Sony a6000 - Sony SELP18105G vs Sony SEL18135

[D13H4RD]

Hello there. I don’t usually venture to these part of the forums but as I’m starting to get interested in photography again, I thought of potentially getting another lens to replace the kit glass as the one lens that’ll stay on my camera for a majority of the time. 

 

Just as a background, I use a Sony a6000 (fantastic upper midrange APS-C camera) and currently use a mix of the 16-50mm f/3.5-f/5.6 kit lens and a Sigma DC DN 30mm f/1.4 prime that I usually leave on due to its outstanding clarity.

 

But lately, I’ve been looking for a good zoom lens that’s versatile while also offering good image quality for a zoom lens while being relatively affordable as lenses go. While the Sony kit lens is functional, image quality is what I’d consider okay but I do want something that gives me more reach. That brings in the 2 lenses.

 

Now here’s my dilemma. In the US, these 2 are about $600 but over here, the SELP18105G is $500 while the SEL18135 is $600. I’ve done a lot of research on the 2 and have come up with the potential pros and cons of each.

 

SELP18105G

Pros;

- Constant minimum aperture of f/4.0 regardless of focal length 

- Relatively sharp for a zoom lens

- Great for video due to constant aperture and focus by wire 

 

Cons;

- Rather large in size 

- Focus by wire not ideal for photos as much as videos 

- Some chromatic abberation and distortion without a correction profile 

 

SEL18135

Pros;

- Wider range of focal lengths 

- Ever so slightly sharper than the SELP18105G

- Linear direct focusing ring (more ideal for photos than video)

- More compact and lighter 

 

Cons;

- $100 more expensive over here

- Has a variable minimum aperture between f/3.5 at the wider end and f/5.6 at the longest end 

- Corner sharpness not as strong as the SELP18105G, though not to a large degree 

 

So that’s all I’m able to come up with, so before ya’ll come with suggestions, I thought I describe my shooting style.

 

I’m much more of a photo-taker than a videographer. I particularly like landscape shots alongside product and macro photography. I personally am not big on corner sharpness as many of my subjects tend to be closer to the middle of the composition area anyhow. However, I am somewhat fussy about light and wanting the best out of any gear I use, hence why I usually carry a tripod.

 

Mind you, I’m not in any rush to get these lenses as they’re on the upper cusp of what I’d like to pay for, so I’m on the lookout for deals that bring the price of each down. 

[historicalpoultry]

I've had the 18-105 G for about three quarters of a year and sold it for the 16-70 f4. Not something that I would recommend since there is huge variance in the quality of the 16-70 and the price is very high. I got mine for around 550 and was extremely lucky to get a version with good enough quality. 

 

I wasn't such a huge fan of the 18-105, not because of it's site but because of it's image quality. In my opinion, this is only partially suited for photography. I found contrast fairly low and sharpness at f4 lacking. 

 

I've never handled the 18-135 so I can't say anything about that lens form experience but I think it's a fairly good lens accoridng to what I've seen.

 

Best thing for you to do would be to try them out a camera store and see for yourself. 

 

Cheers

[D13H4RD]

12 minutes ago, historicalpoultry said:

I wasn't such a huge fan of the 18-105, not because of it's site but because of it's image quality. In my opinion, this is only partially suited for photography. I found contrast fairly low and sharpness at f4 lacking. 

 

I've never handled the 18-135 so I can't say anything about that lens form experience but I think it's a fairly good lens accoridng to what I've seen.

I wouldn't expect quality which matches that of my Sigma out of either to be frank. It just has to be pretty sharp (noticeably sharper than the kit lens at least) whilst also being versatile. 

 

I usually shoot in bright light or on a tripod with apertures around f/8 as that's near the point where diffraction sets in on an APS-C 24.3MP sensor. 

 

Given your experience, I wouldn't be surprised as it looks to be more of a tool used by videographers due to the existence of a power zoom alongside a constant aperture at the widest end. The 18-135 seems like the better fit for me although that premium is kinda tough to swallow for now. 

 

There's still plenty of time for me to think about it. Maybe there will be deals coming? In the meantime, I could probably test these 2 out and see which ones work best. 

 

Thanks. 

[D13H4RD]

24 minutes ago, historicalpoultry said:

I've had the 18-105 G for about three quarters of a year and sold it for the 16-70 f4. Not something that I would recommend since there is huge variance in the quality of the 16-70 and the price is very high. I got mine for around 550 and was extremely lucky to get a version with good enough quality. 

Just to add, I've checked out the SEL1670Z and while quite a number have a lot of praise for it, it's way over budget (mentioned in your quote and also because no one sells these used over here) and as you said, the quality between different batches can vary quite significantly. (Also doesn't quite reach as far as I would've liked for versatility purposes). 

 

For a $1000 lens, I don't want to be chasing gremlins and playing the exchange game until I get a good one. So that unfortunately leaves it out, even if I could afford it. Such a shame too because the good ones have pretty darn good quality, especially for a zoom lens with a medium range of focal lengths. 

[cc143]

You are not going to get anywhere near the sharpness of the sigma with most quality zooms, let alone a superzoom that practically gives a 28-200mm range. The only superzoom I know that is actually ok and I might have considered buying is the 18-135mm by fuji, which is pretty great for a zoom, let alone a superzoom, but obviously that is not an option and the only reason I'm mentioning it is that the stars were aligned wuite a bit for that to happen.

 

I wouldn't be comfortable with anything that gives a longer range than a 24-105mm equivalent personally, and even then, I'm just willing to trade off carrying 2 lenses or more to cover the range, only if its a reasonale and constant aperture, or at least, if its gonna be variable, the narrow end being at f/4.0 or something.

 

Now, as far as your thing is concerned, have you thought about the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0DC adapted to Sony? I'm not sure it will work that well tbh, but if that is an option, it might be better all things considered.  

[D13H4RD]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

You are not going to get anywhere near the sharpness of the sigma with most quality zooms, let alone a superzoom that practically gives a 28-200mm range.

I wasn't expecting it to come close to my Sigma anyhow. It's a midrange zoom lens that isn't very expensive. While it is apparently pretty darn good for what it is, it ain't as sharp as a good prime, of which Sigma's recent offerings are. They're insane. 

 

What I wanted was something more adaptable whilst also being a few steps up in quality over the 16-50mm kit zoom. The 18-135mm seemed to fit that bill. 

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

Now, as far as your thing is concerned, have you thought about the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0DC adapted to Sony? I'm not sure it will work that well tbh, but if that is an option, it might be better all things considered.  

I was actually thinking about getting a Sigma MC-11 and a Sigma lens made for a Canon mount, but apparently, the Sony a6000 is extremely finicky with these adapters. The a6300 and a6500 play nicely though, which only higher power draw being a con. I'm not replacing a perfectly capable body just for an adapter, however. 

[cc143]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I wasn't expecting it to come close to my Sigma anyhow. It's a midrange zoom lens that isn't very expensive. While it is apparently pretty darn good for what it is, it ain't as sharp as a good prime, of which Sigma's recent offerings are. They're insane. 

 

What I wanted was something more adaptable whilst also being a few steps up in quality over the 16-50mm kit zoom. The 18-135mm seemed to fit that bill. 

I was actually thinking about getting a Sigma MC-11 and a Sigma lens made for a Canon mount, but apparently, the Sony a6000 is extremely finicky with these adapters. The a6300 and a6500 play nicely though, which only higher power draw being a con. I'm not replacing a perfectly capable body just for an adapter, however. 

That is true, anything before the a7rii was completely useless with most adapters, and even the a7rii wasn't that reliable, huge variance between lenses, may sto working abruptly etc.

 

Unfortunately though, Sony seem to have completely given up on their APS-c line, I'd look for a used 17-70 I can test out in some way or something like that, or even consider buying while travelling. Other than that, I'd go with the 18-105, because of the constant aperture.

[D13H4RD]

4 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Unfortunately though, Sony seem to have completely given up on their APS-c line, I'd look for a used 17-70 I can test out in some way or something like that, or even consider buying while travelling. Other than that, I'd go with the 18-105, because of the constant aperture.

I'm going to give both a test soon with my camera. 

 

I like the constant aperture on the SELP18105 but I prefer the reach and mechanical zoom of the SEL18135 since I'm more of a stills guy who defaults to f/8 in sunny conditions. 

 

I'm only glossing over what I've read and watched on reviews so far. Perhaps by testing them, I can actually come up with a decision. 

 

Pretty sad Sony is just leaving their APS-C line in the dust, especially since their bodies are immensely capable, especially when paired with good glass like the new Sigma primes. 

[cc143]

15 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I'm going to give both a test soon with my camera. 

 

I like the constant aperture on the SELP18105 but I prefer the reach and mechanical zoom of the SEL18135 since I'm more of a stills guy who defaults to f/8 in sunny conditions. 

 

I'm only glossing over what I've read and watched on reviews so far. Perhaps by testing them, I can actually come up with a decision. 

 

Pretty sad Sony is just leaving their APS-C line in the dust, especially since their bodies are immensely capable, especially when paired with good glass like the new Sigma primes. 

There's only a couple of decent sigma primes specifically for Sony  APS-C though, I would actually refrain from buying a huge zoom as i said, because I think the loss in iq is too much from a point on.

 

In fact, for an APS-C camera, I would only go with a 24-70mm f/2.8 equivalent. Hell, for my fuji I only have the 16mm 1.4 and 23mm and 50mm f/2 and I manage just fine for the purpose I use it for, which is travelling, walking around or going somewhere where my Canon is just too much of a fuss to carry.

 

Honestly, if you will really preclude the possibility of going FF in the future, then just go Fuji. I would even look into it in your position actually. The xt2 or xt20 could be had quite cheaply used, and an 18-135mm might be reachable with the amount you'd spend on the lens and proceeds from selling your kit...

[D13H4RD]

12 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Honestly, if you will really preclude the possibility of going FF in the future, then just go Fuji. I would even look into it in your position actually. The xt2 or xt20 could be had quite cheaply used, and an 18-135mm might be reachable with the amount you'd spend on the lens and proceeds from selling your kit...

That might be on the cards. Will have to consider it. 

 

That said, the reviews did say that the 18-105 alongside the 18-135 do have good (not great but better than the kit lens) IQ (mostly on the mid sections), but I'll still give them a test drive. 

 

It's nice to have the versatility, but I need to test them first. It's one thing to see gorgeous samples but it's another to actually take it out and test it. 

 

I already have a concern with the 18-135 and that's the pretty noticeable barrel distortion and vignetting at the widest end if left uncorrected. Capture One already has a correction profile for it, so I'm not too fazed but it's kinda concerning to me.

[cc143]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

That might be on the cards. Will have to consider it. 

 

That said, the reviews did say that the 18-105 alongside the 18-135 do have good (not great but better than the kit lens) IQ (mostly on the mid sections), but I'll still give them a test drive. 

 

It's nice to have the versatility, but I need to give them a test drive first. It's one thing to see gorgeous samples but it's another to actually take it out and test it. 

 

I already have a concern with the 18-135 and that's the pretty noticeable barrel distortion and vignetting at the widest end if left uncorrected. Capture One already has a correction profile for it, so I'm not too fazed but it's kinda concerning to me. Still have to test them. 

Well pretty much anything is sharper than the sony 16-50mm, it must be the worst lens I've ever tried, hell, my 18-55mm from Canon that came with my 350d was probably sharper than that pos.

[D13H4RD]

2 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Well pretty much anything is sharper than the sony 16-50mm, it must be the worst lens I've ever tried, hell, my 18-55mm from Canon that came with my 350d was probably sharper than that pos.

That's true, although in my case, it becomes quite a bit sharper at f/8. You do have to correct it however. Still not my favorite lens but surprisingly, others got good results out of what I still think is a lens that doesn't do the sensor justice. 

 

I did look for a 16-70 but only came up with that Zeiss one, which I can't find used over here no matter where I look, is way over budget brand-new and has Sony's now-notable variance in quality that causes even a $1000 lens to vary between okay to excellent depending on unit. 

 

 

[D13H4RD]

Looks like apart from that aforementioned Zeiss, only the FE ones have lenses in that range between 16 and 70.

 

Too bad that the ones that fit my requirements cost an arm, a leg and a chest. Oof

 

I sometimes wish Sigma made a good zoom lens for the E-Mount. sigh

 

It's not that Sony's offerings are bad. It's just that it deserves more good, affordable choices. 

[Bustapalapeno]

The 18-105 is, IMHO, a video lens first. The powerzoom is a little annoying for photography as it doesn't add anything and is slow and indirect. Constant F4 is nice, but doesn't really matter since for photography you can adjust with shutter speed or ISO more easily than in video. The 18-105 is also, according to other tests, much softer than the 18-135. I find this particular note very frustrating on my copy, but as a hybrid shooter it's my only zoom lens so I deal with it. I mostly shoot with primes for still photography anyway. 

 

 Bottom line, the 18-105 is designed for video, 4K video (8MP) at best, with photography as a second thought.

 

The 18-135 is a photography first lens that is also good for video, and is worth the extra cost. Just sell the kit and keep the 18-135 on. 

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, Bustapalapeno said:

The 18-105 is, IMHO, a video lens first. The powerzoom is a little annoying for photography as it doesn't add anything and is slow and indirect. Constant F4 is nice, but doesn't really matter since for photography you can adjust with shutter speed or ISO more easily than in video. The 18-105 is also, according to other tests, much softer than the 18-135. I find this particular note very frustrating on my copy, but as a hybrid shooter it's my only zoom lens so I deal with it. I mostly shoot with primes for still photography anyway. 

 

 Bottom line, the 18-105 is designed for video, 4K video (8MP) at best, with photography as a second thought.

 

The 18-135 is a photography first lens that is also good for video, and is worth the extra cost. Just sell the kit and keep the 18-135 on. 

Yeah, a lot of users have remarked that they mainly use the SELP18105G for video due to that power zoom and constant aperture.

 

I don’t take videos on my a6000 anyway (I’m primarily doing stills), so the more compact size and slightly better image quality from the SEL18135 is tempting.

 

And yeah, the kit lens will likely be put up for sale as it’s definitely getting replaced with this.

[D13H4RD]

Update.

 

One of my dad's friends has the SEL18135. I currently have it on my a6000 as we speak.

 

It's a pretty good performer. It's versatile and pictures are definitely sharper compared to the SELP1650. The 24-100mm range is where it seems to be happiest, with best results around the 77mm mark. There is significant barrel distortion and heavy vignetting at 18mm however, if left uncorrected. Capture One's profiles corrected it nicely, but you also lose a portion of the image at the widest end.

 

It's not something that I would pay $600 for in terms of overall IQ. It's a good versatile lens but obviously, they have had to compromise somewhere to make it so compact whilst having a large zoom range. With all that said, I found a white box version for $450. Ordered it and I'm going to put my kit lens on sale for around $100 or slightly less. 

[cc143]

5 hours ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

Update.

 

One of my dad's friends has the SEL18135. I currently have it on my a6000 as we speak.

 

It's a pretty good performer. It's versatile and pictures are definitely sharper compared to the SELP1650. The 24-100mm range is where it seems to be happiest, with best results around the 77mm mark. There is significant barrel distortion and heavy vignetting at 18mm however, if left uncorrected. Capture One's profiles corrected it nicely, but you also lose a portion of the image at the widest end.

 

It's not something that I would pay $600 for in terms of overall IQ. It's a good versatile lens but obviously, they have had to compromise somewhere to make it so compact whilst having a large zoom range. With all that said, I found a white box version for $450. Ordered it and I'm going to put my kit lens on sale for around $100 or slightly less. 

sure, if you give me $100 I'll take it off your hands, need a new paperweight;P

 

In all seriousness though, all the best with your purchase.