EF-S 18-135mm STM as a "walkaround"?

[moushu]

Hi all,
are there any fans of the EF-S 18-135 STM out there?
I'm thinking about it as a holiday "walkaround" lens - y'know, as a single lens instead of a bagload?
How much would it be a compromise on quality?
Anything in particular to watch out for with it?
Ta

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon 18-135 STM is a pretty decent lens for general use. Below is the comparison with Canon 15-85mm.

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

 

[TeT]

Canon 18-135 STM is a pretty decent lens for general use. Below is the comparison with Canon 15-85mm.

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

The EFS 18 135 STM gives some IQ to the EFS 15 85 & the EFS 17 55; but the extra 50mm on the long end is great, there is nothing wrong with this lens.

 

[moushu]

Thank you - sounds ok then - will investigate

 

[LonelyBoy]

Thank you - sounds ok then - will investigate

I'll add my voice - it measures slightly worse than the 15-85, which has MUCH more vocal fans, but the 18-135 STM can be had for significantly less than the 15-85 (I got mine for $240, I think). I've rarely wanted to go wider (once or twice), but the added reach is very welcome on the long end. The distortion can be readily fixed with LR. For me, for a slow aperture walkaround lens, I'll take the bigger zoom range and lower price.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the IS on the 18-135 STM is better than on the 15-85, given its newer design.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon 18-135 STM is a pretty decent lens for general use. Below is the comparison with Canon 15-85mm.

Hmmyes, seems pretty close - but the 15-18 range is way more important than a bit more zoom as you can alway "crop to zoom", but cannot get wider if you cannot physically step back with the camera. And remember there's more than sharpness to a lens - color rendition, bokeh, build quality... look at in-depth reviews of both these lenses.

But for the zoom range alone, as a "walkaround" w/o having to change lenses, I'd still go for the 15-85 which would have been my choice if I wouldn't have upgraded to full frame.

 

[unfocused]

...but the 15-18 range is way more important than a bit more zoom as you can always "crop to zoom", but cannot get wider if you cannot physically step back with the camera.

I agree. That 3mm at the wide end is very significant. If you primarily shoot stills, I'd go with the 15-85, unless you never shoot wide.

If you shoot video, the 18-135 might be a better choice with its optimized for video IS.

Finally, I'd wager a bet that the 15-85 is a sturdier lens. It's heavy and mine has endured a lot of banging around without any damage. Be aware though, it's also notorious for some serious zoom creep, if that sort of thing bothers you.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

Canon 18-135 STM is a pretty decent lens for general use. Below is the comparison with Canon 15-85mm.

Hmmyes, seems pretty close - but the 15-18 range is way more important than a bit more zoom as you can alway "crop to zoom", but cannot get wider if you cannot physically step back with the camera. And remember there's more than sharpness to a lens - color rendition, bokeh, build quality... look at in-depth reviews of both these lenses.

But for the zoom range alone, as a "walkaround" w/o having to change lenses, I'd still go for the 15-85 which would have been my choice if I wouldn't have upgraded to full frame.

I have to disagree with you on this the 18-135 is a great lens for walk around yes you lose on the wide end 3ml but the lens is tack sharp for a kit lens not too slow on focus silent
lens lock on the 18mm side I used to use a 20-35 zoom and a 28-135 zoom on my ti1 its a very useful range for city. the lens performs well in even low light but that's on a 70d body

 

[ritholtz]

...but the 15-18 range is way more important than a bit more zoom as you can always "crop to zoom", but cannot get wider if you cannot physically step back with the camera.

I agree. That 3mm at the wide end is very significant. If you primarily shoot stills, I'd go with the 15-85, unless you never shoot wide.

If you shoot video, the 18-135 might be a better choice with its optimized for video IS.

Finally, I'd wager a bet that the 15-85 is a sturdier lens. It's heavy and mine has endured a lot of banging around without any damage. Be aware though, it's also notorious for some serious zoom creep, if that sort of thing bothers you.

18-135 is also built nice with metal mount. I never heard any comments on it about build issues. It has zoom lock as well. I read about zoom creep issue with 15-85 and 17-55 lens.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I've had the 18-135 for about 5 months. Got it as a kit with a refurbished T5i to use as my travel camera and for video. I've ended up using it as a walkabout lens as well. No lens creep at all, so I don't need to use the lock. Love the long zoom range. Seems to focus fast.

Today I used it as a pretty fair macro lens to photograph another lens that I put on Ebay. If you could only have one lens, this might be a good choice.

If you are OK with the rather small aperture, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Thank you - sounds ok then - will investigate

I'll add my voice - it measures slightly worse than the 15-85, which has MUCH more vocal fans, but the 18-135 STM can be had for significantly less than the 15-85 (I got mine for $240, I think). I've rarely wanted to go wider (once or twice), but the added reach is very welcome on the long end. The distortion can be readily fixed with LR. For me, for a slow aperture walkaround lens, I'll take the bigger zoom range and lower price.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the IS on the 18-135 STM is better than on the 15-85, given its newer design.

I had the two focal lenghts before: the 15-85 and the non-STM 18-135 and I stayed with the first one because I found 18mm in APS-C to be not wide enough for my travel needs. I prefer to walk and get closer. But it's just my preference because both lenses are quite good for travel.

 

[moushu]

Well, I've plumped for the 18-135
And have been enjoying walking around with it so far.
As it's been lovely weather the last couple of days, have been out & about with it - took this today, and very pleased with it too!
https://500px.com/photo/104093379/spring!-by-marlon-cole[/ur

 

[Berty Rampkin]

I have an 18-135STM and its great for outdoor walkaround photography. Only place you'll stuggle is when the light drops (indoors)
24-105 maybe a little better in low light at F4, but not so good at the wide end, 24 i found just wasnt wide enough on a crop.
Personally for any one lens (photo only) i would go with 17-50 2.8 (sigma) You may struggle with Zooming but stopping down to 2.8 and low light should give some pleasing results (although zoomed in with STM at 135 gives some real nice compression and bokeh too.

 

[Luds34]

I've used both. I own the 15-85 and my sister has the 18-135 STM. Both have been used on those trips where you are packing really light, a Rebel and one zoom.

Both are sharp, fast focusing lenses that can produce great images. The color/contrast might be a tad better on the 15-85, but that is just my subjective, non scientific feel. I haven't used them side by side so it could have been the different environments.

Personally I prefer the zoom range of the 15-85. 15mm (24mm FF equiv) is a big jump from 18mm on the wide end. Can be useful shooting landscape shots, or indoor architecture shots. But as others have said, it's a personal thing. Some may prefer having the longer reach instead.

One small point, the 18-135 STM is not parfocal. It's not a big deal, but I find it annoying that the instance you change zoom range the view is out of focus. Also, I prefer the USM over the STM. And the 15-85 does have a heavier, better build quality feel to it. The STM is well, a kit lens.

Don't really think one can go wrong with either. But I give an edge to the 15-85 and I was able to get mine used for $400 in perfect condition so I was quite happy. But certainly no big complaints over the 18-135 for a long weekend I used it in NYC.