is the 18-135mm that bad?
- Thread starter thome
- Start date
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Probably the only limitation is the slow f stop at the long end and the variable exposure which will change while zooming. All these lens are capable of shooting sharp images in HD. I used the 18-55 for 10 months and got great results. When I sold my 550D the lens went with it so I upgraded to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which produced better images in low light. Just shoot the 18-135 for now and when want something different just sell it. You may want to add on a few faster primes like the 50mm 1.8 for $100 to learn more about what you need in the future.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
The 18-135 will give you all that. The 50mm 1.8 is fixed and very sharp. It will allow you to test shooting in darker conditions with much better results. When you are up close up everything in the background will be out of focus like stage lights. it's also the cheapest sharp lens you can get from Canon. Just get one and you will see.
qazwsx
Well-known member
18-135 gets a lot of flack because it's the kit lens. I recently acquired one and shot some really nice footage with it. The lens is at its best between f/4 and f/8.
Most zooms that have such a broad range are in the same class as this one. If you are looking for zooms to upgrade, the higher quality ones with have a smaller ratio between wide and tele.
Most zooms that have such a broad range are in the same class as this one. If you are looking for zooms to upgrade, the higher quality ones with have a smaller ratio between wide and tele.
steventimothy
Well-known member
I'd love to have an 18-135 kit lens. It's a great walking-around focal length, for photos and shooting video. The IS would be a great help when shooting hand-held video. Add a couple of cheap primes like the aforementioned 50mm 1.8 and maybe a 28mm f1.8 and you're set.
saneproductions
Veteran
The kit lens if going to be a great place to start for you. When you are ready for an upgrade please see my list below. This assumes you are using APS-C
Here is my lens priority list (also from*my post on dvxuser) This is based on covering the same focal range of a typical cine prime set (18, 25, 35, 50 and 85):
Fast standard zoom::
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS (just got one used for $850)
OR
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (around $550 (get VC version (same as IS))) You can also get non-VC version if you will shoot on tripod only (it is considered slightly sharper)
OR
New Sigma with same range and IS (or OS or whatever they call it) around $600
Fast 50::
Canon 50 1.8 (the 1.4 is much better for pulling focus)$99
AND/OR
Vintage 50 (Nikon, Zeiss, Leica with adapter - Not Canon FD, they don't work)$?
Wide Angle::
Tokina 11-16 2.8 $600 (tough to find, but my favorite lens)
Telephoto::
You may need this more than me, I don't really shoot telephoto.
Canon 70-200 series $600-2500
(you need IS with lenses this long so F4L IS is really minimum at $1100)
AND/OR
Canon 85 1.8
OR
Other brands. I have not purchased anything in this range, as I have primes in 90, 135 and 180 and I almost never shoot them. I really want the canon 85 though for portraits with AF. If you shoot sports (wakeboarding) you will need a 70-200 F4L IS with tripod collar as a minimum. Nice thing is you can rent these and try them. I found the 70-200 too long on the wide end for APS-C to be useful indoors for most shots.
Fast Normal Lens::
Canon 28 f1.8
OR
Sigma 30 1.4
*
*
Here is my lens priority list (also from*my post on dvxuser) This is based on covering the same focal range of a typical cine prime set (18, 25, 35, 50 and 85):
Fast standard zoom::
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS (just got one used for $850)
OR
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (around $550 (get VC version (same as IS))) You can also get non-VC version if you will shoot on tripod only (it is considered slightly sharper)
OR
New Sigma with same range and IS (or OS or whatever they call it) around $600
Fast 50::
Canon 50 1.8 (the 1.4 is much better for pulling focus)$99
AND/OR
Vintage 50 (Nikon, Zeiss, Leica with adapter - Not Canon FD, they don't work)$?
Wide Angle::
Tokina 11-16 2.8 $600 (tough to find, but my favorite lens)
Telephoto::
You may need this more than me, I don't really shoot telephoto.
Canon 70-200 series $600-2500
(you need IS with lenses this long so F4L IS is really minimum at $1100)
AND/OR
Canon 85 1.8
OR
Other brands. I have not purchased anything in this range, as I have primes in 90, 135 and 180 and I almost never shoot them. I really want the canon 85 though for portraits with AF. If you shoot sports (wakeboarding) you will need a 70-200 F4L IS with tripod collar as a minimum. Nice thing is you can rent these and try them. I found the 70-200 too long on the wide end for APS-C to be useful indoors for most shots.
Fast Normal Lens::
Canon 28 f1.8
OR
Sigma 30 1.4
*
*
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
I gotta say the extra weight of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC with the 60D, is way smoother shooting hand held than the lighter weight 550D with the 18-55 with IS on. It doesn't get micro shakes so easy with the extra mass and generally more fluid shots.
The Canon 55-250 IS has worked out great for a ultra low cost tele zoom, but looking forward to a 70-200 2.8 non IS. (I would never use it for video without support.) Used could be a good bang for the buck. I have seen some almost new ones on ebay sold for around $850
Last edited:
saneproductions
Veteran
I found that i was able to shoot OK handheld with no IS on my 17-40 at the wide end too. A heavier lens does help for sure. I do like IS on the 17-55 for the telephoto end, it can save shots that could have been unuasable otherwise due to micro jitters.
Snapper123
Well-known member
I honestly wished the T2i had come with the 18-135mm, I've always felt pretty restricted in the 18-55mm range when I've simply been trying to learn framing and perception with photography (I always suggest shooters practicing photography techniques before becoming a filmmaker, it means that by using photographs as your medium instead of video, that even if your 18-135mm lens has a 5.6 aperture at it's zoom end, that you can use high ISO's and low shutters with no ill effects - it simply means that you'll have one good lens to practice framing with, instead of changing lenses for every focal length.) - Once you learn framing and techniques using the 18-135mm all-in-one lens for photography, there's hardly much else to do except invest in a prime lens set -OR- a constant aperture IS 2.8 lens with a decent zoom range. Now, that doesn't mean you can't use your 18-135mm for many video purposes, it is an amazing lens for outdoor work and well-lit set work, it's a very good quality lens, has great perception ranges, has IS (a very important feature for video work), and even in well lit places like supermarkets, it's entirely useable. You just need to get a ND filter to keep that aperture low, so that the depth of field is rich and thick - this is the same for any lens on earth.
I mean, in my opinion, I think lenses are a wild goose chase because digital cameras simply will never have the same properties as of film. With movies shot on film, there seems to be relevance in the fact that you could very well shoot a sun-lit indoor scene with nothing but a 1.2 lens, proper framing, and and eye for detail, but the truth is that with digital, you try things like that and it doesn't really work - these camera just aren't capable of the differences between direct sunlight (windows) and diffused light (shadow), things become ruined. And even speaking of quality, with 35mm film, with it being such a high "resolution" for lack of a better word, the differences between a kit lens and Zeiss lens could very well show up on the big screen - but with these DSLR's that only do a faulty version of 1080P (outputting videos that are a bit around 16mm), the difference between lenses will be atomic. There seems to never be a difference that couldn't be accomplished by the tiniest of manipulation in post. Now, that's not to say some lenses aren't better, I've seen some Canon vs. Nikon lens video tests that have sort of shocked me, but as a whole, the videos you get from a kit lens will not be hindered in the least of ways.
And the reality is that because of limiting factors like a 5.6 aperture at some of the ranges, if you get beautiful footage with the kit lens, it only proves how good of a filmmaker you are. If you can't create something good, at least by shooting outdoors, from a 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens, then you know that you really need to take a good photography/videography coarse.
I mean, in my opinion, I think lenses are a wild goose chase because digital cameras simply will never have the same properties as of film. With movies shot on film, there seems to be relevance in the fact that you could very well shoot a sun-lit indoor scene with nothing but a 1.2 lens, proper framing, and and eye for detail, but the truth is that with digital, you try things like that and it doesn't really work - these camera just aren't capable of the differences between direct sunlight (windows) and diffused light (shadow), things become ruined. And even speaking of quality, with 35mm film, with it being such a high "resolution" for lack of a better word, the differences between a kit lens and Zeiss lens could very well show up on the big screen - but with these DSLR's that only do a faulty version of 1080P (outputting videos that are a bit around 16mm), the difference between lenses will be atomic. There seems to never be a difference that couldn't be accomplished by the tiniest of manipulation in post. Now, that's not to say some lenses aren't better, I've seen some Canon vs. Nikon lens video tests that have sort of shocked me, but as a whole, the videos you get from a kit lens will not be hindered in the least of ways.
And the reality is that because of limiting factors like a 5.6 aperture at some of the ranges, if you get beautiful footage with the kit lens, it only proves how good of a filmmaker you are. If you can't create something good, at least by shooting outdoors, from a 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens, then you know that you really need to take a good photography/videography coarse.