18-135. how good?

[happysnapper62]

Hi all. Have just bought a Tamron 70-300 VC, & love it. I have the 18-55 & 55-250IS kit lenses, & find I am swapping over too much. Was thinking of selling them both & getting something to fill the gap between my 10-20, & the 70-300, & am considering the Canon 18-135. What are your impressions of this lens, or can you suggest any alternatives? I do mostly landscapes, architecture historic buildings, wildlife, gardens, & birds. Any suggestions welcome. lee uk

 

[bobby1781]

You have a 70-300 and you are swapping from the 18-55 and 55-250 a lot?

Your 18-55 already fits perfectly between the UWA and the 70-300.

I have the the 18-135 and the Tamron SP and the Tamron is better in every aspect from 70-135 than the 18-135 is.

Don't sell any lenses, you are already covered.

 

[john1900]

Hi all. Have just bought a Tamron 70-300 VC, & love it. I have the 18-55 & 55-250IS kit lenses, & find I am swapping over too much. Was thinking of selling them both & getting something to fill the gap between my 10-20, & the 70-300, & am considering the Canon 18-135. What are your impressions of this lens, or can you suggest any alternatives? I do mostly landscapes, architecture historic buildings, wildlife, gardens, & birds. Any suggestions welcome. lee uk

The Canon 18-135mm non L is just an average IQ kit lens, the 18-135mm L is like a prime high quality lens but they don't sell it any more, I got the last one.

Get the EF-S 17-55mm which has L class IQ. You will be over joyed with this lens.
--
Canon Person.

 

[bobby1781]

The OP did not claim he had issues with quality, it was with the focal range and lens swapping. You offered a lens that has the same range as the one he wanted to replace.

If the OP has a range issue than the 15-85 would actually be the better choice not the 17-55.

If IQ is his concern he never stated it.

 

[john1900]

The OP did not claim he had issues with quality, it was with the focal range and lens swapping. You offered a lens that has the same range as the one he wanted to replace.

If the OP has a range issue than the 15-85 would actually be the better choice not the 17-55.

If IQ is his concern he never stated it.

Yes you are right! Then perhaps the 18-135mm non L will have better focal range and will be even cheaper, no more replacing lenses for every day casual shooting.
--
Canon Person.

 

[bobby1781]

Honestly, purchased out-right the 18-135 is not worth the money. With a camera body it is a good deal.

There is just not a gap other than 15mm between 55-70 which is really not relevant at all.

 

[VisualNectarPhotography]

As much bad PR as the 18-135 gets I actually like mine. It is definitely a “kit” lens, but the build quality is ok to decently good and the IQ isn’t bad. Even when you get to 70-100mm DPP or LR3-4 can remove the distortion. It’s a good basic lens. It serves the purpose it was design for, and that is to allow the user to understand the camera and see what it can produce. Obviously you are not going to get USM or L IQ out of it but what are you expecting?

For concerts the 18-135 rarely comes out of my bag, but for walking around it sees more action.

--

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.

 

[bobby1781]

I agree I use my 18-135 a lot.

However, the OP already has 70-135 covered with better IQ and 18-55 covered with similar image quality.

I would NOT recommend spending $400 to avoid swapping to the SP 70-300 so that they could use the inferior lens.

If he didnt have the 70+ already covered it would be different. That is just a lot of money to cover a trivial range.

If the OP just truly wants to get down to less swapping, that I would pay a little more for the 15-85.

 

[dimitrir]

I used it for a while as a travel lens - ok image quality stopped down, but after a few trips it developed barrel wobble and severe zoom creep. When new it was nice and tight.

 

[happysnapper62]

You have a 70-300 and you are swapping from the 18-55 and 55-250 a lot?

Your 18-55 already fits perfectly between the UWA and the 70-300.

I have the the 18-135 and the Tamron SP and the Tamron is better in every aspect from 70-135 than the 18-135 is.

Don't sell any lenses, you are already covered.

Hi Bobby. I have trawled through numerous reviews & opinions of the choices in the range I am looking to fill, ie; 20-70, & the best reviews are of the Tamron 17-70 VR, but at a price I dont want to pay. Most, if not all, the others, have flaws that make me wonder if its worth it. Only I can say that of course, but I am going to take your advice on board, & stick with my 18-55 for the time being. You are perfectly correct, it seems an awful lot to spend to fill such a short gap,{ 55-70 } I know this is a big "U" turn, but I tend to get these "gearhead" moments, so I appreciate your rational opinion. Thanks to all for your input. lee uk

 

[drpix]

If you are lucky and have a properly adjusted and calibrated copy then it is a gorgeous lens. Shoot RAW, develop in DPP and DLO and be amazed! I am!
Andrzej
http://www.audiomix.se/photo

 

[Robert Krawitz]

I have the 18-135 as part of a kit (it came as a special with 2 batteries, lens hood, and filter -- the second battery was worth a little something). It isn't a terrible lens at all. It's no match for the 17-55 in image quality or low light performance, but if I want to go light, it works well enough, and I've gotten some perfectly nice shots with it.

I basically have two setups. My travel or hiking setup, when I want to go light, is:

Sigma 8-16
18-135
70-300 (if I anticipate needing longer reach)
50 f/1.8 mkI

My high quality setup, if weight is less of an issue, I need better low light capability, or AF speed, is:

Sigma 8-16
17-55
Sigma 70-200 OS
50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 2X extender as needed

So the 18-135 isn't always in my bag. The only lenses that always are are the 8-16 and the nifty 50. But it's certainly not a lens I'm ashamed of using.

 

[Damoo]

Its a over priced lens especially for its just average IQ. Nikon's 18-105mm is much better value. If there is a discount as a kit lens or otherwise then u can consider it. Else its not worth the money u pay.

 

[bobby1781]

I was bitten by the speed bug...I sympathize with gearhead moments, I live in them a lot

 

[happysnapper62]

I was bitten by the speed bug...I sympathize with gearhead moments, I live in them a lot

My mrs. gave a sigh of relief when I stopped buying golf equipment & took up photography instead..... Deja vu anyone?? lee uk