Out of these two budget lenses, which would you choose?

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS


Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS


I'm looking for more reach than the 24-105 so I've narrowed it down to these two lenses.

Also, why did you choose the lens that you picked?


I'm planning on using this lens on a T6s


.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=6lg0FyXzt_c

The second version of the 18-135mm with Image Stabilization. Combine that with your T6s, the field of view will have a 35 mm equivalent focal length of 29–216mm.

An extra 30mm is really not much, even on a cropped sensor. However, all-focal-lengths-in-one lenses are optically inferior to zooms with a shorter range. Thus, I'd buy neither and save till I could afford a 70-200mm or a 100-400mm.

I just sold my 70-200mm 2.8 and my 24-70mm 2.8

I'm downgrading to just have a decent camera for birthday parties and out at the park

I hope you aren't looking to use those in your 6D...

reefvilla wrote in post #17822517
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS


Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS


I'm looking for more reach than the 24-105 so I've narrowed it down to these two lenses.

Also, why did you choose the lens that you picked?


I'm planning on using this lens on a T6s


.

Heya,

I'd do the 18-135 STM. The T6 will be decent for video, so might as well have the option there if you need it with the STM lens. For birthdays & park, you shouldn't likely need more than 135mm on APS-C, so this is the lens I'd go for, it's a good quality lens too.

Very best,

If that's the case, I'd go for the 18-135mm. From the reviews I've read it's not that bad a performer, and certainly better in terms of optics than its wanna-be-all cousin.

I remember when I sold my Sigma 50-200mm to replace it with the Canon EF-S 55-250mm, only to find out that the extra 50mm (or extra "80mm" on an APS-C) wasn't anything to write mum about. Now, I don't regret letting the Sigma go –it sucked–, but I was kind of disappointed as I was expecting more of the lens, not just reach but optics. Regarding the latter, while it was better than the Sigma, the images were still soft at the 250mm end. When I got the 70-200mm f/4 L IS, the difference in sharpness was astounding, even at 200mm and f/4 there was none of the softness I got all the time with the EF-S 55-250mm.

That's the one I'm leaning towards.

Thanks for all your opinions!


"DutchinCLE", My 6D is for sale as well

The 70-200mm 2.8 I just sold was the best lens I've owned. You couldn't take a bad picture with it.

I would love to see some replies from folks who have owned both the 18-200 and the 18-135 STM or have at least used them both extensively.

I have not used the larger, heavier and more expensive 18-200. But I do own and use quite a bit the 18-135 IS STM (a superior lens to the earlier 18-135 IS non-STM).

The 18-135 IS STM is a very good lens. No, it is not L quality but it stands right up there with the 17-55 and 15-85 plus it's better suited to video (quieter) than either of them.

Buy it used for as little as $200 something in US dollars. It's quite easy to find for about $300 USD mint due to the fact that is often sold from the kit from folks who don't need it and $300 is all they paid for it.

I own the 24-105 L and the 70-200 f/4 IS. I prefer using my 18-135 IS STM on my Sl-1 for video.

Here is a video I took driving across a bridge just sitting the SL1 with the 18-135 IS STM on the dashboard - not secured in place. Be sure to change the quality on your YouTube viewer to 1080p.

https://youtu.be/I9wwe​FNMDN0

15-85 gives you that extra wide angle which is so useful on a crop

my duaghter who does wedding videos has that lens glued to her c100

Not sure what 15 on a crop is but on my 6d and 24-70, i never use 24mm.

The original 18-135 IS wasn't much of a lens. But, it was better than the 18-200. The 18-135 STM is considerably better than either of the choices you have listed. That said, I wouldn't call going from 105 to 135mm 'more reach'. You'll never notice the difference. If you want more reach than a 24-105, consider the 55-250 STM.

I still want to keep the low end so 55mm isn't going to work.

I think the the 18-135mm will be a good choice for what i will use it for..... no matter what i get i think i will be disappointed after owning the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8's.