Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

It's difficult to write this review without substantial bias and background, but the best way to write this review is to speak from experience.

I got this lens with the Nikon D80, which many people have cited (somewhat accurately) as among the most notorious for soft images. (I do have objections to that, and I do say that a great prime lens such as the 50mm f/1.8 produces very sharp images.) The camera I received had focus problems; after fixing them, the problem was somewhat corrected, but I'm willing to consider the possibility that I got a bad copy of the lens.

While problems can vary from copy to copy, some problems are bred by design. The pincushion distortion is prominent all the way down the barrel. It's most noticeable in cityscapes and any other subject material composed of straight lines, and after five months and more than 2,500 pictures, I see the distortion in some of my nature photography, as well. As you've likely seen in the customer image gallery, the lens does perform well in spite of (and, in a few cases, because of) the distortion. But more often than not, the distortion is less than aesthetic; while there are lenses that barrel-distort an image for aesthetic effect, this is not one of them.

Unfortunately, Photoshop can't adequately fix many of the images that suffer from the distortion. There's only so much distortion that can be corrected, and the 18-135mm lens frequently meets or surpasses that limit. The easiest pictures to correct are those in which the subject is far away, but if the images have objects in the more immediate foreground, I can't fix the image well without significantly distorting those objects.

Nevertheless, there is minor compensation at the very least. A feature under CS3's Filter > Distort > Lens Correction compensates for some of the distortion. For total control, I use Edit > Transform > Perspective, and I use the "Switch between free transform and warp modes" to bring up a grid that enables me to "pull" sections of the image. But there's only so much an image can be corrected without making it worse, and the lens tend to produce images that surpass the limit.

The bokeh in this lens is a significant issue, as well. The lens does a poor job blurring the background; spots of light are not blurred out smoothly, and many highlights show a great amount of detail. To my eye, it's the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. My prime lens produces good bokeh, and using it as a comparison to the 18-135mm has helped me understand how critical bokeh is to a picture. Fortunately, Photoshop can compensate if I add a mask, completely blur out the background image, and paint over the parts of the image that are supposed to be sharp. But it's frustrating to have a lens that doesn't get good bokeh directly after I fire the shutter. There's only so much an image can be doctored before it becomes blatantly obvious.

Chromatic aberration is a minor issue with this lens, especially in low-light situations. For example, one of my lightning pictures shows a considerable blue fringing around the power pole and a lot of red fringing around the lightning strikes. But when it comes right down to it, chromatic aberration borders on splitting hairs, especially since the optics were never destined to be professional-caliber. Plus, chromatic aberration is nicely remedied by Photoshop's RAW tools, and uncorrected aberration is not obvious when I zoom out the image, anyway.

Because I received this as a kit lens, I investigated this and other lenses well after buying the camera. I learned most of the pros and cons just as I was shooting pictures. One of the major pros is the focal length; the low 18mm and the high 135mm zoom appear great practically and logistically. Another major pro is the width; not many kit lenses boast of a 67mm diameter. Perhaps the biggest pro in my book is the minimum focusing distance; eighteen inches on a zoom lens gives me a useful macro to work with.

Granted, this lens has a lot of great features that look appealing on paper, but the cons can render those features null and void. The lens works great as a kit lens and outperforms many kit lenses on the market, but if you have the opportunity to buy the camera body separately and purchase a higher-quality lens down the road, you will likely consider the extra money well spent.

So now you've got your Nikon DLSR and you've read the books and seen the videos. Wow your camera does all sorts of things. Three months later you are still taking all kinds of great pictures but you notice that 95% of the time the camera is in Auto mode. Welcome to the real world of photography. And that bag with all that stuff you just had to have ? Yeah, six months later you see that only dorks and noobs carry that crap around. So you only want one lens on your rig and some kind of filter- lens caps are silly too when outside. So which one lens ? Well The Nikon 18-200 would be the way to go, but maybe you don't want to drop $600 on a lens. So the next choice is this lens. At half the price its a great lens to leave on all the time. You won't miss the reach of the 200mm that much. Just be careful when you buy from Amazon shopping. Half the places selling are selling gray market. refurbs, demos , used , etc. You gotta read the fine print. Have fun.

This lens is versatile. If the lighting is good it produces decent images. It's not very fast, but sufficient for my use (very basic) most of the time. The extra zoom is very handy but I've noticed when the lighting is a bit low (e.g., outdoor early evening), the pictures come out way too dark.

I used this lens lightly for about 1.5 year before I took it off to try the new 50mm lens I got for Christmas. 6 months later I put this lens back on the camera and it wouldn't focus. During the 6 months it was not used it was just sitting on my desk. I don't know how it could be broken! Now I have to send it back to Nikon for repair and it won't be back on time for a big trip coming up. So now I am looking for a new lens. I am seriously considering the 18-200vr lens. If you have the extra few hundred dollars, I say get the 18-200vr lens. Otherwise stick with the standard kit lens and save up the money for the 18-200vr lens.

After buying the Nikon 18-135 lens and also the lowest price from any website from ebay to Amazon this is now my everyday lens that I use. Thanks for the great price and a quality product.

I love my 18-135 Nikon lens. I find it works for about everything I take pictures of. There are very few times I take it off. A great purchase for my everyday use. [...].