Should I sell my 18-135mm STM?

technoholic

Well-known Member
I've been looking at my lens collection today. Trying to work out if I should sell this lens, if its even worth it.

I have a 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and now the 70-200 2.8 IS II. The 18-135 STM was the kit lens with my 70D. I have read many positive things about this lens, but honestly, I got the 50 and 85 fairly soon after getting the camera, and I didnt really ever use the kit lens, in fact I think ive used it twice in the last couple months.

My main reasons for hanging on to it are that it's obviously good for video with its STM motor, and I would like to get into shooting some video at some point, but then the 70-200 might not have the STM feature, but i've heard it's excellent for video too. The other reason is that it covers the short end of the spectrum, but gives me quite a bit of overlap. It's also the only EF-S lens I have now. That's fine as I obviously have an EF-S camera right now, but I will go FF in the future and would like to keep my lenses to EF where possible.

My thoughts are to sell it, and put the money towards either a 24-105 L F4, which I think are fairly reasonable used, or maybe save up some more and get the 24-70, but realistically I don't think I need f2.8 all the way from 24-70 as I have the 50 1.4 which gives me the fast capabilities at a focal length that I will use.

Any thoughts or alternative ideas?
 

nufc_fan

Active Member
I am havign similar thoughts. Shoot with a 70D with an 18-135stm and a sigma 35mm 1.4 art which is amazing.

I think I will get the new 10-18 stm when it coems out for £300 which will do all my landscape shots. Then I don't know if to combine my 35mm with a cheaper option of an 85mm 1.8 or a 70-200 F2.8 IS II (maybe too expensive at the moment). Other option is the sigma 50-150 which also gets great reviews but is the same size as the 70-200
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
I was thinking of the 10-18 but that would still leave me with a gap, partly filled by the 50mm, but I dont know how much i'd miss the missing range. PLus the 10-18 is EF-S which i'm trying to avoid if possible, and I don't think I need anything as wide as a 10mm (or 16mm equivalent).

I think my ideal set up would be the 16-35mm, the 24-105 and the 70-200, a 2x converter plus my primes. That way I have everything covered from 16mm to 400mm on FF or 25-560mm on my 70d, and gives me a bit of overlap so that I can use the 24-105 as a walkabout without having to worry about strapping on teh massive 70-200 when i need something a little longer.

Problem is, that costs lots and is still going to cost me at least £12-1300 to buy new, which is not what I want to spend right now. Maybe ill sell the 18-135 and put that towards a 24-105 for the moment, and do without the wider range for the time being, as I can't see many landscape opportunities in the near future
 

twist

Distinguished Member
I am havign similar thoughts. Shoot with a 70D with an 18-135stm and a sigma 35mm 1.4 art which is amazing.

I think I will get the new 10-18 stm when it coems out for £300 which will do all my landscape shots. Then I don't know if to combine my 35mm with a cheaper option of an 85mm 1.8 or a 70-200 F2.8 IS II (maybe too expensive at the moment). Other option is the sigma 50-150 which also gets great reviews but is the same size as the 70-200
The Sigma doubles in size when extended, has no IF, not even in the same league tbh.
 

loz

Well-known Member
the 24-70L F4 IS sounds nice - as well as having decent IQ, it also has a very handy macro mode which might give you another option you don't have at the moment.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Review

I'm not going to say that this lens is as sharp as the Canon 100mm L Macro Lens, but the Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS Lens' macro mode is very impressive. This lens could easily displace a macro lens in your pack - which in turn makes the size and weight difference of what you are carrying big.
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
I would like a macro lens, but apart from that, i can't see why I would get the 24-70 IS f4 instead of the 24-105 IS f4, when both are apparently similar optically. Especially considering that the 24-105 is much cheaper. Am I missing something?
 

nufc_fan

Active Member
I think the 24-105 is a no brainer if you are going to upgrade to FF. I have that idea in the back of my mind as well but currently I don't think its worth the upgrade. The 70D is capable of far better images than I am still, although eventually if I get better and become more serious about photography a 5D3 would be perfect.
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
I agree, that the 70d takes great pictures, and my skill level doesn't warrant a 5d yet, but i want to be prepared with anything I buy now. However having said that, I have already noticed the noise limitation while doing some indoor portraits at the weekend, and would have loved the lower noise of a FF sensor, as would I love the wide field of view when doing inside shots with my 50mm. Crop is absolutely fine until that time when my shooting distance is slightly too short even for a 50, and that little extra would be great
 

loz

Well-known Member
I would like a macro lens, but apart from that, i can't see why I would get the 24-70 IS f4 instead of the 24-105 IS f4, when both are apparently similar optically. Especially considering that the 24-105 is much cheaper. Am I missing something?
You would be missing the extra weight of the 24-105mm, and the extra money in your pocket. :)
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
i personally dont think the weight of the 24-105 is significant enough to be a problem, looking at the specs
 

loz

Well-known Member
If you try any video, you will miss how quiet the STM lens is in operation.
I can already tell how loud the IS in on the the 70-200L compared to my virtually silent 55-250 STM. (which itself is not as quite as my totally silent EF-M lenses. They are amazing in this respect.)
The camera will pick it up unless you use an external mike.
I have no idea how the operational noise of the 24-105 or 24-70 is in comparison to the 18-135 STM though. But its something to bear in mind.
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
Yes I already noticed how loud the IS is on the 70-200, I understand the II is quieter than the I so I can't imagine how loud that must have been.

However I would almost certainly be recording at least with an external mic plugged into the camera, but more likely given my recording background and access to a lot of equipment, probably outboard sound recording separate to the camera. In any case, most of the filming I intend to do in the near future would only involve shooting video which will be scored by my music producer friend so would not contain and speaking or local sound effects anyway
 

twist

Distinguished Member

technoholic

Well-known Member
£579 after cashback is good, but I can get the canon for close to £400 used, which is a good deal I think, obviously run the risk of a bad copy but generally I don't have an issue with used lenses, especially from places like MPB etc
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
which one? They're both 24-105
 

loz

Well-known Member
From what Ive read it sharper at the wide end but softer at the long end.
I wish I knew who's tests to believe.

From DXO
When compared against the Canon 24-105mm f4L, to be fair an aging model now, the Sigma outperforms it in several key areas. It has higher peak sharpness at every focal length and at the initial aperture it has better corner sharpness at the longer end of the zoom, which is a limitation of the Canon equivalent.
From TDP
From a wide open aperture sharpness perspective, the Sigma performs better in the mid and peripheral areas of the image circle at 24mm through 28mm. The two lenses are nearly equivalent from 35mm through 70mm. The Canon is sharper at 105mm. When using a zoom lens, many of us tend to use the two focal length extremes the most. Sigma wins the 24mm contest and Canon wins at 105mm.

But that's at f/4. Stop down to f/5.6, and you'll be hard pressed to find a difference in sharpness between these lenses.
A VGC 2nd hand Canon 24-105mm is going to be the best bang for the buck.
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
Yeah, I think that would be the best choice. Now I just need to sell my 18-135
 

Ugg10

Distinguished Member
I think you need the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, like hens teeth used but would fit the bill perfectly if you are seriously considering going FF in the future (can be picked up fro £600-650 from reputable importers) . That's where I would be heading if I had the cash.
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
I like the idea of having a little overlap on the range, so going to 105 would be beneficial to me, but the f2.8 of the Tamron with IS does seem attractive considering the canon equivalent doesnt have IS i dont think, only the f4 version does. And the sigma equivalents don't get great reviews, even though they are significantly cheaper.

Still though, for a general purpose walkabout, I'm still leaning towards a 24-105 f4 just given the price of a used one these days.
 

nufc_fan

Active Member
Did you make a decision?

I have been doing quite a bit of research and I think I am going to get a 24-105 F4 Canon for a walk around lens and combine it with an 85mm Prime. I will eventually add a 70-200 F2.8 to cover the long end with an extender.
 

technoholic

Well-known Member
Yeah, I pretty much decided to get a used 24-105mm too, which will pair well with my existing lens, and then sell the 18-135. Need to get some cash together first though.

I think i'll also get the 16-35mm to fill in the short end at some point in the future
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Best Hi-Fi products of 2020, Plus Best of the Month for TV Shows & Movies

Latest News

AVForums Podcast: 25th November 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Sky agrees movie deal with Entertainment One
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Amazon Prime Video UK for December 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Lypertek renames TEVI wireless earphones to PurePlay Z3
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Disney+ UK for December 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Top Bottom