C100: Any updates on how you're getting on with the 18-135 STM?

B

bengiles

Well-known member
I'm on a kit weight-cutting exercise for a shoot next month.

Also, every time I pull out a 24-105, my heart sinks a little - it's the IS lens I need, rather than want, for handheld work - and the 17-55 doesn't give me enough reach, or I'd probably use that.

So, the 18-35 STM - the latest incarnation. There was a bit of a flurry of interest a while back when it was released.

How are you getting on with yours? I'd also be grateful for your opinion on whether it's better/equal/worse to/than the 24-105 - both in image quality and in operation.

Thanks in advance,

Ben.
 
I got one some time ago because of some positive reviews here and have used it ONCE. I wanted the reach, but I'm not used to a changing f-stop anymore after reframing a shot. You zoom in, your picture gets darker, you have to fiddle with ISO and/or ND.
Maybe this is second nature for other shooters, but I wanted it for faster run'n gun and this just aint fast for me.
I tend to keep using the 17-55, will AGAIN consider just getting the 24-105 and will take a look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and just skip the range from 55 to 70.
 
Spartacus said:
I tend to keep using the 17-55, will AGAIN consider just getting the 24-105 and will take a look at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and just skip the range from 55 to 70.
Click to expand...

Check out the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.
Sharp, Parfocal and a true constant aperture unlike the 24-105.
 
The Sigma 50-150 f2.8 is approx 80 -240 on a C100/C300. Not wide enough for general use.

The 18 - 135 has a great wide 18mm and great reach but lacks with its f3.5 - f5.6 so its not a constant aperture. If it was even f4 constant i'd be a very happy man, but its not so its really only good for run n gun where its easier to focus and yr not constantly chasing focus.

When i do use the lens i set the aperture at f5.6 so it stays constant throughout the zoom. But you lose that shallow depth of field like for a f2.8 lens.

If shallow depth of field is not an issue for you then its an ok lens for as mentioned above. - just my 2 cents :)
 
Tim Nitsch said:
Check out the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.
Sharp, Parfocal and a true constant aperture unlike the 24-105.
Click to expand...
Didn`t know that one, kind of strange of Sigma to have two zooms with almost identical focal lengths.
Thinking about it, 24-105 really seems like the best general purpose zoom.
I just wish they hadn't "downgraded" it to 24-70 and rather have just added STM.

EDIT: Wow, didn´t read PARFOCAL. Will look at it closer now...
 
Last edited:
BeeHop said:
When i do use the lens i set the aperture at f5.6 so it stays constant throughout the zoom. But you lose that shallow depth of field like for a f2.8 lens.
Click to expand...
I could live with deeper focus, but you loose too much exposure play room at 5.6.
Sure, the C's are pretty light sensitive, but at dusk/dawn or indoors the often negligible difference between 4.0 and 5.6 in f-stop could still mean a noisy difference in ISO...
 
A comment I made on an earlier thread:

Since I managed to kill my 24-105 L, the 18-135mm has been living on my Canon DSLR practically all the time. Compared to the 24-105L, the zoom range is much more useful for a 1.6X crop. The lens covers everything from wide angle to telephoto. Optically, wide open at 3.5, in terms of sharpness, it's a bit softer than the 24-105, but the difference is quite small for 18 megapixel stills, and virtually negligible for 1080P video, stopped down to 4.5 they're very similar in sharpness, to my eyes anyway. Distortion is existent at the wide end, but quite better than the 24-105 at 24mm. Both have excellent IS. In short, if you're pleased with the optical performance of the 24-105mm, you will be pleased with the 18-135mm, not much difference.*

Construction wise, it's worse than the L, by a good margin. But it's not cheap plastic 18-55 either. The plastic is quite solid, and has a metal mount. It's a solid lens. Zoom and focus rings are good and it has manual override.*

If you're alright with a little drop in construction quality, and alright with being a bit slower at the long end, the 18-135mm is a better lens.*

There's also the 18-200mm If you want more reach. Same lens but loses the STM for quiet autofocus and manual focus override.

I love my 18-135mm STM. I think it's one of the must-have lenses for s35/aps-c canon shooters, another must have is the new cheap 10-18mm. The 50mm 1.8 is also the third must have. These lenses are cheap and perform stunningly so one should have them even as back-ups to more expensive lenses. That's what I love about Canon, they make high quality cheap glass!
 
I just shot a three day corporate meeting with my new C100 and the 18-135. I agree with most of what has been said about it, the images look good, it is built a little cheaply and yes, I either stop down to 5.6 when using the full range zoom for run and gun or I just iris manually when needed. The DPAF works well with it, I don't find the center only focus to be much trouble when run and gunning, whereas if I was shooting stills, I would. A very nice lens and considering I bought it for $200.00 on the recent promo, a good buy. I still need something wider though and if I need longer, I am renting the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

I use Nikon primes to shoot interviews, I am pretty much in love with the images from my ancient 85mm 1.8 Ai but for run and gun, the 18-135 is a no brainer. The IS works well, the STM works well and getting the equivalent of a 28.xmm FOV on the wide end is all I need to photograph people, although having the wider lens for handheld, architecture and grand vistas would be nice too. I don't own but have shot a lot with the 24-105 F4 and while it is okay, I like this lens better, even though the 24-105 is built better. I always felt that the 24-105 was not a good value, it is a $500.00 lens that Canon somehow sells for $1,200.00. I shot my first one years ago on a doc in France when it was a new model on a 5D MKII and one of my biggest clients has one and I used it on a shoot in Africa last year. Images are fine but just something about it doesn't appeal to me much.
 
Last edited:
Spartacus said:
I could live with deeper focus, but you loose too much exposure play room at 5.6.
Sure, the C's are pretty light sensitive, but at dusk/dawn or indoors the often negligible difference between 4.0 and 5.6 in f-stop could still mean a noisy difference in ISO...
Click to expand...

When i use f5.6 indoor etc i set shutter to 360 degrees it makes all the difference. Some don't like the very slight motion blur of 360 but I like it and clients have NEVER ever noticed.
 
I also use 360 degree shutter in lowlight situations, makes a whole lot of difference especially if you're not filming a sports/fighting scene with heavy motion!
 
The corporate meetings I just shot this week, I did the same as far as 1/24th shutter, it was fine for presenters who were just slowly roaming the stage. Which CP do you guys like for low light? I downloaded the Abel Cine LoLite and while I like the lifted gamma, the colors looked pretty ugly. Wide DR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top