|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on January 08, 2016 Pros: Range of focal lengths, bayonet metal (if at this price is a considerable pro) Cons: Sharpness, brightness, overall performance Opinion: Taken with the 1200D kit, probably my not be a good example. I have constant and continuous problems in the out of focus images. Brightness separately (diaphragms are specified in the name, so you know what you buy) also suffers terribly slight drop in brightness. Sharpness least in my model that leaves terribly to be desired (compared with 75-300 and the gap between the two is enormous). Backlight to avoid, suffer enough problems flare He also suffers (at least my model) of strong chromatic aberrations. Vignetting quite clearly marked to F3.5 but nothing uncorrectable post. My advice is that if you want a zoom handyman, you should aim for another (24-105 F4 used). Lastly, it tends to accumulate dust in the internal lens. |
 | sent on April 29, 2015 Pros: clarity in relation to focal length - construction - Price Cons: none for the excursion and high price of used Opinion: Much, much better than the canon 18 200. I used the lens for a couple of years as a handyman from viaggio.Nitidezza less than all zoom 17-50 but almost better than canon 18 55. Compact with a zoom range apt. Price of used advantageous because it was included in the kit of various reflex. How handyman still always recommend the Tamron 17 50 smooth. |
 | sent on December 20, 2014 Pros: Focal comfortable, good construction, nuts comfortable, good stabilization Cons: sharpness little more than discreet, dim, focusing slow. Opinion: There is little to say, I have used this in mind several times in the events, is an optical fairly quiet, very comfortable to use, has a good zoom range, in the portraits is quite good, especially when used with today's APSC, would not recommend it for night photos because the stabilization is good but remains a lens very dark, like a little all the "f 3.5" canon of the house, it does not seem very durable as it is very plasticky, for macro and landscapes maybe traveling is not evil. |
 | sent on October 30, 2014 Pros: compact all-rounder. Cons: Poor quality materials, obvious vignetting at full length, when shooting "vertical" or hold the stock market does not stand still. Opinion: How many goals to be set, it is clear that one can not expect a great goal. It 'was my first when I was less than beginner. He went with the 60D and the beginning I found it bad, as I have pretty good until I swapped with a 24-70 L series used. The move was traumatic (in a good way), as is normal since we are talking of one of the best optical L.rnI defects that were riscontravo immediately vignetting to 135 mm above and the fact that when I tried to make pictures with the machine "low" to 18mm because I could hardly objective "down" and could not keep up. Brought to the store, they told me it was a fault of all. So much so that the seller I opened another making me notice the defect. But nothing so grave.rnDa discard? Maybe not. For those who have claims is an effective all-rounder. I see it more objectively from entry level used in an absolutely beginner. For those who want to make good scenery, good pictures and some experiments. rnIl seems to be the newimproved slightly moist. |
user47418  | sent on June 23, 2014 Pros: Ditto Canon 18-200 IS. Cons: Ditto Canon 18-200 IS. Opinion: The opinion on the Canon 18-135 IS is similar to that already externalized on the Canon 18-200 IS. In essence, a good quality lens with some limit, which can be improved by optimizing the parameters of the camera shooting. Great for travelers. A flaw in the Canon is not forgivable, not only in the habit of not providing its hood along with the goals (which generally do other manufacturers), but also to make them pay much more than the real value. |
  | sent on May 13, 2013 Pros: I can not see many pros. Let's say between 20-30mm and 80-90mm, allows you to take home photos acceptable to work in post. Cons: Plasticone, from the feeling of being rather fragile. Rather cumbersome. Unclear, bad contrasts. AF so slow as to be frustrating. Opinion: If Canon had been limited to make something like a 30-80mm f / 3.5-4.5, at 2/3 the weight, footprint and price ... certainly would not have been a spectacular lens but would serve better as a kit lens, helping especially the amateurs to beginners. The feeling is that Canon has made this lens design and assemble in the marketing department ... |
 | sent on February 19, 2013 Pros: Focal-length-size and weight-stabilized Cons: Sharpen-focal suffering of the most extreme Opinion: And 'the lens that I took kit, certainly not very good sharpness but its focal length is really interesting, unfortunately over the 85mm/100mm its performance declines substantially and 18mm unpleasant distortion, all in all for the darkened focal standing between f8 and f16 you get good shots, instead of at room temperature and is always too soft and not very utilizzabile.rnLa construction is a bit plasticky and not very strong but very aprezzo its light weight, and I find it convenient to carry short trips. And 'ideal for those taking their first steps and wants to become familiar with the various lengths focali.In affiancherò the future with more lenses-performing but I am convinced that "all do, in one way or another, it will be useful for a variety of situations . |
 | sent on January 03, 2013 Pros: focal width. Cons: value for very low price. chromatic aberrations apparent even with the lens hood, lens hood is not as standard as all economic and canon lenses, the lens extends into the bag. lack of sharpness. AF fast but significantly inaccurate. sharpness never exciting Opinion: Convenient for travel, lightweight and versatile. But the quality is very low, possibly the worst lens Canon released in recent years. Suffers much the backlight, even if the images can be corrected in post production is still a hassle. Makes so much purple fringing that the photos seem taken from a movie to watch with the glasses blue and red ;). Better than the classic pairing 18-55 55-250 more. Suitable only for those entering the world of photography or who does not like change optics. |
 | sent on December 02, 2012 Pros: Lightweight wide zoom range of building good quality Cons: At this price range I do not see Opinion: This objective has a good value for the price, I think that in this price range has no rival, if he is compared to targets with a price twice as high and normal that some fault lies but remember that there is a kit for 280 euro I challenge you to find another product with the same features at the same price of other brands. Good all-rounder. |
 | sent on October 03, 2012 Pros: Focal Good coverage, size and weight, price (if KIT) Cons: Build quality mediocre zoom mechanism that extends itself if positioned downwards, sharpness only discrete Opinion: A decent all-round lens, taken with the 7D kit, for use with other Canon APS-C (7D deserves another). Good coverage of focal lengths from wide-angle to telephoto not pushed, my copy has a zoom mechanism very flaccid, but Canon said it's okay. Going back would take maybe a 18-200 which covers more focal with the same quality, it has the lock transport for zooming, and as a quality equivalent. Excellent for machine type 1100D and 600D, 60D and 7D I think of monsters its limits. The price is right for the type of lens if taken in KIT, purchased separately as I said better to invest 100-150 Euros more for the 18-200. |
 | sent on August 06, 2012 Pros: Light, "handyman", stabilizer Cons: AF slow, chromatic aberration evident Unclear Opinion: is a good all-rounder for the first steps in photography, still better than 18-55. Purchased in a kit with the 60D, but after a few months I get the error in agreement quest'obbiettivo, f has a slow that only sometimes in very good condition it is fast, the aberration is very obvious and ruin the 18 Megapixels my 60D being blurry! serves only entry in the photograph, then be changed with a better lens in my opinion! |
 | sent on June 01, 2012 Pros: Good zoom range, light, good in low light AF discreet, good value for money. Cons: Several things (barrel distortion, vignetting, AC, non-leading sharpness, noise AF ..) but if you think the price and the fact that 'often the first target handyman .. Opinion: When I bought my first SLR the world to me and 'changed ... the first photos taken with the 18-135 seemed already fantastic, and in fact with due attention is very good .. let me see what focal use more and that I would need in certain situations more than lungo.Man hand you experience you begin to notice the flaws and everyone in between, for me, not excellent sharpness that I care, but 'value for money (if used on sptt € 200) and' very good. Council with the aim to start or how to "almost" all-rounder. |
| sent on May 17, 2012 Pros: Good build quality, large focal range, fast AF Cons: Not USM, Sharpness, price (if not in kit) Opinion: This was my first goal, which was purchased in a kit with a 60D. Allows you to do a bit 'of everything and it's great to train and familiarize yourself with the various lengths. Does not shine in terms of sharpness, but otherwise makes for great photos, the AF is fast and accurate. Pity about the lack of USM and Full Time MF, remains a great lens and I would recommend it to all the people who have in view the purchase of a camera kit with a good goal. |
| sent on December 12, 2011 Pros: Small and lightweight, focal length range from "handyman", effective stabilizer, AF fast enough if there is not enough light, proposed target at a good price with the camera body Cons: Chromatic aberrations quite substantial, sometimes faint Opinion: I purchased the kit lens with my 550D and I must say that for a beginner like me carries out its job of "handyman". Of course, the sharpness is not record-breaking, it is not bright and the AF is in trouble when there is little light (nothing serious though) but the price is competitive, and the focal length is generous and avoids having to change very often 'goal. In addition, closing the aperture a bit and taking in light conditions you can get decent shots really deserving. I recommend buying especially with the camera body (so you save on the purchase price) instead of the less versatile 18-55, if I could go back I definitely riprenderei. Great start to take its first steps into the world of photography. |
user5222 | sent on October 01, 2011 Pros: Enough light. A little noisy. Cons: AF is not as fast, vignetting, and chromatic aberration too present. Lack of USM Opinion: My first goal, had a kit with the Canon 60D. After you become familiar with the focal lengths this lens allows you, can not wait to switch to a higher quality. The absence of the USM is heard and autofocus in low light conditions not too sometimes is not immediate. I think the value for money is not the best at what price they are slow (non-Canon) much better than 18-135. The only value I found in this lens is that it has allowed me to become familiar with the various focal lengths associated with different openings. These objectives are designed just for these first uses of an SLR, even when you have no idea of ??what will be the most commonly used focal lengths. |
 | sent on September 25, 2011 Pros: Lightweight, good range of focal lengths and image quality more than acceptable, AF fast enough Cons: Vignetting and chromatic aberrations Opinion: Compared to how I had described, the 18-135 is a good all-rounder. Good image quality, built strong enough and fast AF (no USM). It has a little 'vignetting at short focal (18-35) and above 100 mm. In backlight conditions aberrations are consistent, but perfectly corrected in post-production. In short, a good all-rounder for those who are just starting out with photography. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
