Best Walkaround Lens : 18-135 IS USM versus 24-105 L

Hi folks,

I currently have the Canon 18-135mm IS USM lens as my walk around lens. I am wondering if the Canon 24-105 F4 L lens would be better or not. I know I would be losing a bit in reach, but would the image quality and sharpness be that much better? If I went with the 24-105 lens, I would have to sell the 18-135 lens to help fund the new purchase. BTW, I have a Canon 60D camera.

If anyone has bad both lenses or strong experience with either lens, I would definitely appreciate your advice or opinions.

Heya,

Basically not enough difference to matter. I would stick with the 18-135 on APS-C, far more useful focal range. The aperture difference is pretty much insignificant. The optical quality of the 24-105 is slightly better, but not significant enough to really matter. If you're splitting hairs, sure. But you'd be spending twice as much for a minor difference.

If you, however, splitting hairs and wanted a slightly better lens, I would actually argue for the 18-135 STM as being the one to look at with absolutely great optics, and more modern and useful IS.

If you were wanting a really fast lens with a universally useful focal range zoom for walk around for APS-C, I would be looking at a 17-55 F2.8 flavor lens (Tamron, Sigma, Canon, etc) long before a 24-105 F4.

Very best,

I have both, and I would never think of attaching the 24-105L to my crop camera.

Remember that the 24-105 is f4 throughout the range, but the 18-135 is f5.6 at the long end.

On a 60D I would prefer the 18-135, primarily because I would not find 24mm on a 1.6X format to be wide enough on a walkabout. There is a large functional difference between 18mm and 24mm.

Starting from a clean slate, I would actually recommend the EF-S 15-85 IS over either of the choices you mentioned.....mainly because 15mm is even better than 18mm.

I own and use the 24-105 and I like the lens, but I use it on a FF body where the wide end (24mm) has the same field of view as 15mm on your 60D.

Thanks for all the great info folks. Never thought of going with the 18-135 STM lens. So far, any of the reviews on STM over USM lenses have been very favorable for the STM version. Will definitely look into that.

Chopper Al wrote in post #17649197
Thanks for all the great info folks. Never thought of going with the 18-135 STM lens. So far, any of the reviews on STM over USM lenses have been very favorable for the STM version. Will definitely look into that.

Oh, I missed that you have the USM. Yes, get the STM. The f/4 of the 24-105L isn't a whole lot of use on crop IMO: it still means it's a daylight-only lens, just like the f/3.5-5.6 lenses.

well i have the 24 - 105 and i use it a lot on my 7d's as my walk around lens and i have the 18-200 IS not the 18 -135 but very similar in performance which i use on my 600 d and the 24 - 105 is the better lens on either camera but not by a hell of a lot - cant speak for the stm lenses as dont have one but my understanding is they are optimally really a video lens but of course are versatile in their use and plenty seem to like them

cheers

Chopper Al wrote in post #17649002
Hi folks,

I currently have the Canon 18-135mm IS USM lens as my walk around lens. I am wondering if the Canon 24-105 F4 L lens would be better or not. I know I would be losing a bit in reach, but would the image quality and sharpness be that much better? If I went with the 24-105 lens, I would have to sell the 18-135 lens to help fund the new purchase. BTW, I have a Canon 60D camera.

If anyone has bad both lenses or strong experience with either lens, I would definitely appreciate your advice or opinions.

I have both the 18-135 STM and the 24-105 f/4 IS. I shoot with an SL-1 and a 5D3.

Both lenses are great but I stopped putting full frame lenses on my (crop) SL-1 long ago. It just seems to defeat the purpose of a lightweight kit.

So, the 18-135 STM is almost glued to the SL-1 (replaced occasionally by the 10-18 or 55-250 STM).

Get the STM version of the 18-135. I had the 60D and the original 18-135 (without STM) and was not pleased. Sounds like you have had better luck.

I don't know whether it was the SL-1 or the change to the STM version of the 18-135 (I got both at the same time) but the improvement was significant over the 60D/18-135 original.

If you may be getting a full frame body in the near future then by all means get the 24-105 but the few times I have used the 24-105 on the SL-1 (for test purposes) the difference was not significant from the 18-135 STM on the same SL-1 body.

I DO EXACTLY WHAT EASTPORT DOES!!!

I don't know how fast the STM focuses but my 18-135 is slow to focus. There are many times where the 18-135 can't focus and the 24-105L focus right away.

CPRPOTN wrote in post #17663143
I don't know how fast the STM focuses but my 18-135 is slow to focus. There are many times where the 18-135 can't focus and the 24-105L focus right away.

My 18-135 STM focuses pretty damn quick - I have the same setup as Eastport and gqllc007. The SL1/18-135STM is a hugely flexible, lightweight walkaround kit.

CPRPOTN wrote in post #17663143
I don't know how fast the STM focuses but my 18-135 is slow to focus. There are many times where the 18-135 can't focus and the 24-105L focus right away.

Do you have the STM version of the 18-135?

I have seen really no difference between the focus speed of the 24-105 on the 5D3 vs. the speed of the 18-135 STM on the SL1.

(FWIW, I was not at all impressed with the non-STM 18-135 on the 60D. That might have been an issue with either the lens or the 60D itself.)

Chopper Al wrote in post #17649002
Hi folks,

I currently have the Canon 18-135mm IS USM lens as my walk around lens. I am wondering if the Canon 24-105 F4 L lens would be better or not. I know I would be losing a bit in reach, but would the image quality and sharpness be that much better? If I went with the 24-105 lens, I would have to sell the 18-135 lens to help fund the new purchase. BTW, I have a Canon 60D camera.

If anyone has bad both lenses or strong experience with either lens, I would definitely appreciate your advice or opinions.

i had the 18-135 non-STM before, and it was my only lens on my 7D for more than a year. i remember that when I got fancier lenses later on, i was disappointed that i didn't see too big of a difference in IQ. it certainly was very sharp. and its AF was very accurate. was a really great lens.

as most have chimed in, 24-105 isn't really a good general use lens on crop. and you're not gonna see a big difference in IQ.

however, the 24-105 does have one HUGE advantage: it is weather sealed. i have used that lens in downpours and it always took perfect pictures. that for me is a critical feature since many of the very most interesting and hauntingly beautiful pictures are taken during bad weather. i'd rather have one unique picture than a million boring ones.

24-105 f/4L definitely not wide enough on crop for walk-around. I don't find the IQ is all that impressive either. My 17-40 f/4L was better in both aspects.

https://flic.kr/p/whBo​Lj