 - Kenneth De Pree  Contact Kenneth De Pree Kenneth De Pree's Gallery |
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS I have the Canon T2i with the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-250 lenses, both pretty good, especially for the price. However, to reduce the need to change lenses, I am thinking of getting the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS to be used as my walkaround lens. The reviews of this lens are not especially flattering, so I know that the change would not be a big improvement in terms of sharpness, etc. However, most comments from lens owners that I have read seem to indicate general satisfaction. The range compared to the 18-55 seems to be the major plus. I would be interested in the comments of anyone with experience using this lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Hi Ken, the 18-135mm is ok for the price. Very good in fact. I really trust the reviews at SLRGear.com They also offer suggestions re: alternatives to that lens at www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1292/cat/11 Peter
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Kenneth De Pree Contact Kenneth De Pree Kenneth De Pree's Gallery |
Thanks Peter. I appreciate the link and the recommendation re the website as providing trustworthy reviews. There are a zillion reviews on the internet and it is hard to know which are worthwhile. Your recommendation goes a long way to solve that problem for me. I presently have the Canon 18-55 kit lens and the 55-250 zoom. Both do a good job, especially for the price, but it means always carrying 2 lenses and having to change lenses more often than I would like, or making the best of what is on your camera when you know a change would be better. Since I am planning to replace the 18-55 as my walkaround lens, I think the 18-135 probably is my best bet because I still have the 55-250 for the longer shots. But with the 18-135, lens changes would be needed much less than at present. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Peter K. Burian |
Yes, makes sense to me, Ken. Peter
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lynn R. Powers |
I am from the old school when zoom lenses that had a zoom factor greater than 3X were shunned. I sill try to follow that formula with a 70-200 being one of my favorite lenses. I have found that with digital shooting that this old formula can be put aside somewhat. My 100- 400mm was a tad soft at 400mm unless closed down to f11. I currently do use a lens with a 5X zoom. It does OK at the long end but on the short end there is a little bit of distortion that I usually correct in processing. Overall it is a fine lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Kenneth De Pree Contact Kenneth De Pree Kenneth De Pree's Gallery |
Thanks for the information, Lynn. I thought about the 15-85 or 17-85, the 15-85 being more highly rated, but also more expensive, but will probably go with the 18-135 because it covers much more of the range I need in a walk around lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||