Do-it-all EF Lens Similar to 28-135mm?

I'm looking for an EF lens to use with my 5DIII for mountain biking, a "do it all" lens similar to the 28-135mm. Right now I use a 70D and 18-135mm STM while riding and shooting, but I'd like to be able to utilize my 5D3 and sell the 70D to make room for other gear. My priorities are focal length range,, weight, size, and IQ- probably in that order.

I've previously used the 28-135mm for some ski trips with good success, but it seems like the "quality control" of the lens is fairly poor since used models are a bit older and tend to get beat up a bit. I'd prefer to go with another option, ideally something with a wider range as well. The 24-105mm is not an option; I already have it, and the range isn't wide enough and it's too heavy.

Am I missing an obvious choice made by either Canon or one of the third-party manufacturers? Or should I just stick with my 70D and 18-135 STM combo?

The 18-135mm STM is really one of the best zooms with greater than a 5x range, as far as consistent image quality. The 24-105 is the closest you are going to get for a full frame lens and similar quality.

If the 24-105 isn't a large enough range, you really aren't going to find something with a bigger range and better image quality, unless you want to go huge, like the 28-300L, which much like the 28-135 is an older lens design.

Tamron makes a 28-300 VC that gets good reviews for what it is, but at $850, not sure it's worth it for you.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …00mm_f_3_5_6_3_​di_vc.html

You've ruled out the obvious choices, ie: 18-135mm for EFS, and 24-105.

For FF, 24mm should be as wide as the 18mm on the 70D, but I understand wanting more. Problem is, wider than 24mm on FF costs and is not going to happen in am ultra zoom.

At the long end, 105mm on FF is very short! 135mm on APS-C is a much better number

It sounds like an 18-200 ish, but as far as I know all of these are made for APS-C.. certainly the fleet that Tamron sells are all APS-C;

http://www.tamron-usa.com …prod/all_in_one​_zooms.php

the only one for FF is even narrower at the wide end, 28-300mm.

Likewise, all three of SIGMA's 18-xxx zooms are for crop.

EDIT: qlayer beat me to it, and we seem to agree on pretty much all of it!

F.Y.I. I use a 7D2 at this point almost just so I can continue to use the 18-135mm.
So yes, I'd keep that on your 70D and be done with it.

More commiseration than an answer, but I've hit the same question without an answer.

I (also) really like the versitility of the 18-135. I think the reason that Canon has left this gap open is that L lenses generally stay away from that wide of a zoom range. And there's the implied push towards L lenses with full frame bodies.

I think my answer might end up being the 18-150. But wait... that's an EOS-M lens. Yup, if the idea is to save weight and have some zoom range, the push will be for mirrorless.

Yes, 24mm appears to be a pretty hard wall to cross for FF unless it is for an ultra wide zoom.

It would be interesting to see a lens like the older 17-40l zoom stretched out to 150mm, but I can't imagine it would easy or cheap.

The only other thing I can say might be worth trying is a 3rd party "APS-C" lens starting @ 18mm like mentioned above, but used on FF with the understanding that you will need to crop your wide angle end heavily.
I'd love to know how narrow one needs to set the zoom to get rid of the vignette on lenses like that.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18238804
So yes, I'd keep that on your 70D and be done with it.

Yep, unfortunately I think that's the answer too.... but I was hoping I had a brain fart and was forgetting an obvious choice.

Not to high-jack the thread or anything, but my sigma 17-50mm will have mechanical vignetting at all focal lengths. My 30mm Art has extremely dark corners wide open, but at f16 there's about the normal amount of vignetting that a full frame lens would have wide open.

Another thing not yet mentioned that you should keep in consideration is the footprint / weight of crop bodies and EF-S lenses vs. full frame bodies and glass. The latter is almost always heavier, and the higher the quality the higher the weight (usually). If mountain biking this would be a big deal to me. Just fyi Sony sells a 24-240mm lens in E mount for their FF cameras. The a7 FF bodies are also much lighter / smaller than even your 70D. But in the mountains their durability will be an issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong (or if it has already been stated - I didn't read all the comments), but I believe the 18-135 is an EF-S & therefore will not fit on a full-frame body. With that in mind I'd got with the 24-105. I think you will like the constant F/4 aperture better as well.

Tnelson04 wrote in post #18240458
Correct me if I'm wrong (or if it has already been stated - I didn't read all the comments), but I believe the 18-135 is an EF-S & therefore will not fit on a full-frame body. With that in mind I'd got with the 24-105. I think you will like the constant F/4 aperture better as well.

I think the OP was looking for something similar in focal length on FF. The 18-135 is for crop and there really isn't anything like it for FF right now. The 18-135 with the crop factor is the equivalent of a 29-216mm, so a 24-105 on ff wouldn't even come close on the long end. Only thing Canon has ever made similar for FF is the 28-300mm and 35-350mm, which are both large lenses and wouldn't bode well for mountain biking IMO.

It also looks like the Tamron 28-300 PZD is an option.... if I can find a cheaper copy, I may pull the trigger on it. Seems like it would be a great general do-it-all lens for when I'm not entirely concerned with getting the most out of my other lenses.