DA 18-135

The second image is slightly sharper.

I'm not convinced from that example that one lens is superior to the other.
try some tripod mounted, manual exposure under a consistant light source.
any differences perceived from the example you posted could be down to exposure, and technique rather than lens quality.
I suspect that with proper technique, tripod mounted, cable released, carefully metered both at 100 mm at several apertures, one lens will outperform the other. I'm just convinced it will be the one you think...

i'm not so sure i agree with your assessment about it being better than the macro, stu.

it does seem to have a bit of a stronger contrast in the centre, which is very impressive for a zoom when pitted against a top macro lens.

but in the corners the 18-135mm outright worse.

also, there's significantly more fringing around the white chairs in the 18-135mm compared to the macro.

a good performance for a zoom, but still, the macro is my choice in those images.

Tripod was used, same aperture, same time of day !!

Yes I'm talking centre here, after all it is a zoom !

Not on my monitor John !! Using LR2 at 2x mag !

Have added the other 2 lenses (55-300 & 18-250)

only a proper studio test or pixel peeping off brick walls,will convince me. leaves and foliage could easily be moved by a slight breeze causing loss of sharpness around the edges of any of the lenses tested here.

I'm not arguing that the zoom is very good quality, I'm just not convinced it will outperform the macro 100,
if it did, no one would bother buying the *zooms that is for sure...

I'm not saying it beats the Macro overall Don, just that it appears, to me at least, to be better for colour and definition in the centre area (better than the other 2 as well). I was pleasantly surprised by how good it was

John seems to disagree though !? so I've included 100% crops, of the first 2 lenses. What do you reckon ??
link

I think the * zooms have bigger issues than the 18-135. Like SDM failures and being built squint, to name two

I am planing to buy this lens.
Gerri prefers zooms for candids, and I am more the prime lens studio shooter, so a wr zoom with high quality is definately on the "Must have" list and it seems this is a good value.

So that's not what you're saying, or is it?

I'd be very surprised if across a number of controlled tests it beat the DFA 100mm Macro in terms of colour rendition, sharpness, overall IQ, etc.

This place really is terrible for LBA. I'd all but dismissed the 18-135 (on the basis that I'd rather wait and get the FA77), and then this thread comes up. Since I'm possibly going on holiday at some point, I'm coming round to the view that the 18-135 would be the perfect complement to my Sigma 10-20 (with, possibly, the DA Limited along for the ride) as a compact [ie hand luggage-able] city holiday kit. Damn you all!

To try & save you from your LBA...I recently went on holiday for a few weeks and actually left my "walkabout lens" (DA 17-70) at home - I took the DA 12-24, DA 40mm & DA 55-300 - it worked perfectly. It made me wonder if the search for the perfect walkabout lens is a bit of a waste of time (& money) after all.

Simon

Actually, I do like the idea of a walkabout lens for holidays. But I would be happy to sacrifice speed and range for petiteness.

I'd be quite happy with a 17-70 1:5.6.

And I would not want the purchase of such a lens to oust any other lens from my bag, for those more frequent occasions when I am NOT on holiday.

G

Thanks for this comment Simon! You might have saved me from getting yet another lens. I have taken exactly the same approach as you have (only the prime is different) and this thread was making me think.
I am happy again....

That's a good point, though in my case I'm not sure that the 18-135 would be so much as ousting the FA77 (though buying the former would certainly exclude buying the latter). It's more that the FA77 these days is £800 (give or take) - I'm not sure I could justify spending that on a single camera lens (even if I had the money, which I don't!), beautiful though the FA77 is.