about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Matt Hancock  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Matt Hancock to your Buddy List
Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED DX AF-S

18-135dx
Review Date: Feb 17, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: cheap
Cons:
cheap

Bought as a replacement for the 18-55 D40 kit lens. Also bought to replace the TWO 24-120 AFS VR lens I bought and returned (both soft and Nikon advising "There is not a 'softness' problem with the above lens, there can be variations in overall performance between different focal length lens,whether they be zoom or prime lenses;this is normal optical physics." Regardless, the 24-120 was less sharp than the kit lens throughout the range.

So, back to the 18-135, I love it. Faster to focus than the 18-55, more solidly built (but still plasticy). Pictures clear and sharp. A little distortion at the wide end.

Overall, this lens cost me less than 1/3rd the price of the 18-200VR so I am happy.


 
Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR

2145NCP_180
Review Date: Sep 20, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 3 

 
Pros: Reasonably priced, good range, very good build quality, VR.
Cons:
NOT sharp.

I bought this as a replacement for the D40 kit lens (DX 18-55). The 'tests' I did at the shop looked promising....

However, after a few weeks with the lens I have yet to get a sharp picture. Sharpness is worse than the kit lens.

Now, at this point I thought I had bought a dud, so I rang around, and respected camera stores in New Zealand had the following to say "we have had the odd soft one" and "the ones we have had are never sharp". Perhaps New Zealand is Nikon's dumping ground for bad lense?

I really like everything about theis lens APART from the images it gives. I'm taking it back to the store and swapping for a AFS 18-135, hoping for a big improvement.