Is there a better option than the 18-135mm kit lens for the D80?

Online the D80 is going for $875 body only and $1150 with the 18-135mm kit. That

makes the cost of the 18-135mm lens $275.

 

I was just wondering if for $275 there is a better option I should be

considering that would cover at least the same focal lengths. I could fork out

another $50 if there was something much better. I'll mostly be shooting nature

shots (landscapes, bird and animals) so distortion isn't a major concern, but

sharpness is. A zoom with macro would be a plus, but is not a requirement. I

appreciate any suggestions and would love to hear what others think of the

18-135mm. Thanks.

The lens is light in weight, has a really nice and useful zoom range and gives exceptionally sharp images even wide open. It it not really long enough for birding though - you really need at least 300mm or 400mm for that. You may need a 2nd lens as lenses suitable for bird and animal photography are not good for photography that requires wide angles.

 

Perhaps consider the 18-55 kit lens (about $125) as well as the 70-300 VR.

Hi Jeff...I don't own the 18-135, but from what I have read the 18-70 is a better choice.....just my 2 cents...

I only use the 18-55 kit lens on my d70 and the 70-300vr. Very satisfied with both. I primarily shoot the same stuff you do.

Mark

$275? Covers <b>at least</b> the same focal lengths? There <i>are</i> no other options!

<p>

Other manufacturers have 18-125 (ish) lenses. The only one I'm familiar with is the Sigma 18-125. I'd rather have the Nikkor.

<p>

Unless you want to step up to an 18-200, which is substantially more expensive, you really have no options that cover that range. The 18-200 would give you a larger range plus VR, if you can swallow hard and spend the cash.

Any of the pro grade Nikors at 4x the money.

 

The 18/200 is just an expensive consumer grade lens.

 

17/55 and 70/200 both 2.8 will be better and there is a new pro grade lens out.

for $275, i don't think you can do much better here, since you have a lens that can handle wide angle landscapes and telephoto portraits. for wildlife and nature photography, obviously, longer is better. as another poster pointed out, the 70-300vr is at the top of the list of prosumer long zooms. but if you can't swing that, look at the 70-300 g, which is under $150, and will give you plenty of bang for the buck.

If you are spending $875 on a DSLR body, as a rule of thumb, I would budget at least a similar amount on lenses, perhaps even more on lenses. You can gradually add more lenses in the next several months to a year or two; i.e. you don't have to buy all the lenses at once. However, there is no point to buy a fairly good body and then use the cheapest lenses on it.

The other options I'd look at are the 18-70 (Better build, faster AF, manual focus override, focus scale) or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (Faster, sharper), I might pair them with the 55-200VR (I'm not much for long lenses, 70mm is as much as I'll need for the most part) or the 70-300 VR (The better option). In either case you give up range for other benefits (this is typical, the longer the zoom range, the more optical compromises are necessary, so higher-end lenses tend to have reduced zoom ranges).

May be, in terms of picture quality, a 35mm f/2 D AF may do better. But focal range will be "very" limited ;-P

I second Elliot's evaluation. There's just not anything else at that price point that will match the range and sharpness of the 18-135. It's not quite the professional quality of some others, but it's not professionally priced, either. It's a good little lens, if you can live with the distortion, and it sounds like you can. <p>Surprisingly, according to <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">Photozone</a> it's actually on par with or even sharper than the $1500 17-55 2.8 over much of it's range.<p>But you will need something longer for birds.

You get what you pay for with lenses in general. You have an excellent body, why put a plastic over ratio'd zoom on it. There is a reason the 17-55 and 70-200 have such limited zoom ratios. It is hard, read expensive, to make a high ratio zoom. Neither Nikon nor Canon's best lenses have zoom ratios much over 2 to 3. I do not know what you can get for $275 to $325 that would be better though I have no experience with the 18-135. Perhaps you should delay your gratification and save until you can afford a better optic.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

I don't find the 18-135 all that sharp. Its a marginal lens and a lot of work is needed after the fact to make the images taken with it acceptable. Its got other issues as well, including light falloff in the corners, aberrations, and a design that vents zoom actions off right into the camera's mirror box. Not recommended for anybody who has more experience with older and better equipment. Spend $$$ for something better on the D80

John, you probably have a bad sample. I suggest you send it in to Nikon to have it serviced. My copy is incredibly sharp. In good light or with flash, I find it as sharp as my pro lenses, even wide open.

 

I found my 18-200 did not perform well sharpness wise. I sent it in to Nikon and it came back like a totally different lens. I decided to replace it with the 18-135 and find it even sharper.

 

Eric, certain Nikon lenses like the 18-135, 18-55 and the 55-200 (which I own and can speak for) produce incredibly sharp images. They may not be built like a tank but they deliver incredible value for the money. As they are all backed with 5 year warranties, what more could you ask for. Not everyone can afford $1500 lenses. Not everyone needs a $1500 lens.

I'm not going to bother sending a plastic lens for repair work (which it does not need anyway). Ken Rockwell on his netsite found exactly the same problems with this lens. The fact is that "tests" of this lens are a dime a dozen and none of them caught the problems, which tells me that many folks out there have no idea of what they're really even talking about, regardles of their credentials or experience. (I remember an infamous "camera review" on one netsite where the "scientist" reviewing the camera panned it because he couldn't figure out how to operate it correctly-it was the camera's fault, because he, as a scientist, could not make any errors). I have plenty of lenses and found that the manual focus FD lenses on my Canon T90 are noticeably the best. My absolute worst lenses are the Autofocus Tamrons on my Canon EOS-3. Real Crap. This Nikon is a close runner up. And I agree with you, not everybody needs a $1500 lens. for 99% of the users, the 18-135 will work just fine. Its just that once you know and have tasted champagne, Mad Dog 20/20 won't work anymore. Amen.

John,

I dont entirely agree with you. Firstly let me assure you that the so called plastic crap of the 18-135 is fibre reinforced plastic and is pretty strong and durable. It will not wear at the zooming cam grooves (as is generally believed) in normal use. Secondly the whack required to damage that plastic is sufficient to internally damage those lenses of better build quality too. Thirdly it would do good to have a look at this site for a good test of this lens I assure you they do their job well. http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/993/cat/all

Fourthly Like Eliot mentioned John you may have a bad sample. I have this 18-135 and have used it extensively and I am delighted with it. It is the sharpest lens with excellent color rendition and contrast in the slow zoom line up. It does have marked distortions at the extreme ends, but nothing you cannot PP. You wont be shooting there all the time. Off course requires day light and or flash as is not fast. Consider that the 18-55, 18-70 and the 18-200VR (darling of ken and everybody) Suffer from the same problem (slow)and not as sharp. Jeff I feel you should keep this lens see where you shoot most then think of adding those focal lenghths either in the primes or in some excellent sigma and nikon zooms. Matter of interest I have the Sigma 10-20, Nikon 18-135, 70-300VR-II and the Sigma 35/1.4.

For my needs my bag of lenses is adequete. You will have to decide what your requirement is. Lastly please read what Ken has to say about lenses with a pinch of salt.

I replaced it with a Sigma 15-30mm. Much improvement. However, I read that lens test above and finds it rationalizes the flaws. No matter, I paid very little for it.