upgrading 18-135mm (non STM) to 24-70 f/4

Hi all,

As the title states, I would like to upgrade my kit lens. But I can't afford to spend too much. The "cheapest" L series lens that I can probably use is the 24-70 f/4. My question is, is it worth it for me to make this upgrade? I have the 70-200 f/4, so I'm not worried about losing the extra range. But, I am a bit concerned about losing the wide angle. Is the IQ for the 24-70 enough of a reason for me to make the jump?

Thanks in advance

Looking at your gear list, you have the 60d. Without know what you plan to shoot, I would recommend either the canon 17-55 2.8, or the tamron 17-50 2.8 before buying the 24-70. Both are excellent quality lenses designed specifically to work well with your camera. The 18-135 STM and 18-55 STM are nice lenses as well, just no constant aperture. The difference in field of view from 17-18mm to 24mm is substantial on a crop sensor camera.

The only reason to buy the 24-70 or 24-105 is if you anticipate upgrading your camera to a full frame soon, or you already have a better wide angle lens, like the 10-22 or 10-18 STM.

Don't worry about L series lenses- buy the best lens for the purpose you want to use it for, not for the badge on the side.

Qlayer2 wrote in post #17449378
Don't worry about L series lenses- buy the best lens for the purpose you want to use it for, not for the badge on the side.

This is the best advice you will receive. There is a significant difference between 18mm and 24mm at the wide end on a crop body. Make sure that is not going to be a hindrance before swapping out a wider zoom. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and EF-S 15-85mm IS are excellent lenses, even though they do not have a red ring.

Hello QLayer2, Scott M,

Thank you very much for the advice.

QLayer2, You hit the nail on the head. I was seriously considering moving to a FullFrame. And as a means to that end, I was planning on putting my camera to work by picking up some local gigs, if possible. But, before I can ask someone to pay for my services, I need to make sure I can actually deliver the goods. And I'm not sure I can do that with the 18-135 (non STM, btw).

And, in the worst case, if I can't make the jump to FF, I can always get the 10-18 to satisfy my wide angle cravings.

So, with that added information, what would be your suggestion?

Thanks again

Check here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=767215

And here for the STM version:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1213685

Then decide if your current lens will be suitable.

What about the current lens you have is not allowing you to take the images you want to create? Are you needing a faster aperture? Faster autofocus? Wider field of view?

There's no reason to be spending money on a lens because you want to appear more professional to paying customers so you can make money to buy a better camera and better lenses. Your customers won't know if you have a $20 lens or a $5,000 lens on your camera- the images you create are what you are selling.

Now if you just want to spend some money and have nice new lens, go for it. There are thousands of us here who buy new shiny lenses and cameras simply because we want the best, newest, fastest stuff. It's called gear acquisition syndrome, and every enthusiast and professional go through it from time to time. Some worse than others.

Deep down, we know it doesn't make our images better. It may make it more fun or easier to create those images, though.

Hi QLayer2,

I stand convinced . I shall hang on to the 18-135 for the time being and see where it takes me.

I know what you are talking about with acquiring new gear. Most times I can control myself. For the others, I need help from people like you

Thanks

There is a gentleman who visits one of the Buell motorcycle enthusiast's forums who get published (written words and photographic works) on a regular basis reviewing motorcycles down in NewZealand, and he often wrote that he did better with a kit lens than other pros did with their higher end camera gear. For him, if I recall correctly, it came down to knowing his subject matter and how to best utilize his camera gear.

As noted by Qlayer2 above, the better gear makes things easier, and can also improve image quality, but our kits lenses often do very well as well. I've been wanting to upgrade my own 18-135 and my 55-250, but to make enough difference in the end result it will take a whole lot more than my budget will allow. So instead I'm saving up for longer on the long end and wider on the short end, and in the mean time living with what I've got.

The 18-135 is a nice lens, but a little slow to focus . I mostly use it at the wide-angle range and it always delivers good pics. I'll save up till I can afford a full frame.

I remember years ago when living in Durango, CO talking to some bikers about the top of the line mountain bikes. One guy was telling me about a rider with one of the original mountain bikes that could beat out most of the other riders on newer better mtn bikes. Newer, bigger, better, lighter faster doesn't always mean a thing if you don't have the talent......

smallick wrote in post #17449421
Hello QLayer2, Scott M,

Thank you very much for the advice.

QLayer2, You hit the nail on the head. I was seriously considering moving to a FullFrame. And as a means to that end, I was planning on putting my camera to work by picking up some local gigs, if possible. But, before I can ask someone to pay for my services, I need to make sure I can actually deliver the goods. And I'm not sure I can do that with the 18-135 (non STM, btw).

And, in the worst case, if I can't make the jump to FF, I can always get the 10-18 to satisfy my wide angle cravings.

So, with that added information, what would be your suggestion?

Thanks again

I still would not move to a 24-70mm zoom until you have definite plans to acquire a full frame body. Those 24-70 zooms are not going anywhere and will still be available for purchase if you do get a FF body.

If you currently shoot at the wide end of your 18-135mm a lot, the problem with a 10-18mm + 24-70mm combo is that you may find yourself swapping lenses a lot more than necessary had you just stuck with a zoom that starts around 17 or 18mm. It may also force you to carry two lenses at times where you would only need one if your "walk around" zoom was wider.

For me, the one of the main reasons to have a "walk around" zoom is the ability to walk around with a single lens when you do not want to bring along a bag of camera gear. There are circumstances when I bring along two bodies and four lenses, but there are other times I just want to go somewhere with a camera and single lens. If I do not have a single lens that fits my general purpose needs, then I cannot do that.

Scott M wrote in post #17449714
I still would not move to a 24-70mm zoom until you have definite plans to acquire a full frame body. Those 24-70 zooms are not going anywhere and will still be available for purchase if you do get a FF body.

If you currently shoot at the wide end of your 18-135mm a lot, the problem with a 10-18mm + 24-70mm combo is that you may find yourself swapping lenses a lot more than necessary had you just stuck with a zoom that starts around 17 or 18mm. It may also force you to carry two lenses at times where you would only need one if your "walk around" zoom was wider.

For me, the one of the main reasons to have a "walk around" zoom is the ability to walk around with a single lens when you do not want to bring along a bag of camera gear. There are circumstances when I bring along two bodies and four lenses, but there are other times I just want to go somewhere with a camera and single lens. If I do not have a single lens that fits my general purpose needs, then I cannot do that.

That's very sound advice. I shall save up for an FF before looking into the 24-70. Thanks