Sony 18-135mm vs Kit Lens + 55-210mm

[@agathqkazoo]

this is exactly the kind of comparison i was looking for, very informative and shown side by side lets you decide much easier, thanks!

[@ThisNameWasTaken0]

what program is he using?

[@shmoggy417]

These comparison are honestly so relaxing

[@shubhgehlot6195]

5:15 even the top of building looks different 😯

[@mrdady9038]

Wtf. Why is that 😐

[@bbwally4275]

wtf....

[@EllaBananas]

the sun has moved, or there is a cloud blocking it. making the dip in the top of the building hidden by shadow in one image.

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

uhhh I think you found a glitch in the simulation. Hopefully they didn't come for you in the time since you left this comment...

[@bowloflatte]

Love your videos! I don’t know why KZbin just recommended your channel to me! I like the pace you talk and everything becomes crystal clear after you explaining it. I just start out my food cooking KZbin channel and I use Sony A6400 as my main camera. I watched many of your videos on camera and lens comparison and that helps a lot in terms of what the next lens to get. Thank you so much!!!!

[@IRFAN-po5sz]

So which lens you have for a 6400 ?

[@bowloflatte]

IRFANI use the Sony 50mm f1.8 lens with optical stabilization most often now because I shoot indoor and also need background to be blurry.

[@IRFAN-po5sz]

@@bowloflatte Okay,Thank you for quick reply. Now my query is that : is it better than any sigma lens ? Can Sony 50mm f1.8 offer good 4k during night shot ? I mean is it better than Sigma lens in every respect ? Thanks

[@bowloflatte]

IRFAN I’m not exactly sure as I don’t own a Sigma lens. But I think the Sony lens perform great under low light situation. I took it to a pretty dark restaurant and the video turns out great.

[@laurencegr9978]

55-210 is decent enough. I've been looking at sample photos taken with it on Flickr and they are so, so good. With an extension tube, 55-210 is perfect macro lens.

[@superxm]

Ordered the 18-135mm. New price for 55-210mm is running new for $350 at BB and Amazon. Love your channel.

[@stevenmuncy491]

I hope you will compare the 18-105mm vs the 24-105mm when used on the a6xxx cameras.

[@nocoolname32]

WHY HAS NO ONE DONE THIS YET?!?!?!

[@Ruthlessbone]

I like the fact you use your wife's photos as examples to show the lens quality.

[@bronzearmani7719]

Ruthless Bone Yes he seems too proud of his wife which is so lovely .. I respect men like him

[@RG-jl6lt]

The wife is much better than the two lenses!

[@mentuemhet]

@@RG-jl6lt priceless

[@BleakVision]

Will we ever find out her name though?

[@rotondadiaz1835]

@@BleakVision 💀

[@martin9410]

Great video. I've had all three lenses on my a6000, including the 18-105. Sent the 18-135 back because I was disappointed in the picture quality. Also no longer have the kit lenses, but kept the 18-105 (best bang for the buck). I found the colors were better on the 18-105 and a more clean picture, plus I can do excellent videos too. So now I have the Sigma 16mm 1.4 lens (one of my favorites), the Sigma 30mm 2.8, vintage lens (helois 44mm, 1.2), the Sony 85mm 1.8 and the 18-105. Have one or two other vintage lenses, but for my purposes those lenses pretty well do it for me. You are one of my favorite reviewers. Thanks again.

[@ArthurR]

Sounds like an awesome setup! How is the Sony 85mm? That is one I want to check out soon.

[@martin9410]

I actually love it! Great bokeh and it's good for more than just portraits. I would love to see you review it.

[@Bob-Campbell]

Would really like it if you did. I'm between the 85 and the sigma 16 as my next lens...

[@martin9410]

I had the 10-18...nice lens but I sold it once I got the Sigma 16mm. The 16mm surpassed the 10-18 in my book.

[@VGScreens]

@@martin9410 Surprised you found the 18-105 better than the 18-135. I had the exact OPPOSITE experience. Had them both, ended up selling the 18-105.

[@SamFisherRocks]

The kit lens (16-50) is no slouch! I can't say much for the 55-210 because I haven't tested that lens much but great for the price. Sometimes all you need is a simple and cheap setup. Both kit lenses fit the a5100/a6000 nicely.

[@brugj03]

You must be used to absolute garbage if you say what you say. I`ve never seen a worse lens it takes pictures far worse then your phone.

[@csabalandi]

18-135 vs 18-105 please

[@singyangchai4469]

Just joined into Sony Alpha, glad I paid slightly extra for a6400 18-135 kits lens instead of the original kits lens, in here we also have the bundle for a6400 body and 18-105 f4 but it cost more than the 18-135. Can't wait my camera coming in April.

[@lijojose6754]

Can you also review 18-200 vs 55-210mm ??!

[@nonchecka]

Thanks for the comparison! Got the 18-135, was a great lense for travel. now i save my money for a better zoom lense than the 55-210.

[@adammaysz9356]

55-210 is a great lens for 150-200 bucks

[@gaboaaa23]

Hi! If only you could make such a test with the 16 50 vs 18 55. I have the 16 50 sel kit lens but dont like the power zoom and build. Im hasitating if i should sell it and change to 18 55. Are the images of the 18 55 also soft at the edges? Im afraid if i make some landscape photos with the kit i can throw them in the trash bin. What do you think? Thanks

[@Mr.Altavoz]

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

[@artkarp]

If you shot the pics today with the A6700 and 18-135 do you think they would be better when compared to the camera you used?

[@CalifHM]

Hi, nice comparison at all. But near minute 10, why did you ignore that the tree is much sharper at the 55210? That doesn't seem to be fair...

[@dakzer55]

Great review comparison. however, as I have the 55-210mm. At what focal length is the best sharpness achieved using the kit lens. Thanks in advance.

[@nasirtresor8349]

The SEL18135 convinced me so I think about buying it for my upcoming holidays in Greece. But I‘m still not sure if the Tamron 18-200 also is a good alternative (it‘s cheaper). Or would you recommend that for me as a newbie to photography I should first try the kit lense? Do you have any experience in this? I want to have beautiful photos in Santorini.

[@maryprom15es]

Exactly the review I needed! Thank you!

[@oes2546]

I’m tired of dragging the 210 around. Getting the 18-135 and keeping the kit 16-50 for when I want it pocketable.

[@tafefe1230]

same same, i hate carrying around a tonne of gear, these 2 are best of both worlds

[@jflores7585]

Thank you very much for the comparison, very useful, definitely will wait for a better option or save a little more $ for a better lenses...

[@IRFAN-po5sz]

Nice comparison Sir, I am getting a6400 with Sony 18-135mm , Do you recommend that ? which one other lens for steady 4k video for a6400. Thanks

[@niqart]

9:15 How did you get such beautiful skin tones from Sony crop with their chip lenses?????

[@fernandobernal2525]

Thanks for the video…I have those 3 Lenses by the way…but I have a problem with the 18-135mm… When I take a photo with my Sony A6400 at 18mm in Raw format…at the corners appears a shadow…..is that normal?….

[@allisonmorden5507]

On a budget: would you choose Sony a6000 + 18135 lens, Sony a6000+16-50+ 55-210 lenses, Sony a6100+16-50 lens, or Sony a6400 + 16-50 lens? Having a baby soon, so thought professional camera could be nice to save money in the long term on professional photoshoots, and eventually could take photos of clients. I was really wanting the front facing flip screen so we could take our own family portraits, but it seems like starting with the nicer lens and the 6000 might be worth it and maybe adding an external monitor?

[@iPhoneSpy]

Great review. I would also like to see a comparison to the older kit lens the “18-55 f3.5-5.6” (Model SEL1855). This lens is almost the same size as the new lens but you can get it now for about $150. I have found it to have slightly better quality of pics then the smaller 16-50 kit lens but not by much. Thanks for what you do.

[@ArthurR]

I have tested the 18-55, and in my comparison the quality was WORSE than the 16-50mm.

[@DrEricGablehauser]

@@ArthurR It really depends on the lens. I had alltogether three 1855s in my family. When I bought my current Alpha 5100 it came with a 1650. Since I did not like the motorzoom I thought about keeping one of the 1855s and startet comparison. It turned out that two auf the 1855 were visibly better than the 1650. One was significant worse. The good ones were a black Japanese and a newer silver Thai. The bad one was an old Thei version, that came with the Nex-3 of my doughter.

[@DarkJesterHead]

Are you gonna get the a7iii and start reviewing fe lenses??

[@SBBLURAY1]

Thank you so much. This and your comparison to the 18-105 was soooo useful to me. Thank you, Arthur.

[@a7dfj8aerj]

Which software is used here to compame pictures side by side?

[@magunciero]

If the 18 135 had existed when I bought the 18 105, it would have been a hard decision. The a6000 was needing such a compact all around lense. The 18 105 is sometimes too big for those who jumped into a6000 coming from point and shoot and travel a lot.

[@mipmipmipmipmip-v5x]

Also powerzoom is not fun when you're making photos

[@elliotandal8854]

Can you make a review on the SELP18200, it's different from the SEL18200 and is quite expensive and rare. Thanks

[@justwant2relax]

Do you have a plan to make a comparison between sigma 16mm and rokinon 21mm ?

[@clarification007]

Dont,T forget the Sigma 19mm! A superb lens! (Less expensive)

[@ChristopherBurress]

I'm surprised that your 18-135 has so much fringing. Mine doesn't seem to have nearly as much as yours does.

[@Mason_Walsh]

Christopher Burress Challenge extended... Waiting on Player 2 to accept. But seriously. It would be awesome to see a mafia/burress photo showdown someday.

[@QuietOC]

Sample variation can cause differrent amounts of fringing.

[@ChristopherBurress]

We tossed around the idea of a collab one time I was down in Texas, but the hurricane kinda stomped that in the dirt.

[@ArthurR]

True story.

[@jerryrichards8172]

I know that these lenses are made for digital cameras but I shoot my minolta lenses on what is my first new to me digital a77ii and I would say there all sharper than bother kit lense. Thank you for posting this video because I was going to get the kit for my first digital lense. I just assumed it would be better than my old film glass. Any advise on sony a mount glass would be appreciated by anyone who may know.

[@biogons14]

Thanks for your videos. I can see a little difference in central sharpness between the 18-135 and the kit lenses closing to 8 or 10. But you didn´t compare them closing in the large range 135 vs. 210 mm.

[@brettwharton]

Can you use the 18-135mm lens with A6400 and a Weebill Lab gimbal? Are there any issues or do you have to remove the eyepiece to make it work? I read Weebill Lab’s compatibility document but it looks like it was published before A6400 came out.

[@BigBoss-gb4cx]

Hey! Have you selled the 18-105 and kept the 18-135?

[@Pmason718]

What would you do? I purchased the a6400 which came with the 18-135 lens for $1300 but I haven't open it yet so I can still exchange it. Would you keep it or go with the a6600 for $1199 body only but add the 55-210 for $349 (Best buy charges $149 for this lens when purchased with a camera) for a total of $1349 ($50) more than the a6400.

[@beekechefreels]

Why didn't compared with night photography?

[@minhtrieuq]

Thanks for the compare. Could you please share the maximum aperture at each focal length?

[@drakeilt5776]

How about a comparison with the 18-104mm, F4? That is the one I have with my a6300 and it seems to do a good job when there is enough light. I use my 35mm or 50mm f1.8 for low light w/o a flash. I did a comparison between the 50 and the 2 kit lenses and saw a slightly better performance with the 50mm.

[@ArthurR]

For sure the 50mm is the sharpest out of the bunch. It is better than the 35mm in sharpness, but not as usable.

[@mrone-rj1bn]

Compared to my old 55-210, my new copy is way sharper than the old one, they improved it optically.

[@MrPippec]

Как на счёт стабилизации? Использовалась ли она в эксперименте?

[@kicapification]

Please compare these with the 18-200

[@attackomac]

Is there any chance you could do a comparison video of the 18-135 vs Sony 20mm f2.8 at the 20mm focal distance? Would love to see a prime vs zoom for a standard lenses.

[@ArthurR]

The Sony 20mm isnt much sharper than the 16-50mm kit lens at 20mm. The 18-135mm will be sharper.

[@evenatienzaart]

Hello, Arthur: I recently bought a used copy of the 18-135mn lens based on your informative reviews. My copy does not show the focal dustance 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).

[@dtj41]

Would love to see a comparison of 18-135 (and/or the 18-105 F4) vs. the Rokinon 21 F1.4 for wide-angle shots. Taking a year-long trip through SE Asia and wondering if the medium tele's are good enough at landscapes to eliminate the "need" for a dedicated wide-angle.

[@Reinh4]

The difference is not that overwhelming as I thought it would be. The bokeh of the 18-135 in portraits is disappointig in comparison to the 55-210 which is not really shown in this video. As you are more on the tele side with the 18-135 this point was a no go for me. A real step forward in sharpness you only get with a sigma prime. Or 1655G.

[@valentynkropov9502]

Do you live in Austin? I can recognize this skyline of the downtown lol

[@januarytm5609]

Sigma 16mm 1.4 lens is the Best

[@Joseph-hs8cr]

Is the 16-50mm OK for corporate video?

[@topgeartim]

These comparisons that you're doing, not only these but also the adapted lenses, will be the same on the Sony A5100 correct?

[@theizza68]

Were these shot with 16:9 ratio?

[@sumanthd02]

Im new to this and a little bit confused. So can someone please explain me how that lens can take f10 pics while its mentioned that its F3.5 to 5.6.

[@MiguelSanchez-fs2xs]

Great work. Your reviews have really helped me make an informed decision.

[@g1owner]

Another great video for the people who own A6000 and can not afford A7RIII. Great job, thank you!!!

[@renefras2874]

could you send a link ore something to those raw pictures?

[@robertmcdaniel2283]

Is (are) there any acceptable zoom lens (lenses) for the a-6000? I've seen the reviews on the 18-105/f4 and the 18-135 here, but none have glowing reviews to motivate me to replace the two kit lenses. Appreciate all the Sony lens videos. Thank you!

[@channealpha]

Excellent videos! I just discovered your channel and I love your content! I shoot on a 6500 and have tried many lenses, the new 18-135 looks appealing because of its versatility. I have gotten great results with my copy of the 55-210, do you think I should keep it for the extra reach or just crop in on the 135 zoom?

[@Sony-Fanboy]

Thanks to this video i've saved myself from a disaster purchase earlier this month. Without this video i would have lost a €150 on a 2nd hand purchase 55-210mm. For double the price i've bought a really good occasion 18-135mm lens at my favourite camera store here in The Netherlands. I've made already some great photo's with my 18-135mm and it's my favourite allround/travel lens in my collection. Sony zoom lenses are great if you stay around 100 or 135mm. For further reach you're better of with a decent telelens.

[@SurajBoddu]

Why don't you have an IG account?

[@zefa3867]

Could you send a link of the sample images so I can compare them myself as I want to see which is better 135 cropped into 210 equiv or the 210

[@DrEricGablehauser]

Thats the only part I miss too. The building detail comparison between the 210@210 and the 135@135 looks very impressive or the 135, but in a way its unfair. One should compare the 210@210 with a 210 adquate crop of the 135.

[@alecarrasco2000]

Hi, great channel. Maybe sometimes you can review the 18-200 LE lens, against this new 18135. Thanks!

[@RickMentore]

Love your analysis/review of Sony crop lenses. I have tried a good many of the lenses but have yet to find a better zoom than the 18-105 f4 PZ.

[@conraddevera]

I’m seeing some bundle deals with these lenses, should i buy those (extra lense and a bunch of other things like extra battery). Or go bare and buy stuff later? I’m new to these btw thanks

[@nordishtm949]

In my opinion it depends what you want to shoot. Portrait, landscape, wildlife or sport. 16-50 is a good range for landscape and portraits (even though when you want ultra-wide shots you might look at the great Samyang 12mm). I myself bought this bundle aswell, but did not ever use the 55-210, as I don't need sooo much on the far end. One year ago, I wanted to upgrade on image quality and flexiblity (as 50 are a bit short when you hike and want to catch a detail in the far or changing lenses can be very annoying) and got the 18-135. I would recommend you - if you're not a bird, wildlife or sport enthusiast or on a tight budget - to only buy the 16-50 first - there are always bundles with the A6000. These days you get the body+kit lens for 100€, on sale for 50€ more. Then you can find out if you need more focal lenght or it suits your needs. I don't know if you're new only to sony apsc or photography in general, but when it's your first step in this 'world' I would recommend you to buy a prime lense extra (f.e the inexpensive Sony 50mm F.1.8). It helps a lot for improving your photography skills and eye to have a set lenght, so you have to move and find the best spot for your photo, and don't machine-gun-zoom-and shot while only staying still. Hope this helped you a bit, have a great new years eve tomorrow, mate! :)

[@conraddevera]

@@nordishtm949 thank you for the response. I don't think I would need the range right now. I'm looking to get either the a6400 or go cheaper with the m50. I have been doing my research and I do want a prime lens. Although I don't know which (too many choices). Will a 50mm be enough (I always see nifty fifty for some reason). Main use would be videos (I have a 2yr old kid), some pictures (I love bokeh). But I don't think I need the range now. Maybe 2 lens to start, a prime and one for general use. What is a good prime lens? I know it's not a simple question as there are a lot of factors, but for example what can a 50mm handle? Is it enough if subject is 3 feet from it?

[@nordishtm949]

Great I can help! I really can't say much about the M50. I only used Sony APSC cameras before (currently owning a A6400). As I see (only overflying, from the comparison here: mirrorlesscomparison.com/preview/sony-a6400-vs-canon-eos-m50/) on the data sheet, the M50 has significant lesser autofocus points (143 vs. 425 from the A6400). More autofocus points mean more 'hits' (right focused pictures). In this case, I can speak from my experience (I owned the A6000 with ~143 autofocus points before) and can say that in comparison with the A6000 the A64000 nearly never messed up the focusing, while the A6000 (with ~143 points) quite commonly misses the autofocus. Many professional reviewers I follow label the A6400 as 'the best camera to shoot family, especially little kids with'. You have to decide if that 'extra' is worth you more money. I am too biased as I am totally amazed with the hits of the A6400. As you say that you like to shoot videos, both cameras record in 4K, but the M50 does it in crop mode (*1.5), while the A6400 samples 6K into a 4K video, which means you get no crop (aka a 'fullframe' lenght look) and a better video quality. When we come to lenses, the canon apc lense-line-up is really small, as the sonys is more bigger (especially with 3rd party lenses from Sigma) For lenses: If you want to shoot indoors, a prime-lense between 16-50mm would be ideal (Remember: APSC means, that the images are cropped with the factor 1.5 - aka 30mm have the 45mm picture frame, 56mm = 84mm picture frame, etc). 16mm, if you want to shoot your kid with what she's doing (f.e his/her toys), 30mm for maybe a shoot where he/she plays with a single object. Around 50mm when you want to do only show your kid. Of course you can get the picture frame that you want by moving, but it is depending on how big the room is you planning to shoot. When you got a small living room/room of your kid, you might want to go wider (f.e 16 or 30mm.) If you got a big room, you can go with 50mm. (It's especially great, because you get more authentic shots of your kid, because you don't get too close with the camera up do his/her nose. :-) : Btw: both of your camera candidates have a silent shooting mode, which is great for not disturbing playing kids ) For getting a nice bokeh a lense with a wide aperiture is great (in my opinion everything under 2.8 is great, but it's gets creamier with even lower aperiture: But that's a question of taste) I can personally recommend the Sigma trio prime's - 16mm 1.4 - 30mm 1.4 - 56mm 1.4 - for most situations with your kid (and if you not have a really small room) - I would recommend the 30mm 1.4 for more flexibility or the 56mm for more distance and less disturbance. They are not cheap, but definitley worth the buck, (between 270-370€) as they are the sharpest lenses for sony apcs you can get. As an alternative, the Sony 50mm 1.8 is much cheaper (around 150€), a bit less sharp, but I think a great lense to begin with. For video (if you want to move and have a 'professional look', and don't have really non-shaky-hands) a lense with oss (opctical steady shot) would be optimal. The kit-lens (16-50) offers this. But it only has a aperiture of 3.5-5.6 - that means you won't get a really good bokeh with it.) If you want to go with the A6400 i might recommend you to buy it with the kit-lens for videos (must be in daylight, or with good light, because it's minimum 3.5) plus the 50mm 1.8 Sony (if you don't want to spend more money on the Sigma 30mm 1.4 or Sigma 56mm 1.4 - for portraits - or video by not moving much and non-shaky-hands) My optimal setup (if you don't need to think about money) would be buying the A6400 + the 18mm-105mm for video (oss, constant aperure of 4, motored zoom) witht the Sigma 30 or 56mm. But you can of course first buy the A6400 with the Kit-lens and see if it just fit your needs (needs a well-lighted room, doesn't have a really nice bokeh - but has OSS and a good range of focal lenght). You can buy it in a bundle for max. 100€ more with the A6400, or if it's in sale, even for only 50€ more. It's not a bad lense, has a fair image quality, and when you can live with the downsides, it might be enough. If not, you can still buy the Sony 50mm or one of the Sigma trio. My last recommendation is - if you haven't done that already - to just go to a near electronic market and try both cameras - maybe you really like/dislike one of them just by the touch. Also you can test, what prime you want to get - almost all of the cameras there have a zoom lens attached to them. Go to 16 - 30(35) and 50mm - and think about which lenght will suit your needs! My text may have many grammatical mistakes in it - it's late and english is not my native language. :) If I am wrong somewhere, everyone, be free to correct me! Also this is only from my knowledge and information, you might check other sources as well! Have a nice eve!

[@nordishtm949]

@@conraddevera To your question with the 50mm and the 3 feet distance - I think the 50 would be too close for it. Maybe a 30mm or I think around 16mm would be better in this case. I don't know much about the exact distance - but I recommend you to go with your partner/ a friend / your kid to the electronic market and try your desired camera (they got the kit-zoom lens on it most of the time) and zoom to 16, 30, 50mm - and let your companion go to the distance you think you will shoot the most at. At this you can practically decide, which focal length will fit your needs most of the time. :)

[@conraddevera]

@@nordishtm949 good idea (so simple, why didn't I thought of that lol)

[@bassmanchristian1431]

Hi Arthur, many thanks from Germany for your tests and comparisons throughout the Sony fleet. I have just sold my a6000, kept the 1650 and 55210 lenses and I am looking forward to buy the Sony SEL 35f1.8 addionally for portraits and street photography for the a6400 . Currently this cam is about 970 Euros and I hope to get it at a nice price in fall/winter this year. What do you think about these investments? Have a nice weekend and best wishes to your wife.

[@Mason_Walsh]

Thanks for the video! Just got a 55-210 used and have been running it through my own tests. Very similar results to yours. Reassuring to know the softness seems standard and not a fluke with my used lens. Oh and 911 hands down. Lambos have always reminded me of high speed doorstops.

[@Manny_News_Blogs_Tutorials]

BOTTOMLINE: Don't zoom the images! Uploading the photos directly to Facebook or Instagram asis straight out of camera you will barely notice any difference at all. But if you're more into cropping photos in post processing like me, you'll get the added benefit sharpness from the more expensive 18-135mm than the other 2 cheaper kit lenses (not so cheap for me though). With the 16-50mm kit lens, cropping photos and recomposing shots in post processing needs a lot of tweaking in Photoshop, at least in my case.

[@flol3266]

Nobody who is using good Sony alphas with a more advanced setup will ever upload photos to Facebook without post processing. The only reason to shoot with those setups described here is to post process it… otherwise you could do the photos with your smartphone and spare a lot of money and extra weight.

[@Manny_News_Blogs_Tutorials]

@@flol3266 As my old colleague fondly says " You are not a good photographer if you always rely on editing. A minimalist very seldom edit photos that were already perfectly exposed in camera. In fact, some photography contests would require you to submit unaltered shots not even with very minimal post process! On top of that, events photographers here in the Philippines do upload direct from camera. When I shoot thousand shots of fast moving 100 ramp models in a fashion show for example time is of essence as we're shooting at least 2 to 3 events per day and we haven't got luxury time to edit each photo that we share on Facebook for public consumption. Believe me when you got 50 to 100 clients in a single event, all of which are expecting about 20 to 50 shots more or less each model participant you must be fast enough to upload or some clients will complain why their photos aren't up yet on the web, LoL! So what I do is sort out the bad ones and upload the rest of the better camera files unaltered, until the album is full. I only edit a hundred selected shots or so (out of 2000 shots minimum in a single shooting and maximum of around 8000 shots for very long events) if the the pictures are to be delivered as soft copies for client's disposal. But editing isn't free, we often ask for extra editing service charge depending on the bulk of post processing jobs to be done. But as SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) shots are concerned, it is our pride and joy to show people that we are skilled enough to shoot good photos out of camera and share them unaltered to social media sites where people can grab them and post them to their timelines as their respective portfolios. In general, we photographers are paid to shoot good photos and not as editors altering crappy shots. Leave editing and manipulation to graphic artists and editors. If you're good at both shooting and editing then that's your advantage over others. But editing thousand shots in one sitting before uploading to Facebook? I doubt you would even consider! Now one question though: Can your smart phone shoot indoor sports or fast action events like fashion shows and parties without resorting to movement shake and high ISO noise? Can your smart phone zoom in head shots of faraway models onstage? Well, my Sony A6000 and 55-210 mm combo does! The larger APS-C sensor along with the camera's manual exposure functions, and the zoom lens 55-210 ditches your smart phone in this aspect.

[@flol3266]

@@Manny_News_Blogs_Tutorials without going too deep into that discussion I have another opinion about that. You do not have to edit photo by photo. You edit maybe one, save preset and set it to others and maybe tweak here and there. For me the editing process is like the dark room in the film Ära and is Part of the whole „photo making“ process. In my opinion you are not a complete photographer without editing and printing skills. But that’s just my humble opinion. Your only reason to use a dedicated camera instead of a smartphone is the telephoto lens? That’s just sad in my opinion as there is so much more to it. And yes a smartphone can shoot fast moving objects and also indoor without noise. You just have to know how.

[@flol3266]

@@Manny_News_Blogs_Tutorials if you really stay with this opinion, than the chance is high that you will switch to a smartphone or at least Alice cam in the next couple of years as it will deliver way better results with Computational photography as shooting photos without post.

[@Manny_News_Blogs_Tutorials]

@@flol3266 Nope you can't do a single preset for a stage event with ever changing spotlights. Have you experienced shooting disco parties or concerts? There's the uneven lighting in the stage: lighted foreground versus dim background where you follow wherever a singer position herself on the stage, or follow a model in a long catwalk. There's no single setting for that. That's why in camera I usually set to shutter priority with variable ISO and aperture because setting manually with that time constraint is almost impossible. Then let's talk about light effects and changing ambient colors. I have one situation in the past where I have no choice but to convert all of a thousand shots to black and white via batch process in Photoshop, but again that's the worst option if you are shooting colorful costumes. Shooting live events are very different from shooting controlled lighting in studio. Also sports action. As somebody who previously shoots film in the 90's, I got used to getting it right out of camera. Getting it right out of camera is an advantage when your client demands soft copies of your shots to be transferred to his laptop or USB disk, where failed shots isn't an option here. Talents Agencies are even picky with the shots coming out of camera because most of the agencies I know do not edit photos and email them or print them directly for casting and gosee purposes.

[@WilliamWallaceRoss]

I never go below 11.0 on any lens for landscapes or higher than 13.0. So, I will have to go to my photo store to see how they perform, I guess. Thanks for the review.

[@brianbell2176]

Love these comparisons. Help me decide on a couple of lens choices. Keep it up!

[@CarlosCastillo-rw1mw]

Hey there My friend! Is there a Manual Zoom lens option for E-Mount? Thanks

[@nasilemak868]

Carlos Castillo Meike, Kamlan, 7artisan. Just to name a few.

[@Lapchaser]

Thanks for the nice video comparison. I was and am thinking about getiing a6500 with kit lens but after watching this video i guess i wont. You kept sayin 18-135 is ok! Can u pls tell me which lens is sharp enough in your opinion for a6500?

[@dakzer55]

Great comparison. But you made my mind up the 16-50mm with 55-210mm combo of lenses is better value for money than paying $350-400 for the marginally better 18-35mm. Added bonus, the 16-50mm makes the camera a much better pocketable take anywhere shooter.

[@slr7075]

You're definitely the guy for Sony apsc E-mount. Hey Tech, do you have any plans to move to Sony FE?

[@ArthurR]

Im tempted with the A7III, but I dont know if there is enough demand/support for it.

[@slr7075]

TechnologyMafia Same here too and the prices for FE glass scares me!

[@clarification007]

No, so few are talking about the APS-C while so many are are mentioning the FF cameras and your public will be deleted or left you.. Please, stay with APS-C!

[@JustinYarborough]

Always great videos. I love my 18-135 and use it almost all the time.

[@IRFAN-po5sz]

Hi, Good Day , I am getting a6400 with Sony 18-135mm , are you completely satisfied with this lens ?

[@artstorywork]

For the 55-210 it’s better to use f8-f11 than f6.3 f7.1 what start to be really soft around 150-190 (I usually don’t take pictures at up to 190mm) but I would be really interesting by a comparison with another telefoto lens if you do purchase one in the future (135 Samyang) or 70-200/300 👌 to see how can perform the a6000 Line with more expensive material

[@534daro534]

I don't know why but your kit lenses are much softer than mine

[@CodySmiley]

What software you use to compare photos quality?

[@fall170]

He's using Lightroom.

[@IcanCwhatUsay]

very good comparison! thank you for this video!

[@miamiSincar]

do you use a tripo

[@TheWinLlen]

ok. i think i will go with the 18-135 as my new kit lens

[@rushdihameed798]

hi could u do a review for 18-200?

[@sahilsinghhtc]

Please compare 55-210mm and 18-105mm sony

[@247cmason]

great comparison , very helpful knowledge!! You Do Great work!!!

[@willkim778]

What is the software for image comparison?

[@bruno13th]

Hi, I think it would be interesting to continue this comparisons and reviews with the sony 18-200mm and facing it with the sony kit lenses (16-50 + 55-210). What do you think? I hope you find it interesting :D Nice videos, before buy I always look your reviews. I didn't found other channels that expose and compare so honestly and well organized! ^o^

[@damongupta4266]

Great video - very useful. The Sony a6400 comes with either no lens, the 16-50, or the 18-135. I was wondering about the difference between the three lenses you showed so the video was an excellent answer to what I needed. Only, now I'm not sure what I should do! I like the compact size of the 16-50 lens, and it makes the camera great for travel.

[@mr_DM11]

Thanks for the video! We are all waiting for a comparison sony and tamron 18-200, sony 18-135, 18-105 !

[@MusikPiratCH]

Ironically both lenses are Kits for the Sony APS-C! There are bundles with the Kit 16-50 + 55-210 and there is one Kit with the 18-135. As far as I saw the 18-135 Kit was slightly cheaper but these Kit offerings are basically the same prize! :D

[@CJE15]

Thank you for your dedication and comparation. Good Channel. Congratiolations 👍

[@JohnCalvarez]

Hey, man, I'm new to the channel. Love the videos! Have you compared the 50mm lens options?

[@brandonj.1746]

Thanks for the great comparison! Just ordered the 18-135 and plan to sell my 16-50 and 55-210. While I love my prime lenses, with a toddler sometimes it's nice to carry just one camera and one lens that can cover most situations. In my opinion, it is worth the extra premium for a lens that can essentially replace both 16-50 and 55-210 zooms, and provide better image quality.

[@photosanty]

Me too

[@scottiebumich]

Wondering if you would consider the new Sigma 18-50 F2.8 for a toddler? The Slow 180-135 zoom would have me using it just outside during midday. What do you use for a toddler inside? I would think F2.8 or faster it the limit? You have the Sigma 30 and 56 primes F1.4 and the 18-50 F2.8 is nice too.

[@ColinBloodworth]

Great comparison, dude. Do you forsee them using this new one as a kit lens on whatever the next crop e-mount is, be it a6700 or something new?

[@ArthurR]

I don't think it will be a standard kit lens, but I can see them charging an extra $300 for the "upgraded kit" haha

[@wanderingpoet9999]

Thank you so much your comparison reviews for Sony are soooo useful! Well I already have the 18-135 so I can save myself some money and not bother with 55 to 210...

[@stang8913]

I have got 18-105 + 55-210 instead. The 55-210 isnt with me every trip though

[@artmaltman]

Great comparison thanks! Well done.

[@Manny_News_Blogs_Tutorials]

18-135 vs 18-200 silver please.

[@davidg9682]

Great review as always. Thanks so much for following your followers' wishes. 210 seems like a poor lense all around. Fully zoomed in it's even worse than the 18-135 cropped. Looking forward to the 18-200 vs. 18-135 comparison ;) Btw. definitely 911. It's made just around the corner here.