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

Ahem, pondering, thanks again you guys, I was surprised to find the added opines, interesting, seems to be following the theme of a certain election...:-D,....seriously, still seems to be mostly a clear size advantage but an arguable toss up??? regarding IQ....

haven't rushed to purchase yet

shuutrr

dave_bass5 wrote:

RLight 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.

MTF graphs in fact indicate the EF-M wins in sharpness on both the wide and telephoto ends. It doesn't match it, it bests it. Go figure.

It just doesn't go to f/5.6 on the long end... f/6.3 is a very small sacrifice for another 15mm of reach and a much smaller, sharper lens.

Graphs are not always right, especially when you take it consider manufacturing tolerances.

Eyes, on the other hand, generally tend to tell the real story, and having both these lenses i cant see how anyone can say the 18-150 can match, let alone beat the 18-135 in sharpness.

Both are nice lenses, I’m not denying that, but only those that have both can really give a true indication.

Do you have data to back the implication you’re making that the mfgs own mtf graphs for their own products aren’t valid?

I’m all ears if so...

Dareshooter wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

RLight 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.

MTF graphs in fact indicate the EF-M wins in sharpness on both the wide and telephoto ends. It doesn't match it, it bests it. Go figure.

It just doesn't go to f/5.6 on the long end... f/6.3 is a very small sacrifice for another 15mm of reach and a much smaller, sharper lens.

Graphs are not always right, especially when you take it consider manufacturing tolerances.

Eyes, on the other hand, generally tend to tell the real story, and having both these lenses i cant see how anyone can say the 18-150 can match, let alone beat the 18-135 in sharpness.

Both are nice lenses, I’m not denying that, but only those that have both can really give a true indication.

Probably copy variation coming into play here Dave. My experience has been the opposite of yours, I felt the 18-150 was the better lens especially at the image borders. So maybe your 18-135 is better than your 18-150 and vice versa for me. So I agree graphs don't tell the whole story,they only tell you the story for the particular lens that was tested .

Actually (Canon) MTF is based on the theoretical lens performance.  It isn't measured performance.  But you are both right in that production variation can account for real-world differences.  FWIW I really like(d) both of those lenses.  The 18-150 is sitting on my M6ii right now. 

R2

R2D2 wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

RLight 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.

MTF graphs in fact indicate the EF-M wins in sharpness on both the wide and telephoto ends. It doesn't match it, it bests it. Go figure.

It just doesn't go to f/5.6 on the long end... f/6.3 is a very small sacrifice for another 15mm of reach and a much smaller, sharper lens.

Graphs are not always right, especially when you take it consider manufacturing tolerances.

Eyes, on the other hand, generally tend to tell the real story, and having both these lenses i cant see how anyone can say the 18-150 can match, let alone beat the 18-135 in sharpness.

Both are nice lenses, I’m not denying that, but only those that have both can really give a true indication.

Probably copy variation coming into play here Dave. My experience has been the opposite of yours, I felt the 18-150 was the better lens especially at the image borders. So maybe your 18-135 is better than your 18-150 and vice versa for me. So I agree graphs don't tell the whole story,they only tell you the story for the particular lens that was tested .

Actually (Canon) MTF is based on the theoretical lens performance. It isn't measured performance. But you are both right in that production variation can account for real-world differences. FWIW I really like(d) both of those lenses. The 18-150 is sitting on my M6ii right now.

R2

Copy variation is a very real thing; my last copy of the 18-150 was absolutely fantastic, vs the ones before it were okay, but none of them bad.

At the end of the day though, you do have to consider both: MTF graphs represent best case scenario, however, non-L lenses, which both the 18-135 and 18-150 aren't, are subject to the same measure of copy variance. On average, an average copy of a 18-150 will be "better" than an average 18-135. My eyeballs tell me the same with images folks have thrown up from both over the years (I use Flickr groups liberally to compare setups)

It's not to say you can't get an excellent or terrible copy of either, you can... But on average, a not-bad copy of a 18-150 will best a not-bad copy of a 18-135.

I'm with Roger C; don't try to find a perfect copy of a lens, just one that's acceptable... This is after doing copy hunting and testing personally with printed charts and tripods later. Most copies of lenses are pretty close. It's the bad ones you need to return. Hunting the perfect lens is a futile endeavor.

RLight wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Dareshooter wrote:

dave_bass5 wrote:

RLight 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.

MTF graphs in fact indicate the EF-M wins in sharpness on both the wide and telephoto ends. It doesn't match it, it bests it. Go figure.

It just doesn't go to f/5.6 on the long end... f/6.3 is a very small sacrifice for another 15mm of reach and a much smaller, sharper lens.

Graphs are not always right, especially when you take it consider manufacturing tolerances.

Eyes, on the other hand, generally tend to tell the real story, and having both these lenses i cant see how anyone can say the 18-150 can match, let alone beat the 18-135 in sharpness.

Both are nice lenses, I’m not denying that, but only those that have both can really give a true indication.

Probably copy variation coming into play here Dave. My experience has been the opposite of yours, I felt the 18-150 was the better lens especially at the image borders. So maybe your 18-135 is better than your 18-150 and vice versa for me. So I agree graphs don't tell the whole story,they only tell you the story for the particular lens that was tested .

Actually (Canon) MTF is based on the theoretical lens performance. It isn't measured performance. But you are both right in that production variation can account for real-world differences. FWIW I really like(d) both of those lenses. The 18-150 is sitting on my M6ii right now.

R2

Copy variation is a very real thing; my last copy of the 18-150 was absolutely fantastic, vs the ones before it were okay, but none of them bad.

At the end of the day though, you do have to consider both: MTF graphs represent best case scenario, however, non-L lenses, which both the 18-135 and 18-150 aren't, are subject to the same measure of copy variance. On average, an average copy of a 18-150 will be "better" than an average 18-135. My eyeballs tell me the same with images folks have thrown up from both over the years (I use Flickr groups liberally to compare setups)

It's not to say you can't get an excellent or terrible copy of either, you can... But on average, a not-bad copy of a 18-150 will best a not-bad copy of a 18-135.

I'm with Roger C; don't try to find a perfect copy of a lens, just one that's acceptable... This is after doing copy hunting and testing personally with printed charts and tripods later. Most copies of lenses are pretty close. It's the bad ones you need to return. Hunting the perfect lens is a futile endeavor.

Yeah, I know what you mean!  My first 15-45 was pretty good, but my second was better at 15mm, but a little softer at 45mm!

R2

Malav wrote:

I have the 18-135 USM on my M50 mk 2 that i got to replace my very old 18-135 IS (not stm) and boi oh boi, this thing is amazing, its built better than my old one, is dead silent, and is super-fast. I looked into the 18-150 but the low aperture at the zoom and the plastic-built quality made me go the adapter lens route. I have the canon adapter, so it feels solid.

yeah, it is a great combo, glad you like it, enjoy and post some of your favorites

shuutrr

Malav wrote:

I have the 18-135 USM on my M50 mk 2 that i got to replace my very old 18-135 IS (not stm) and boi oh boi, this thing is amazing, its built better than my old one, is dead silent, and is super-fast. I looked into the 18-150 but the low aperture at the zoom and the plastic-built quality made me go the adapter lens route. I have the canon adapter, so it feels solid.

I used the 18-135 STM on my M5 when I first got it, and found it to be very useful.  The USM is a fine lens but I never did end up buying it, as I got a great deal on the EF-M 18-150 (when I bought my M6).  It actually is a fine lens if you ever need to go super-compact.

Happy shooting!

R2