Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Vs Sony 18-105mm f/4

[@ChristopherBurress]

Just notices that i misspoke and said the 18-135 was $500 bucks, it is in fact $600.... see here: amzn.to/2FZrUG1

[@Nitrxgen]

... now $640 most likely because of this video 👌😭

[@ChristopherBurress]

Geez I can't keep up!

[@Maxi304]

Christopher Burress o

[@giuseppecegni7288]

Scusate se una persona vi chiede una recessione di un obiettivo Sony e voi E voi la trasmettere in lingua straniera non potete permetterci di prendere in giro agli,italiani capit0/.......

[@clarification007]

In US$?

[@AbbyKrim]

18-135 for weight, size and fast manual zoom; I don’t shoot video. Very helpful real world talk. One suggestion going forward: pls keep the lenses on the same side of the screen throughout, Lens A always on the left, Lens B always on the right. Makes it easier to follow along without reading the exif data on top.

[@BigBoss-gb4cx]

The 18-105 is also good for low light shots and difficult situations or shooting sport above 100mm. Not to mention you can shoot great portraits with it even above 50mm. For the 18-135 that's not the case: you cant really shoot sports if you zoom in, also cant take great portraits aboive 50mm (since it wont be f4).

[@binhsinhnghiepthanh]

@@BigBoss-gb4cx 135mm is good for portraits

[@jochenkraus7016]

I also prefer the 18-135 but it's a whole stop slower at the long end. I think that you'll still get a blurry background when there's enough distance between subject and background.

[@blaiseeze9416]

🥺 yea, be needs to keep the lenses on the same side

[@maureenhagerty6328]

Dude you keep mixing up the lenses and mixing me up!

[@JoelDino]

Maureen Hagerty I took keep having to review because the lenses are switching hands.

[@andresochoag]

Yes. Very dificult to follow

[@mrdwight74]

Same here

[@rogerlopez9375]

Me too...while you holding it you switch the lens then during last part of the video

[@brianpatterson8499]

The 18-105 was designed for videographers while the 18-135 for us stills shooters. Beside the reach, either will do the job of a middle ground zoom for a wide range of subjects. My 18-105 sample of a few years ago was disappointing and returned - my brandy new sample for the 18-135 is a good one, warts and all. I use primes for critical infinity pix and other glass for closeups, so we need to be realistic as to what this lens is best used for - AF shots with OSS assistance.

[@adamcwatts]

I picked the 18-135, the weight and size makes it a lot more appealing for hiking. Everyone also neglects that the 18-135 has a much closer minimum focus distance allowing for more macro-esque shots.

[@fictionfactory7164]

I have the 18-105 and would buy it every time over the 18-135, purely for the internal focusing.

[@tinplater]

Have both lenses. My 18-135 is significantly sharper in center up to around 60-70mm. Then the 18-105 is sharper 70-105. I don't like power zoom, the fact it resets to 18mm when you turn it off. Very hard for me to decide which lens to keep. Since I don't shoot video, I think, for me, the 18-135 is the better option.

[@Gionimo]

However in this video the 18-105 'struggles at the longer focal lengths'

[@HappyHubris]

After some disappointment with the kit and 55-210mm zoom I replaced them with this 18-135mm OSS lens and love it! It's sharp enough for this amateur and very compact for traveling. The 18-135mm focal length means that I can cover most shots without swapping lenses, which is a godsend. You can't go wrong with this lens.

[@rajenbhatt7753]

I would choose 18-135 because i want this all purpose lens for a traveling (less weight as well as smaller in dimensions) and prefer not to have another function that can kill battery further while outdoors, also longer zooming power is added advantage. Thanks for the review.

[@miguelcrespo5545]

I am glad you are back dude, The 18-105mm is a must for gimbal use because of the internal zoom and focusing.

[@stephencoveney2618]

Thank you for this great video. For a suggestion on your next video, you should keep each lens to one side of the screen. E.g. the 18-135 should always be on the left side of the video. Switching the sides of lenses between left and right really makes it hard to follow which lens you're talking about.

[@willbrink]

I got the APC camera for a compact set up, so all things being equal, I much prefer the 18-135mm and have been all around happy with it.

[@michaelscaplis]

Seems that the 18-135mm manages to hold its ground compared to the G series. Those purchasing a new camera with this as kit lens won’t be disappointed.

[@suryakathiravan]

Is this true in 2021 as well? Im planning a6400 with 18-135mm as kit lens 🙂

[@Klusch1000]

@@suryakathiravanI’m planning to buy a a6400 with the 18-135 kit lens in 2024. Are you still happy with your purchase? 😅

[@6gwilliams]

Thanks, I think I will keep my 18-105 f4. That constant max aperture and power zoom are more to my liking for my A6500. Also like the better bokeh of the 18-105mm. Don't like that f5.6. aperture on the 18-135mm. But I understand that Sony had to match the standard zooms of competitor's APS-C cameras.

[@ChristopherBurress]

Yeah i am keeping the 18-105. It's makes more expensive looking photos lol. Not everyone can pixel peep but everyone can see that terrible bokeh.

[@TheMrWilson]

There were more pros for the 18-135 than I expected, but having said that, I still think I’d have to go 18-105. I think the low light ability helps, and overall build quality appears far superior to me.

[@Stisse12]

Low light? the 105 have F4 a along, one F-stop is not a big deal and the 135 have F5,6 that are worse than F4

[@funjam4015]

@@Stisse12 That's exactly what he said

[@JMLRecording]

Based on this and all others (105vs135) the 105 is sharper when zooming and overall winner for color and contrast

[@unrefillable]

Great review Chris! I have had the 18-105 for almost two years now and having used many different lenses (some of which are not owned by me) I must say this lens is superb. No other superzoom lenses that I know of can produce bokeh this beautiful. For me, the weight difference is manageable considering how different the two lenses are especially on the tele end. However, I have to give the praise for Sony for giving users another option with the 18-135 (especially for newbies).

[@ali_haq20]

So true. I find the bokeh produced by the 18-105mm to be better than my Sony prime 35mm f1.8...

[@HappyHubris]

I'm enjoying the 18-135mm as my travel lens.

[@efromadler1390]

I tried them both and I like the images about the same. The decider was weight and size. I plan to use the lens for travel and street photography. That being the case I went with 18-135 although I have to give up the the f4 in making that choice

[@larrykay6606]

Size and weight savings along with farther zoom reach had me purchase the 18-135 and return my 18-105. I didn’t want the power zoom feature anyway as I hardly shoot video. Also, the new lens is $600 not $500.

[@BigBoss-gb4cx]

Yeah, but with the 18-105 you can take a lot better portraits. When the 18-135 at 85mm is f5.6+ your background is pretty distracting. While the 18-105 can produce sharp images at f4 even at 105mm wich makes it perfect for portraits at any focal lenght. It also much better in low light and for video.

[@dkmi]

@@BigBoss-gb4cx it's a crop lens. Your portraits would likely be around 50mm. At 85mm, you're looking at the equivalent of 127mm. That's a bit long for portraits. Still, I totally understand your point on the fixed aperture. To me, that's a big selling point.

[@pwass3857]

Had both lenses, sold the PZ because I don't shoot video and dislike the power zoom zooming. Much prefer the 18-135, great all around zoom lens.

[@Princeton_James]

I agree. While the zoom is quite smooth I still dont like power zoom. In within the return window and pretty sure I'll just go with the 18-135. Plus in tried it out and the IQ was just as good.

[@petermuller5896]

@@Princeton_James still worse lens tho

[@Stisse12]

The slow zooming is for filming so you can do smoth zooming. Its made to be that way

[@Ildskalli]

Thank you for the video, it completely reaffirms my feelings about the 18-105mm f/4 - it's absolutely worthy of the 'G' badge! People give it a hard time because of its massive pincushion distortion and chromatic aberrations (all three kinds), but those faults are easily software-correctable. Thanks to those compromises one can get an excellent zoom range with a constant aperture, internal zooming and focusing, excellent build quality, little focus and length breathing (the 18-135mm breathes a lot, and that's how it can produce better close-ups), powerful stabilization, and most important of all, the BOKEH! It's just so damn good, and so rare to see a standard-to-tele zoom with beautiful color rendition and smooth OOF areas. And it costs all of $550. Sony APS-C shooters are truly an ungrateful bunch.

[@Wanbeleid]

But the 18-105 got better bokeh?

[@martin9410]

Before I went to full frame, I owned both the 18-105 twice and the 18-135 twice. My first copy of the 18-135 wasn't that great, but the second copy easily beat either of my18-105s in image quality (sharpness) and coverage. Seriously, thinking of going back to crop and using the 18-135 again. I don't do much video, mostly stills, so take that into consideration.

[@kentao4]

D. L. Starkey I’m debating getting a full frame. Why are you possibly going back to apsc?

[@jespero94]

Been using both for a while now and have to say that i like the 18-135mm the Most. The 18-105mm has some difficulty to maintain focus while zooming. And getting focus perfectly is not as good as the 18-135mm on my a6400. I also dont like the powerzoom and the bigger size on the 18-105 even tho is looks more professional 😀 its also bigger and heavier but the biggest point for me was the autofocus issues ive had with the 18-105mm in video. For photo i would go for the 18-105 tho if you like that bokeh and lowlight performance while zoomed

[@thumpertorque_]

I personally like the little bigger size of the 18-105 because it looks nice on the camera so that's not a negative for me.

[@Mikesnav]

18105g it is! Thank you for the comparison!

[@PaparazziEntertainment]

Thanks for the review I will stick with my 18-105 its perfect for Video and that's what I use it for...

[@ChristopherBurress]

Good call ;)

[@clarification007]

I agree 18-105 is for video.

[@bediartist7266]

@@clarification007 Also for everything else better

[@clarification007]

@@bediartist7266 Ha! Ha! 18-105mm not better but different! 😉 with 30mm more.

[@bediartist7266]

@@clarification007 Well rather all the functions instead of crappy 30mm more with weak quality. You literally compare a G lens to kit lens. Of course the G wins

[@Jake-lz7ze]

Was looking forward to this one! I Picked up the 18-105 with my 6500 almost a year ago and have been super happy with it! Also you can use it on a gimbal and don't have to re-calibrate it if you decide to change focal lengths!

[@ChristopherBurress]

Most gimbals designed for dslr's will handle the combo easily. Don't get a gimbal designed for compact cameras. It won't hold the weight.

[@chileheadcraig]

how well does the 18-135 focus? I'm having focus issues with my 18-105

[@jeremias.lindner]

really i cant decide between the 135 or the 105, after months seeing comparisson and reviews, i just want for photo, but all says the 105 its bigger, weighter and its for video... (? i dont see the 105 is just for video... almost both lens are similar in image quality... yeah maybe the power zoom is a bit slower than the external zoom but, its too much the difference? i dont think.. so please help me i my decision...

[@skwrttj]

The 135 is a wee bit handier if you are wanting a travel/walk-around lens. You don’t necessarily have to carry another lens around... or, if you go the 105 route, a 100-300 or better yet, 70-300 is the logical second lens. But, 1 lens is nice....

[@rjkral]

At 1:14 did you switch the lenses (from left to right holding them up)?

[@CuongNguyen-eh8nc]

Thank you for a comparison video. I was searching for a zoom lense for my a6000. Although the 18-105mm seems to be a better choice, I picked the 18-135mm because Amazon currently has it for $348 (renewed).

[@lp.delaroca]

how was it? I saw the renewed one and it seems it is worth the risk for saving +$200

[@markromero7874]

Thanks for the comparison. Not an easy choice. The 18-105 would really be better if the CA wasn't so bad. It is clearly visible without even zooming in. And since I shoot a LOT of high contrast situations, it is kind of a bummer. Thin I am going to stick with my sigma f/2.8 primes for now.

[@easteven]

I just bought this lens and it is superb for an ALL IN 1 LENS to go for my travel vlog! Nice video man!

[@taufik5232]

Hi Chris, are all of your pictures at 18 mm in uncorrected RAW file (using APS-C body) like what you've shown at 3:30 without noticeable vignetting? I am quite curious about vignetting by this lens. In some reviews, RAW images from the lens are presented with black colour at its corners.

[@conner4145]

Why is f4 better at low light and faster shutter speed compared to the f3.5 to 5.6? I'm just learning about photography. Basically what makes fixed aperture better and why?

[@yaboicezy]

Conner Matthew ok so the closer the f# is to “0” the more light you can bring into the sensor, shutter speed really has nothing to do with the lens so don’t worry about that Because the f4 is fixed it just means that when you zoom in all the way you’ll get the same amount of light when zoomed all the way out and background blur and stuff so you don’t have to play with setting to compensate for the darker lighting when on a 3.5-5.6

[@MrJASoch]

I’ve really enjoyed the ep z lens. I can reduce the chromatic aberration in post so it’s not a big deal for me, and being able to control the zoom with my ronin s is a huge plus.

[@vaibhavpisal]

I would choose 135 due to focus toggle switch and physical zoom control and light weight and extra focal length.

[@petermuller5896]

Well for me the 18-105 obviously wins

[@charlespangilinan6351]

Well, for me, a variable aperture is always a bummer. I have the ancient 80-200mm lens on my Nikon, it has a constant aperture at f4, and I love it, especially after I removed the filter lol. So if I had to pick one, I'd pick the 18-105mm, which I am saving up for lol

[@WarbirdPylonRacer]

Hi Christopher. This video was done two years ago. Has any better lenses come out since? I'm looking for a great lens for taking mountain landscapes and it seems every lens I research has it's problems. Thanks.

[@Skysurferau]

The 18/135mm was the kit lens making it the better purchase option

[@martinweber3859]

Very interesting, but you should have compared the bokeh at the same f-stop not ant 4.0 and 5.6 at the same time.

[@Robin-TammeT]

Actually surprised, but after seeing this video I'd go for the 18-135 as a travel/landscape/hiking photographer. the better sharpness at higher focal lengths, being able to zoom quickly, the light weight, the increased focal lenghts all outweigh the benefits of the other lens (mainly the bokeh at higher focal lenghts). When photographing landscapes I mainly use higher apertures and try to get everything sharp. As a portrait/event photographer, one might pick the 18-105 for the better bokeh

[@grabekaau]

For anyone that has the 55-210mm, is the 18-105mm better in terms of IQ at the longest end at f4 compared to the 6.3 on the 55-210mm? Does the 18-105 give a better bokeh at f4 compared to the 55-210?

[@GoProMeetsAeon]

18-105 because of the constant aperture. I think it just makes more sense

[@ChristopherBurress]

I don't know if it's the "constant" part that's so appealing with photos more of the fact that you get f/4 at 105mm instead of 5.6.

[@apamacam4838]

I agreed. I really dislike the variable aperture for indoor usage especially when i dont have or cannot use the flash.

[@thumpertorque_]

The constant f4 aperture on the 18-105 is great for video as opposed to the variable aperture on the 18-135 where the lights changes as you zoom in and out and can be a pain to edit and can ruin some shots.

[@BigBoss-gb4cx]

Yes. You also have to recalibrate your shots if you have a variable aperture. You want a long exposure shot with ND filter? If you have the 18-135 and you zoom in that's a problem.

[@charlespangilinan6351]

@Foto4Max well, as stated in the vid, the bokeh really is distracting and harsh. You hardly experience that on wider apertures.

[@DigitalSamTV]

Is the 18-105 good on the zhiyun crane gimbal (mark 1)?

[@nocoolname32]

not sure about v1, i use it on v2 with a6500 but it's maxed out, not the greatest.

[@Nitrxgen]

From this review, I may favour the 105 but I'm also put off by the fly-by-wire zoom. I'm so used to manual focusing because I shoot primarily in low-light conditions. I need a good zoom for video so how easy is it controlling zoom at night? Is the FBW audible in recordings?

[@slr7075]

Nitrxgen The fly-by-wire zoom takes a bit getting use of. Expect a small amount of delay when changing focal lengths quickly but with video, it dampens the zooming nicely and it's silent. Autofocus is very good and quite also.

[@vaibhavpisal]

I have heard power zoom eats up a lot of battery. Is it true?

[@awiemuc]

Question: CA Correction has been turned of in Lightroom? For a comparsion it should be turned on, as lenses have been designed with this Software correction in mind ... Personally I have the 16-70/4 and the 18-105/4. Most of my photos have been shot with the 16-70 as it is sharper overall and also makes a quite small package. The 18-105 is really great for Video work. Especially Handy is the digital zoom feature in 4k mode on my A6300! So both are quite useful ... same probably applies for 18-105 vs. 18-135 - good to have them both ...

[@ChristopherBurress]

Most people who are looking for an apples to apples comparison for lenses want to see what the unadulterated raw images look like. Various softwares handle CA corrections differently and especially mobile editors can lack the function altogether. Its good to show what people will be getting directly out of the camera without any alteration just to keep things consistent.

[@serbrider6366]

How does the 18/105 perform in low light? I’m a low light street shooter..

[@izharl]

18-135, for the size and zoom. Thanks!

[@kmiloz]

Chritopher, As I see the situation the 18-105 mm has good performance but the the 18-135 mm is easier to carry around. Do you think it is worthy to get the 18-105 mm at expense of being less easier to take around? Thanks¡¡¡

[@ChristopherBurress]

If you don't have either of them right now you can't go wrong with your choice. There isn't a big enough gap in image quality to make a call off of that alone. So it's up to you to decide if you want better low light and bokeh. Or a little more zoom with a smaller and lighter package.

[@kmiloz]

Thank you for your prompt answer and guidance. I think I'll go for the 18-135 mm

[@andibdg2291]

18-135 is 3.5 at the wide end so it is brighter for low light at the widest end compared to 18-105. The question is at what fl the 18-135 start to hit f/4 and beyond?

[@ChristopherBurress]

18-135 stops down to f/4 at about 22mm so it's like 1/3rd of a stop of light for 4 millimeters it's basically negligible

[@andibdg2291]

thanks !

[@mawenran]

Thank you so much for the video. Could you do a comparison between 16-70 f4 and 18-135?

[@markusgasteiger2619]

Would be really interested in that one!

[@NLMusique]

I have a really stupid question that hopefully you or the audience can answer. When I try zooming in almost all the way with my 18-105, it's blurry and I have to press the shutter halfway to get focus. Is that how zoom lenses work?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Yeah, the focus just changes as you zoom in and out.

[@BigBoss-gb4cx]

You can turn on automatic focus. So you wont have to press the button.

[@Remon0347]

What type/brand quick release plate are you using on your camera?

[@soarornor]

I wish you had covered the nuances of the power zoom feature on the 18 to 105. I bought this lens and I find the power zoom to work very odd. Anyone who does video wants a touch sensitive zoom that will move real slow or real quick and anything in between. Maybe I got a bad copy but on my lens the zoom moves along and at 3/4 into its range it suddenly goes slower. There is no gentle curve to this transition. It’s jerky. I don’t really get this at all. You cannot actually zoom smoothly through the range. You hit that 3/4 point and it jerks into a slower rate. That’s nuts. Would be useless in the field as far as the zoom goes. It’s ok within the 3/4 range but that’s about it. If you’re reviewing anything with a power zoom on it you really should examine that aspect more carefully and describe the quality. A well crafted power zoom is a rarity.

[@BigBoss-gb4cx]

I had both: for me the 18-105 was much better: - First the 18-135 isnt sharper - it is a little sharper in the centre, but when it comes to the sides and edges of the picture the 18-105 wins. - The 18105 is constant f4, which means you can shoot sport even at 105mm, while the 18-135 will suffer with the fast shutter speed or iso. - The 18105 is much better for portraits: you can get f4 at every portrait situation: 30-50-85-100mm is no problem with it, portraits at 100mm f4 really looks fantastic. For the 18-135, yeah it has a slight more zoom feature, slighly better IF you has greal light conditions and IF you are shooting for example wildlife or something static. Other than that it is worse in every other aspect.

[@clarification007]

Wrong! It is sharper with the 18-135mm for photo and a lot more efficient to stabilize the pictures. But for video 18-105mm is the best because it is have the power zoom.

[@bediartist7266]

@@clarification007 Wrong

[@xav3ng3rx]

Is it common for other lens to have different minimum focus distance like the 18 to 105 depending on what focal length you are at?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Yeah most of the time zoom lenses vary a lot. More often than not the minimum focus is at the wide end, and it gets farther away when zooming in.

[@kbruff2010]

Good video. but why not cover some video applications and then the mechanical design?

[@NLMusique]

Great comparison. I bought the 18-105 a few years ago, but I don't do any videos. I like the constant F4 at any zoom range. Now that I see the 18-135. Should I trade in this lens for the 18-135? They seems to be so similar to one another.

[@ChristopherBurress]

I don't think it's worth the effort and expense to change lenses

[@NLMusique]

Christopher Burress thank you

[@stanislavnepochatov8381]

I think Sony will drop price on 18-135 soon. To make a gap. I would buy 18-105. It's more compitent lens.

[@clarification007]

If it will get popular, the price won’t drop for long time, many months.

[@Harleyguy03]

As of 01-2019 both lenses are priced at $598 on Amazon which makes a choice difficult.....for me anyway.

[@skwrttj]

@@Harleyguy03 if you are not a big videographer, get the 18-135. More use for travel.

[@derJackistweg]

I cannot share the awesomeness about the 18-105, that I own with the 6000, more than a year. I think it's pretty said that Sony is not able to put out a good APS-C lens. If 18-135 is so similar - both aren't good. Sony can produce good lenses, like the 35 and 50 mm primes but no zoom or long prime! I don't want a small APS-C with a unnecessary full frame form factor incl the FF price. I own 40 year old Canon primes that are sooo much better (sharper and less CA), 100f2.8/50mmf1.4. Sigma 30mmf1.4 is like from a different universe sharper, of course it's a prime, but 350€ only!!! It's probably cleverer to adapt Canon EFS 55-250 II STM for a convenient Tele.

[@stefanmitp]

what is this little red button hanging on your camera you mentoined for an upcoming video?

[@wansmoof]

i'm split between this two and still can't decide which one should i get so i can ditch the kit lense!! I need the video zoom of 105 but for weigh and compact size, 135 got me. Aaaa i cant decide... Help! :P

[@kentao4]

Wansmoof KZbin did you decide yet? I had the 18-105 already and my opinion is that if you have one, it’s not worth switching. I think I’d still go with the 18-105 because of the f4. Weight wasn’t that different to me. I don’t really do video but if you ever do, you’ll appreciate the motor zoom even though it will weigh on the battery but then again, you need multiple batteries for this camera for a day of shooting anyway. You won’t go wrong with either, I just think the 18-105 is more versatile.

[@cameronthegreat1]

Can the 18-105 be used on a full frame like the a7 range

[@jamesj4998]

Would it not make more sense to test both lenses at a 5.6 aperature when zoomed in, as it is usually sharper than f4 so it would be a fair comparison

[@ChristopherBurress]

I... I did that....

[@hillhousemedia9522]

Soo for cinematic video 18-105 is the way to go?

[@sixsa-fire2191]

Not necessarily but if you want that sweet bokeh in your video, constant aperture for low light and if you use a gymbal you should go with it it yeah!

[@mirawojka]

10-18 vs 18-135 at 18mm review? Which is better?

[@timj.8056]

I"ve owned 18-105 for 2 yrs now with my a6000. I don't do much video at all but I like the electronic zoom feature. The lens is heavier and I find myself using my Sony 35mm 1.8. I don't like the manual zoom on the 18-135 which extends out of the lens. Overall I think the 18-105 is a better value but the drawback is it's size and weight. If you overlook that this is the better lens.

[@efromadler1390]

Further to my last comment. on the 18-105 the manual room is pain because it's at least 2 full turns to go from wide to tele so I wound up using the power zoom although I don't shoot video. Additionally if you power off the lens automatically returns to 18mm which I also found to be a pain frequently.

[@patyeaman]

What is the aperture of the 18-135 at 105mm? This would be good to know when comparing the 2 lenses. If it is also f/4 it would make low light capabilitie of both lenses equal.

[@ChristopherBurress]

I'm pretty sure it's 5.6 it may be 5.6 all the way back at around 60-70mm if I remember correctly

[@petersvan7880]

Thank you once again for a great video Christopher! Think I'll go for a combo of the Sigma 16mm 1.4 + Sony 50mm 1.8 SEL50F18F. Total cost a bit more, but you'll get much better IQ and low light performance :)

[@ChristopherBurress]

Not a bad choice if I do say so myself!

[@stefpix]

Does standalone Lightroom get lens correction with the new ACR? Otherwise it is an issue for RAW shooters who'd use the 18-135, 18-105 may be better and it is cheaper

[@ChristopherBurress]

Yes acr is independent of your lr version

[@The5py]

I'm curious about this sentence "this is a little preview of a video to come, and I've been very happy" pointing to the string with little circular disk (minute 3:13). What is it? :)

[@gmailmann]

Iam Team Sony 18-105mm f/4. I love this lense, at cornes better then the zeiss but much cheaper. But the 18-135 is still a great addition.

[@strubbarz]

Funny thing is: nowadays the 18105 is cheaper then the 18135, atleast in Germany.

[@m4rcin847]

Yes, about 100 Euro.

[@bediartist7266]

@Walter White Wrong

[@divjyotarry5160]

best lens for video/filmmaking. 18-105 or 18-135 ?

[@thanhnhonle7715]

18-105 for filming. no doubt

[@modernchow]

What is that little red and black thing? very curious. About to dive into a a6500 today, price drop!

[@frasr]

A few years late but it's for clipping on a Peak Design strap

[@aztechuhs]

Nice, wasn't expecting to see Greenville on here. Love this city!

[@Manny_News_Blogs_Tutorials]

When can there be an 18-200 f4? I bet it would be huge! But great all around lens I suppose?

[@andrebauer777]

f4 is nice but I don't like Powerzoom! What a shame. M yfavorite would be 16-105 f4 mechanical zoom.

[@MarkLincoln]

A few people are saying they'd take the 135mm as they don't want the power zoom of the 105mm. The Sony website says this of the 105mm: "A lever and ring on the lens barrel allow zoom speed to be freely adjusted as required while maintaining a sure, stable grip." So... does that mean the 105mm's zoom can *also* just be freely and manually (and quickly) adjusted by the ring instead of relying on the power zoom? Or have I read that wrong?

[@ChristopherBurress]

It's still electronic, just controlled by the zoom ring instead. It takes over 360 deg of rotation to zoom all the way so it's a little bit of a hassle

[@MarkLincoln]

​@@ChristopherBurress ah, gotcha. I think you did say that in the video but I was a bit confused by the Sony website. Great, thanks for that and thanks heaps for the reply. Love your work; I've recently subscribed. Probably still going to consider the 105mm thanks to that sweet bokeh. Now I just have to convince my wife that it's a great investment ;)

[@ozzelthecomposer5825]

I plan on doing pretty much just video. Will the physical zoom be enough to throw the gimbal off balance? I like the lightness and zoom range of the 18-135 but I also want to ensure it stays balanced while using with gimbal.

[@ChristopherBurress]

It really depends on the gimbal. The crane 2 will handle it like a champ.

[@ozzelthecomposer5825]

@@ChristopherBurress ok thanks! Everyone keeps saying 105 for video and 135 for photos but I've seen video with the 135 that looked great. Only question I'm asking myself is whether or not I will use the PZ with an app or whatever. Do a lot of videographers actually use the PZ or with PZ app?

[@ChristopherBurress]

I haven't ever used the powerzoom in a serious way

[@ozzelthecomposer5825]

@@ChristopherBurress ok thanks! Great content by the way! Really appreciate the depth of knowledge you share as well as getting back to me on my question! Trying to make sure I have all the right things in my Amazon cart lol

[@MetalH34d]

Would you recommend any one of these for the A5100? Or any other lens? I have the standard Kit lense, and while i dont have the bad things many people say i just find the range lacking.

[@ChristopherBurress]

I think the 18-135 would be a good fit size wise on that camera. But both lenses would add range and image quality to it.

[@MetalH34d]

Thank you for the quick reply! Will check the 18-135 out, just found out also that i was still running on firmware 1.0... so off to the updater it is i guess

[@MetalH34d]

Quick question, if i may, i found online that certain sites offer the Sony SEL 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 OSS LE NEX (SEL18200LE.AE) cheaper than the 18-135 due to a cashback offer. What is your opinion on that lens?

[@ChristopherBurress]

I haven't used it before. But I think it's a little bigger and a little less image quality

[@MetalH34d]

Thnx, wow very quick replies, you just got a subscriber!

[@AndrisLelisTravelChanel]

colours for videos I like more in Sony 18-105mm f/4, looks more professional. Sony 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is more closer to kit lens

[@keystonebrotherb]

The 105 was my choice. It just looks BOSS! Love the f/4. Very happy with indoor photos. Both lenses are great, 105 just seems more solid. My favorite is the Sigma 56 1.4 Get it!!! So Badass!

[@johnjgilchrist]

Are they both designed for solely for apsc cameras?

[@ChristopherBurress]

Yes

[@jakubs.6817]

one bokeh test is missing. I would love to see how is the bokeh comparision between 135mm f5,6 and 105mm f4. Same framing

[@bediartist7266]

105 wins

[@ReneUhlver]

Is there any other lens in this range that could be a better choice for a little more money?

[@ChristopherBurress]

This is about as good As long range zooms get. Your only higher quality option would be to drop down to a shorter range and spend more on the pro lenses.

[@ReneUhlver]

@@ChristopherBurress so for the a6300 it would not help to get the Sony 24-105 f4 instead? Is this double of the price just because it's a full frame lens or the image quality is indeed much better?

[@frankfeng2701]

I'll go with 18-135 since it's much cheaper with the kit, smaller, and has at least 1mm wider FOV at the wide end.

[@mangmags]

Great review! However was confused couple of times.when he was showing the lenses, at some point 135 is on the left, then the next it was on the right. Had to press the replay button to see which one is he talking about. Same with comparing pictures, first 135 was on the right then at some point it was on the left, had to replay one more time 😂. Nevermind me lol :)

[@SuperRumsby]

What’s the 18-105 G mm like on a Sony A7

[@ChristopherBurress]

Go check out my video on it.

[@ElricX]

I went with the 18-135 because it's packaged with the A6400. I really wish I could have got the 18-105 due to the constant aperture.

[@Mosttechy]

I will even do same. What's the build material in 18 -135?

[@Hexspa]

18105 user here. Satisfied.

[@sisafotovideo4647]

Thank you very much, it was useful!

[@NikolaiPozdniakov]

Wait.. one more.. How about video test? How quickly do they focus in video mode? Maybe a small follow up when you have time? Thanks

[@ChristopherBurress]

The video with the 18-135 was almost instant. Check my main review for an example, I may to a side by side before I sell the lens.

[@NikolaiPozdniakov]

How is video with 18-105? I want to get that one since it will probably be better on a gimbal. Also, I suspect since you have power zoom, you can use it remotely on a gimbal as well.

[@ChristopherBurress]

The 18-105 does great with video. Some of my older videos are shot with it and people always commented about how good the video looked

[@Jacob_Roberts]

Christopher, you mentioned that one of the lenses is plastic. Is it high impact plastic such as acrylic or easily breakable plastic? I wish you spent a little much time talking about how rugged each lens is. This is a major consideration for anyone who takes the camera and lens out of the studio such as a travel or documentary photographer.

[@ChristopherBurress]

It's a tough plastic, it will hold up to any hard use you put it through. Might not do as well against drops though.

[@derJackistweg]

Jacob Roberts the “metal“ (what ever metal means, as there are sooooome different types) of the 18-105 scratches instantly. On an APS-C the huge front element always sits on its bump. Takes 2-4 weeks and you have an area of blank metal. Is this good or bad? Don't know if you, but lots is people think “pastic“ (what ever plastic means, as there are sooooome different types) is less resistant. It's not! It's just cheaper to produce in polycarbonate that metal. Just look at the stupid people being smartphones with aluminum and “glass“ > all brake and are scratched. A phone from polycarbonate looks good after years of use, Nokia Lumia, HTC ONE X Series

[@Jacob_Roberts]

Thank you, der jack.

[@Ildskalli]

der Jack: I've had my 18-105mm for a month now, and it has zero scratches on the body. The makeup ring before the hood bayonet is vulnerable, but of course it comes with a *lens* *hood* for that -_- Anyway, the metal on the G-lens is merely cosmetic, but it ensures a better environmental seal, and it doesn't pump dust like the 18-135mm. I'd much rather take the G into the rain with my A6500...

[@Jacob_Roberts]

Thank you, Ilakalli. This is informative and useful.

[@goga1379]

Where is better OSS?

[@nellatrab]

I see you must live in Greenville :) The 18-105 is now 550....I liked the 18-135 best.