... including the Metabones' price. After seeing how lackluster (if passable) the 24-105 f4 is, and then this attempt at the superzoom kit replacement, it's really disheartening that this is the kind of performance we can get for a day-to-day lens on APS-C. The only really good lenses in the FE/E mount are portrait primes, everything else in my experience has been a terminal disappointment compared to contemporaries from Fuji, Canon, or Nikon.

[@Yutubustasi]

ay bala

[@stanislavnepochatov8381]

It's ridiculous. This lens can't even cover it's frame. Same story with 16-50 3.5-5.6 kit lens. In result you'll get blurry corners. We wait three years for good zoom lens and Sony brings this plastic toy lens with price tag of normal lens.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Agree, I saw the same distortion issue with the kit lens too. It would be nice to see more lenses for apsc e mount cameras.

[@BoyarsMedia]

I think you'll be more satisfied with the big metal 18-200. Thats a 'real' lens that didn't have a priority on size and weight. It's technically faster too

[@BoyarsMedia]

Foto4Max kit lens is still sharper than my vintage primes. I don’t know why people complain since I can’t tell a difference when viewing 1080 on my a6000

[@stanislavnepochatov8381]

Old vintage lens made for far more larger frame. It's more usable on FF and with Lens Turbo.

[@stanislavnepochatov8381]

But corners also not good. I can imagine the trick on cheap and dirty kit lens. Ok. But not on lens which costs more than half a gran. Any Canon/Nikon alternatives costs less and covers frame. It's a price of compact size of the lens.