First outing with the 18-135

Preface

Sorry -this post is a combination waffle about the 18-135 followed by some (typically) mediocre snaps from the Lake District. Feel free to skip the waffle if you're not interested in my thoughts on the lens and just glance at the snaps, making sure you preserve enough viewing time for the really incredible IR and aerial wonders presented elsewhere tonight


Waffle

I've had my eye on the 18-135 for a while as a combination one-size-fits-all general purpose and bad weather lens - taking the plunge recently and buying one from a forum member (thanks Philip!). But I hesitated for a long time because of the mixed reviews of the lens and (relatively) high price. Having had a good outing with the lens, taking nothing but it on a very soggy trip to the Lakes, I now both really like the lens, which I can see me using a lot, and understand the mixed reviews.

The IQ is very good but not stunning. If you're a pixel peeper, or one of our better togs this would probably mither you. Smeggy is right - RRP is a lot of brass for a lens that's solid, but probably doesn't hit the heights.

But boy it's flexible in terms of range for general use, when you want to take out just a simple kit. And in grotty weather it's a godsend. I originally bought the 18-55 and 50-200 combo thinking this would cover me for wet days. But you just can't risk change between these lenses when it's really bad weather so have to choose one and stick with it. Which reduces flexibility. So MikeP is also right. It's a great general purpose lens, and you'll get shots with it you wouldn't get with another combo.



The snaps

C&C always welcome

My first photo with the 18-135

[IMG]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk206/Northgrain/Newlands%202011/Lakelandfields.jpg[/IMG]


Shortly afterwards

[IMG]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk206/Northgrain/Newlands%202011/NWFells.jpg[/IMG]

A poor quality image, but at the same time I took a video in the pouring rain of runoff, which in a couple of weeks I'll inflict on 70 (hopefully) impressionable young minds. Note I'll be stressing the hydrology, not the merits of the 18-135 - though it got me the video

[IMG]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk206/Northgrain/Newlands%202011/Rain.jpg[/IMG]


Raining when I took this

[IMG]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk206/Northgrain/Newlands%202011/MossFalls.jpg[/IMG]

Hindscarth @135mm Five tiny little people on the summit, clear in the 1:1

[IMG]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk206/Northgrain/Newlands%202011/Hindscarth.jpg[/IMG]

Grizedale Forest @135mm

[IMG]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk206/Northgrain/Newlands%202011/GrizedaleForest.jpg[/IMG]

I think Hindscarth has potential. I'd play around with contrast, B&W, cropping, etc. At present the colours are a bit dull and detract from the overall image.

The waterfall also has promise. Perhaps more saturation would make it punchier.

Grizedale is nearly there but not quite, in my view. The light, the clouds, the contrast, are all great, but the composition doesn't quite work, despite your efforts.

As for the 18-250, there's a lot to be said for a single lens that does everything. But if you are going that route, do you need a DSLR?

G

Thanks George. Helpful comments.

It's the 18-135 WR. And the WR is a key attraction for when other lenses would be vulnerable.

Whoops!

The WR is certainly an attraction.

G

i think your experience just about accords with mine. i got as a handy, flexible lens to take out with me when i am doing "outdoor pursuits" and don't want to worry about bad weather etc. the fast focusing is also quite good for skiing (which i do a lot of)

when i have my (wannabe) photographer hat on i'll generally take a couple of primes but the 18-135 is great when i am doing something else and want to get some decent pics while i am at it.

it is pricey new but i got a reasonable deal on ebay

Interesting set. I've been considering this lens purely for the WR. I do a fair bit of walking in these same locations and on some days I wouldn't really fancy swapping between the 16-50 and 50-135, which were bought as a hill walking set.

Looks good to me.

As you say ... optically it's reasonable but as a walkabout lens (esp in damp conditions) I don't think it can be beaten.

I am more than happy to take mine in place of a bag full of lenses.

I've recently briefly tried this lens (on loan). It seems likely to be serviceable as an all-weather, multi-purpose lens -- but in terms of image quality, it isn't terribly impressive (I'm no pixel-peeper, but ...). That might be fine for some purposes -- were it not for the lowest offer price in the UK, which does not reflect the lens's limitations. Even at the lesser US price, it is expensive. Second-hand, maybe....

I haven't read any reviews but to be honest from the images I've seen the IQ doesn't cut the mustard for me. The range/WR combination is extremely enticing I'd look at other options for that reason.

Like I said, probably not a lens to satisfy our better togs - and DrOrloff is certainly one of these

Agree with this. I was lucky enough to get it second hand from a forum member.

Really helpful review Tim!