First shots with 18-135 IS STM, and first thoughts about the lens

My trusty 24-105L broke, after nine years of pretty heavy (and trouble-free) use. I kept getting Error 01 (communication error). I sent it to Canon, and got a quote of just under $400 for repairs. I decided to give a new 18-135 a try, for only about $160 more than the repair cost. My thinking was that I could try it out, and if I don't like it, return it to Amazon and get Canon to repair my 24-105. I took it out for a spin this morning, and so far, I'm quite pleased. I'll probably take some more shots before making a final decision, but it's looking like I'll be telling Canon to send me back the 24-105 unrepaired. The 18-135 is a bit shorter and a lot lighter than the 24-105, but it still feels pretty solid and well made. The main disadvantage is the variable aperture, which makes it slower over most of its range, but the IS is the latest version, and STM is excellent for video, if I ever shot any. I like the extra range, at both ends of the zoom. Here are a few samples, processed from RAW in Lightroom with my usual settings and some tweaking and cropping:

At 135mm you can get decent background separation wide open.

Another at 135 wide open

This one's at 18mm, which is fairly wide, but if I hadn't been testing this lens, I would probably have put on the 10-18 for this shot and gone for really wide.

I wasn't really testing the MFD. This just caught my eye. I think it can go a lot closer.

Something in the middle of the range (74mm). Mostly, I was at either end (18 or 135).

And another in the middle of the range (35mm).

Even at full zoom, this is a major crop (almost 100%), but at least the 7DII has lots of cropping room.

This is a less severe crop, but still significant.

Another landscape at the wide end.

This and the next shot show the difference between 18 and 135. I cropped about the same amount off the left of the frame in each shot (about 20%).

Of course the runner is slightly farther away in this shot.

Another mid-range (71mm) shot.

I wouldn't normally use this lens for runners--that's what the 70-200 is for--but it'll do in a pinch.

And I wouldn't normally use it for this sort of thing--that's what the 100L macro is for--but again, it'll do in a pinch.

So far I would say the lens has good sharpness, contrast, and color rendition, and is very versatile. The bokeh, while not stunning, seems at least as good as the 24-105. For $550, it seems like a pretty good deal.

I bought it with the 7DII as a kit.

From your shots I think I will be happy with it.

In the kit it came out to about $350.00 for the lens.

Nice photos! The 18-135 is looking good. The photo of the iris shows that it's pretty good for closeups, and that photo also shows me that the 7dMkII is now a helluva good all-rounder in addition to being the greatest camera for action and wildlife. You also have a good eye. Your photos are pleasant to look at.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the dog photo. It made me laugh... you really caught the zany look that dogs get when they are having fun. I hope he is yours. Wish he was mine.

Agreed with your impression of the 18-135STM. Great one-lens solution. I never saw much point in using a 24-105L over it when I had the T4i.

I sold off the T4i some months ago, but I kept the 18-135STM since I plan to re-buy an APS-C body at some point, and nothing else on the market today has the right mix of convenience and IQ (except maybe 15-85, but that thing is too expensive).

snofox wrote:

Nice photos! The 18-135 is looking good. The photo of the iris shows that it's pretty good for closeups, and that photo also shows me that the 7dMkII is now a helluva good all-rounder in addition to being the greatest camera for action and wildlife. You also have a good eye. Your photos are pleasant to look at.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the dog photo. It made me laugh... you really caught the zany look that dogs get when they are having fun. I hope he is yours. Wish he was mine.

Thanks Pete. No, the dog isn't mine. My wife and I are more cat people. But I certainly enjoy looking at and photographing other people's dogs.

I've been using this lens for the last three days now, and it's definitely a keeper. Here are a few more samples:

Obligatory cat picture. That expression means "I can't believe you bought yet another lens."

Some macro(ish) shots. Not true macro, of course, but certainly good enough for flowers. The minimum focus distance is 15.35", which is more than two inches closer than the 24-105L. Combined with a longer maximum focal length, this means that the maximum magnification is a bit more than the 24-105L.

This is a fun bear carving in a local tree (there are actually several animals carved into the tree)

The more I try it, the more I think this lens works very well as a casual portrait lens. F5.6 at 135mm gives enough background separation, without having the DOF so razor thin that only one eye is in focus (I generally prefer portraits where you can tell what's in the background, while having enough blur to separate it).

Obligatory arty B&W shot.

In the Netherlands it's 339 euro/378,39 usd incl. all taxes

All images here are made with this lens
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157652806614140

and most images here with 100D in the title as well
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157634388169649

For the price I paid, around 315 eu, last year it's a perfect lens.

FD wrote:

In the Netherlands it's 339 euro/378,39 usd incl. all taxes

All images here are made with this lens
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157652806614140

and most images here with 100D in the title as well
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bigwade/sets/72157634388169649

For the price I paid, around 315 eu, last year it's a perfect lens.

Really nice work FD. It just goes to show, you don't need a full frame camera (or even a current generation APS-C camera) and a $1000 lens to produce great landscapes. You do need some talent, though, which you obviously have.

Thank You !