EFS 18-135 IS STM vs. M 18-150

I have used both not on the same camera. The 18-135 I used on a DSLR the Canon 100D. The 18-150 I'm using currently on my M50 and I feel the  18-150 is a better lens but it's not a night and day difference.To be honest I wouldn't contemplate using an adapted  18-135 on an M camera as it would be too front heavy.

PerfectMark wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

I have used both not on the same camera. The 18-135 I used on a DSLR the Canon 100D. The 18-150 I'm using currently on my M50 and I feel the 18-150 is a better lens but it's not a night and day difference.To be honest I wouldn't contemplate using an adapted 18-135 on an M camera as it would be too front heavy.

Unless you got that 18-135 fairly recently, I am guessing it is the previous model and not the latest 18-135 nanoUSM/STM though.

I personally use the nanoUSM 18-135 on my M6ii, it is a bit heavy, but my hands get used to it. Never saw any reason to change it and would be very surprised if the 18-150 is any better (considering the 18-150 is a smaller lens and you have to make compromises to make it smaller). .

The OP asked about the second version the STM and  that was the context of my reply. The only compromise between them is the 18-150 is slower on the wide but it does have the advantage that it is a native system lens that needs no adapter,is less bulky and better balanced on the camera.

shuutrr wrote:

Thank you everyone for your replies.

They seem to be level in IQ, or, at least the 150 matches the 135 in IQ.

That so, the native mount and size advantages of the 150 seal the deal.

For an especially enjoyable walk around kit.

The overall size advantage of the high performance M6 II and M mounts is just undeniably fun.

shuutrr

The thing with the 18-150 is that it does require DLO or DXO Studio to get the most of it.

Simply because of the size, there's a little more on the way of compromises made.

Other than that, it's one of my favorite EF-M lenses. I'll easily sacrifice a bit of absolute IQ that I'll most likely never need ( or I'll use DLO) for a much much more pleasant kit to use.

rrc1967 wrote:

shuutrr wrote:

Thank you everyone for your replies.

They seem to be level in IQ, or, at least the 150 matches the 135 in IQ.

That so, the native mount and size advantages of the 150 seal the deal.

For an especially enjoyable walk around kit.

The overall size advantage of the high performance M6 II and M mounts is just undeniably fun.

shuutrr

The thing with the 18-150 is that it does require DLO or DXO Studio to get the most of it.

Simply because of the size, there's a little more on the way of compromises made.

Other than that, it's one of my favorite EF-M lenses. I'll easily sacrifice a bit of absolute IQ that I'll most likely never need ( or I'll use DLO) for a much much more pleasant kit to use.

Interesting . I've never felt the need to run DLO but then again I'm of  the mindset that if an image is successful a little bit of extra sharpeness is not going to add anything and if an image isn't successful it ain't going to matter anyway.

Dareshooter wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

shuutrr wrote:

Thank you everyone for your replies.

They seem to be level in IQ, or, at least the 150 matches the 135 in IQ.

That so, the native mount and size advantages of the 150 seal the deal.

For an especially enjoyable walk around kit.

The overall size advantage of the high performance M6 II and M mounts is just undeniably fun.

shuutrr

The thing with the 18-150 is that it does require DLO or DXO Studio to get the most of it.

Simply because of the size, there's a little more on the way of compromises made.

Other than that, it's one of my favorite EF-M lenses. I'll easily sacrifice a bit of absolute IQ that I'll most likely never need ( or I'll use DLO) for a much much more pleasant kit to use.

Interesting . I've never felt the need to run DLO but then again I'm of the mindset that if an image is successful a little bit of extra sharpeness is not going to add anything and if an image isn't successful it ain't going to matter anyway.

DLO isn't "sharpness" it's about computational corrections.

rrc1967 wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

shuutrr wrote:

Thank you everyone for your replies.

They seem to be level in IQ, or, at least the 150 matches the 135 in IQ.

That so, the native mount and size advantages of the 150 seal the deal.

For an especially enjoyable walk around kit.

The overall size advantage of the high performance M6 II and M mounts is just undeniably fun.

shuutrr

The thing with the 18-150 is that it does require DLO or DXO Studio to get the most of it.

Simply because of the size, there's a little more on the way of compromises made.

Other than that, it's one of my favorite EF-M lenses. I'll easily sacrifice a bit of absolute IQ that I'll most likely never need ( or I'll use DLO) for a much much more pleasant kit to use.

Interesting . I've never felt the need to run DLO but then again I'm of the mindset that if an image is successful a little bit of extra sharpeness is not going to add anything and if an image isn't successful it ain't going to matter anyway.

DLO isn't "sharpness" it's about computational corrections.

Yes I know but it does add sharpening. What other corrections do feel the need to make that you stated that you might never need. Not trying to argue here,just curious .

Dareshooter wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

shuutrr wrote:

Thank you everyone for your replies.

They seem to be level in IQ, or, at least the 150 matches the 135 in IQ.

That so, the native mount and size advantages of the 150 seal the deal.

For an especially enjoyable walk around kit.

The overall size advantage of the high performance M6 II and M mounts is just undeniably fun.

shuutrr

The thing with the 18-150 is that it does require DLO or DXO Studio to get the most of it.

Simply because of the size, there's a little more on the way of compromises made.

Other than that, it's one of my favorite EF-M lenses. I'll easily sacrifice a bit of absolute IQ that I'll most likely never need ( or I'll use DLO) for a much much more pleasant kit to use.

Interesting . I've never felt the need to run DLO but then again I'm of the mindset that if an image is successful a little bit of extra sharpeness is not going to add anything and if an image isn't successful it ain't going to matter anyway.

DLO isn't "sharpness" it's about computational corrections.

Yes I know but it does add sharpening. What other corrections do feel the need to make that you stated that you might never need. Not trying to argue here,just curious .

it doesn't add sharpening, what it does it computationally remove the AA filter's involvement on the image and also as well, diffraction, giving the appearance of "adding sharpening".  Even things such as precisely removing aberrations will give the appearance of a sharper image.

it does something like 12 (or 8.. I've heard both numbers) different mathematical corrections based upon the lens profile + camera profile generated by Canon.

rrc1967 wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

rrc1967 wrote:

shuutrr wrote:

Thank you everyone for your replies.

They seem to be level in IQ, or, at least the 150 matches the 135 in IQ.

That so, the native mount and size advantages of the 150 seal the deal.

For an especially enjoyable walk around kit.

The overall size advantage of the high performance M6 II and M mounts is just undeniably fun.

shuutrr

The thing with the 18-150 is that it does require DLO or DXO Studio to get the most of it.

Simply because of the size, there's a little more on the way of compromises made.

Other than that, it's one of my favorite EF-M lenses. I'll easily sacrifice a bit of absolute IQ that I'll most likely never need ( or I'll use DLO) for a much much more pleasant kit to use.

Interesting . I've never felt the need to run DLO but then again I'm of the mindset that if an image is successful a little bit of extra sharpeness is not going to add anything and if an image isn't successful it ain't going to matter anyway.

DLO isn't "sharpness" it's about computational corrections.

Yes I know but it does add sharpening. What other corrections do feel the need to make that you stated that you might never need. Not trying to argue here,just curious .

it doesn't add sharpening, what it does it computationally remove the AA filter's involvement on the image and also as well, diffraction, giving the appearance of "adding sharpening". Even things such as precisely removing aberrations will give the appearance of a sharper image.

it does something like 12 (or 8.. I've heard both numbers) different mathematical corrections based upon the lens profile + camera profile generated by Canon.

Yes I should have said it appears to add sharpening .

RLight wrote:

Shuutrr,

The EF-M 18-150 reaches further, is smaller, lighter, and in fact sharper, all at the same time.

.

It's not a hard choice. The EF-M 18-150 is a superzoom that for a superzoom, is very very good. It leaves the EF-S superzooms including the 18-135 IS STM, in the dust. The only reason to consider the EF-S version is the price used. That's it. But the price reflects the realities that the EF-M version is just so much better and smaller.

Leaves in the dust ? That's just hyperbole. I've used both and the 18-150 appeared to be a bit better but not by much.