18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 vs 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6

[pwp]

Usually my lens and body purchases involve 1-Series & L glass but as a very lightweight alternative travel camera I've been intrigued by the tiny SL-1/100D. For my shooting style I'd have the DSLR advantage ahead of a mirrorless.

If I went with a kit lens, how good is the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is stm vs the ef-s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is stm? I have absolutely no experience with either.

-PW

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Usually my lens and body purchases involve 1-Series & L glass but as a very lightweight alternative travel camera I've been intrigued by the tiny SL-1/100D. For my shooting style I'd have the DSLR advantage ahead of a mirrorless.

If I went with a kit lens, how good is the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is stm vs the ef-s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is stm? I have absolutely no experience with either.

-PW

According to Photozone tests, the STM 18-55 has far superior picture quality, although plastic bayonet.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/776-canon_18135_3556stmis

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis

 

[cellomaster27]

I have the SL1 and the 18-55mm STM. It's good, but I can't give you any opinion on which is better.. but I like the 18-55mm STM... I used to have a 18-55mm IS version and it SUCKED. I wanted to smash it. Comparitively, a world of difference. The zoom and focus rings are very smooth and video works well. Besides that, the 18-55mm is way cheaper leaving you cash to spend on a prime (40mm, 50mm, 85mm)!

If this isn't your first dslr, I don't know if you really want the 18-55mm. Investing in good quality glass is worth it in the long run. Just saying.

 

[aroo]

Since you're talking about a travel camera, the 18-135 range is much, much more useful than 18-55. I used to rock a T2i with 18-135 (before STM was introduced) in minimum-gear situations. I kept realistic expectations and was very pleased. With either lens, the IQ isn't what you're used to seeing through L's. At least 18-135 is a good amount of coverage.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Since you're talking about a travel camera, the 18-135 range is much, much more useful than 18-55. I used to rock a T2i with 18-135 (before STM was introduced) in minimum-gear situations. I kept realistic expectations and was very pleased. With either lens, the IQ isn't what you're used to seeing through L's. At least 18-135 is a good amount of coverage.

One option is 18-55 STM + 100F2 USM. Still very small and light..

 

[pwp]

Yes thanks for the viewpoints, those basic kit lenses could disappoint. Maybe I should be looking at something like the ef-s 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is to bolt onto the SL1/Rebel-100D. Could be a very sweet, lightweight travel combo. The ef-s 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is seems to review pretty well.

-PW

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The original 18-55mm was not that good. The 18-55mm IS was a optically good lens, just low cost build. The STM version has a better build quality.

The 18-135mm IS isn't known for its stellar IQ, the STM version is much better, as well as more expensive. I'd only get the STM version of the 18-135.

 

[batotman]

I have both the 18-55 STM and 18-135 STM. Both are pretty similar in image quality. I don't often use the 18-55 because I feel it is a bit restrictive. My 18-135 STM is on my T4i 90% of the time.

 

[aroo]

EF-S 15-85mm has very nice saturation and contrast, plus a truly wide wide angle. It's solidly built and pretty heavy -- much more robust than the kit lenses.

 

[Haydn1971]

Agreed, the 15-85mm is a great lens, especially for travel, it's slightly heavy but not L heavy ;-)

Paired with a 100D/SL1 would make a great travel combo and useful for 95% of holiday shots... I'd also shove a low f stop prime in ya bag too, I'm sure you have one already !

 

[Bruce 101]

I have both the 18-55 STM and the 18-135 STM. Have used both extensively on my SL-1.

I have not done any real testing side by side on my own but both lenses produce quite nice IQ.

Have been trying to sell the 18-55 STM - not an easy thing to do because most people who want it already got it with the kit. Others do not seem to be understanding of the significant difference between the older IS version of the 18-55 (without STM) and the STM version - or they figure it's not worth paying extra money for or upgrading for or video is not an issue for them. I will probably be stuck with the 18-55 STM gathering dust.

The 18-135 STM has really been great (and nearly glued) on my SL-1. To match the range on my 5DIII, I would need to pull out the 24-105 plus the 70-200 f/2.8 and an external flash. The latter combo would produce better images, of course, but the places I'd go with that combo are far fewer.

The 18-135 STM compares very favorably to the 15-85 IS though many would miss the extra wide range on the latter lens. I would rather have the extra range on the long side.

The 15-85 seems to have a bit more purple fringe @85mm and the sharpness of each lens appears, to my eye, to be about the same. The 15-85 is $150 more. And I don't see the attraction of it on the SL 1 anyway - or the extra 105g in weight.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=809&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

 

[alexturton]

I personally wouldn't get either. I would go with the 40mm pancake which is a fantastic lens